Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

TV,

Simpson only became suspious of Faye because of the lies she started telling. In American Tragedy, both Kris Jenner and Candace Garvey did believe Faye was "probably lying". I think Candace felt that the dates were a real issue but did not give any other reason why Faye was lying. Kris Jenner does not give any examples either.

I do believe intervention is forcing a person into rehab. I believe an intervention forces that person to deal with the facts of the person's addiction and how it is affecting them. Again, that is just how I see it. Faye did not going willing and continued to deny she had a problem. She eventually agreed to go but only if was a lock down center.

You forget about Sydney Simpson about what she heard and heard that night. What she saw and heard while Faye was staying with her mother. Faye made sure she would not be called by either side. Her book pointed the finger away from her and on Simpson. Do you really think who ever killed Ron and Nicole were going to angry that Simpson was being blamed for it? Her book kept her alive and IMO, she did what she had to do.

i believe CR told fay if she didn't go he would withdraw his support.

[martin II]

I don't have to provide proof for just any old allegation you throw out there. Do you have proof that OJS didn't owe drug money to anyone? Or AC? Or OJ's maid? There is as much evidence that they owed drug money as there is that Ron owed drug money.

Lots of young people struggle with money, declare bankruptcy and are barely able to keep themselves afloat. That doesn't mean they're drug dealers. This is all rank speculation on your part.

what about the investigators report.he did not have a dog in that fight.Why was rons friends or associates or workers killed.it seems unusual

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with you about Faye and the negative impact she had on Nicole's life. In fact, I can't see one thing that Faye ever did for Nicole that was done out of kindess and friendship. Faye was high maintenance and Nicole was naive enough to be literally seduced by Faye.

I think Dr. Ameli is the key about Nicole's crying. We have been led to believe that Nicole was fighting and crying in one phone call, however, that has never been proved. According to a few books, Sydney says that she actually heard mommy's best friend's "voice", does that mean Sydney knew that Faye was actually at Nicole's that night? Or did she hear the voice over the phone?

Everybody had Nicole in a positive mood that night, no fears no tears, except for Dr. Ameli and Sydney.


Nicole must have had a difficult time with faye freebasing cocain in her house daily.It must have been very unpleasant.i think that is why CR tossed her out of his home.it can get to be too much.

[martin II]

There was a congressional hearing that involved the CEO of the cigareete companies.It revolved around the fact that they knew nicotine was a highly addictive substance and that they kept this info from the Gov and the public.

[martin II]

Don't start.

Sorry i will post the info to another poster.

[tv]

TV,

I did say that Simpson did just drop by, she was not expecting him however, it does not seem out of the norm for him to drop by or for her drop by Rockingham. IMO, just because you divorced someone, does not mean you hate them or wish the them ill. I think Nicole was a place in her life where she wanted more space and time to find herself. Except for the last few months of her life, I don't think Nicole was that different from a lot of women who have been with their husband for many years, who met them while still a teenager and the husband was signficantly older. IMO, in many ways, Nicole was having her "run and gun days" in her 30's while many women have these days in their 20's.

I have never heard that Simpson drove by Gil Garcetti's house and screamed at him. Do you the source of this information?

I do remember the first Mrs. Simpson giving an interview where Nicole would drive by and shout things at her to basically give her husband to her. Perhaps these "Drive By Scream Attacks" is another flaw that both OJ and Nicole shared?You have to remember that Nicole was only 17 when she met OJ Simpson. I don't know if she did these things to the first Mrs. Simpson but if she did I would chalk it up to the immature actions of a teenager.

I've never heard the expression 'run and gun' but I don't think it was anyone's business if a divorced woman went out on dates or out on the town partying. OJS did the 'run and gun' thing the whole time he was married to Nicole.

The source of the information on Gil Garcetti came from OJS himself. He was giving an interview and drove by GG's house to show the interviwer where he lived and said he drove by and screamed at him for two years after the trial.

[tv]

what about the investigators report.he did not have a dog in that fight.Why was rons friends or associates or workers killed.it seems unusual

What investigator? Which associates or co-workers were killed? All of them? One or two of them?

[William Anthony]

Today is June 12th and it is 15 years later. The world Trade Center was leveled, a war was started, a government toppled, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed and a Black man elected President of the United States.

[William Anthony]

I remember the story of Amy Fisher.

[weezer]

God rest your souls Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown on this, the anniversary of your deaths at the hands of orenthal james simpson. :rose::rose:

[William Anthony]

God rest your souls Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown on this, the anniversary of your deaths and may the true murderer be brought to justice.:rose:,:rose:, :rose:

[weezer]

God rest your souls Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown on this, the anniversary of your deaths and may the true murderer be brought to justice.:rose:,:rose:, :rose:

hmmm -- I thought your stance has always been that you haven't decided whether or not orenthal is guilty or not guilty. Looks like you've decided.

[William Anthony]

No, unlike some I have not decided who the true murderer is; be it Simpson or someone else but, whoever it is, may they be brought to justice.

[tv]

hmmm -- I thought your stance has always been that you haven't decided whether or not orenthal is guilty or not guilty. Looks like you've decided.

Yes, I would say he has. OJS can never be brought to justice for the murders so William must think some other dude did it.

[martin II]

What investigator? Which associates or co-workers were killed? All of them? One or two of them?

See my post on the subject. Bret Canter was one.

[tv]

See my post on the subject. Bret Canter was one.

Where is your post on the subject?

[martin II]

Today is June 12th and it is 15 years later. The world Trade Center was leveled, a war was started, a government toppled, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed and a Black man elected President of the United States.

Lots of important things have happened.

[William Anthony]

Yes, I would say he has. OJS can never be brought to justice for the murders so William must think some other dude did it.

I am not so sexist as to rule out the possibility that the killer was a woman. However, if you are speaking of the legal concept of justice, I would agree that Simpson cannot have been tried for murder after his acquittal, which is why I say that those, who feel the civil trial proved him a murderer, reinforces my opinion that the civil trial was a socio political production. However, if we are thinking of justice, which I was in some term other than the legal since, as with the believe that we shall all be forced to pay for our sins, save that we accept Jesus Christ as our savior and repent, then no one will escape justice, not even Simpson, if he is the true murderer.

[tv]

I am not so sexist as to rule out the possibility that the killer was a woman. However, if you are speaking of the legal concept of justice, I would agree that Simpson cannot have been tried for murder after his acquittal, which is why I say that those, who feel the civil trial proved him a murderer, reinforces my opinion that the civil trial was a socio political production. However, if we are thinking of justice, which I was in some term other than the legal since, as with the believe that we shall all be forced to pay for our sins, save that we accept Jesus Christ as our savior and repent, then no one will escape justice, not even Simpson, if he is the true murderer.

We're talking legalities not spirituality. I had a feeling you were going to come up with this when I made my post. It's okay -- we all understand.

[William Anthony]

Lots of important things have happened.

Yes, the world is an ever changing place but memories of atrocities are not forgotten and should not be, IMHO, which is why I would never tell a poster that they should forget about something as despicable as this and move on.

[weezer]

and there you have it - O.J. Simpson Sentenced to Up to 33 Years

:eek:

[William Anthony]

We're talking legalities not spirituality. I had a feeling you were going to come up with this when I made my post. It's okay -- we all understand.

I do not share that mouse and I was speaking of justice but not in the legal sense and you, nor any other poster, has to accept my explanation.

[William Anthony]

The sentence is being appealed for other crimes, for which he was convicted, but I am of the opinion that God's sentence cannot be overturned.

[tv]

TV,

It is clear that Faye was resisting all the way. She kept on insisting that she did not have a problem. He ex-husband used her daughter to force her into rehab. Don't forget, Faye over dosed and her very young daughter was alone sitting with her mother when she was found.

Do I think Faye's drug problem made her bad mother, no I do not but I do believe that the daughter was fair game for her ex and her friends to use her to get Faye into treatment.

Charlie Sheen was in the same place and when Charlie left the facility, his father called the cops on him and was forced back into the facility. Perhaps there was also some legal issues Faye may have been or would be facing if she did not go into rehab.

The only thing we know is that Faye, in her mind, did not go back into rehab because she felt her drug problem was out control again, she went because she was forced into it. Faye had to down play her addiction because of her description of the phone calls between herself and Nicole that day.

Faye says she and Nicole played telephone tag all that day until they finally spoke after 9, I would to know what was said on those messages. I would love to know what Faye and Nicole were fighting about and I would love to know who made Nicole cry. We do know Sydney says that it was Faye who made her mother cry and we do know that Faye agrees that it was her on the phone with Nicole but Nicole was giggling, she was not crying.

Sydney knew the difference between her mother crying and her mother giggling, IMO.

I do believe that it is unfair to say that CR was glad to be rid of Faye. I think it is very difficult for anyone to love an addict and watch them destroy themselves and there be very little you can do about it. The lies and the desperate lengths an addict will go to to hide or continue their habit is heartbreaking. I think it is obvious CR loved Faye enough to force an intervention for her to get the help she needed, not to get rid of her. I think it was a couple of months after the murders that they broke up for good.

First of all it wasn't CR's idea for the intervention. He simply went along with it. It was Faye's friends that organized the intervention. It's always been my understanding that Sydney said 'a friend' was on the phone with her mother not specifically Faye. Nicole was known to tell the kids that she was talking to a friend when she was arguing with Simpson on the phone. Everyone characterizes her phone conversation as either laughing or crying. Why is it so far fetched to believe she had more than one phone conversation that night? We know she had at least three.

[tv]

I do not share that mouse and I was speaking of justice but not in the legal sense and you, nor any other poster, has to accept my explanation.

Whatever, William. Your policy of making non-committal statements so you can later deny taking a position is well known to me so I'll accept another wishy washy answer from you as per your usual.

[William Anthony]

Whatever, William. Your policy of making non-committal statements so you can later deny taking a position is well known to me so I'll accept another wishy washy answer from you as per your usual.

Your policy of wanting to put words in my mouth is well known to me and I would venture to say other posters, who read the posts.:)

[tv]

Your policy of wanting to put words in my mouth is well known to me and I would venture to say other posters, who read the posts.:)

You have a neverending supply of words in your mouth -- no need for me to put more in there.

[William Anthony]

You have a neverending supply of words in your mouth -- no need for me to put more in there.

Since you realize this, then please stop trying?:)

[martin II]

tv

I thought i had posted this sorry.hopefully this will answer your question to me.


* The murder of Ron and Nicole was among a string of murders of people associated with Simpson, Ron, and Nicole. Casimir Sucharski, a friend of Simpson, was murdered two weeks after Ron and Nicole. On March 19, 1995, Simpson's friend, record company promoter Charles Minor, was murdered. On July 30, 1993, eleven months before the famous double murder, Ron Goldman's friend Brett Cantor was killed with a knife in a manner identical to Ron and Nicole: from behind and across the throat and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Michael Nigg, a waiter at the Mezzaluna (where Ron Goldman was also a waiter) was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.
* Many working at Mezzaluna were involved with the Mafia and/or the drug trade.
* Photos of Nicole with known criminals of the drug trade in a hot tub and on a bed were shown on the news. Simpson said he was upset when he saw his children associated with the drug scene with which Nicole had apparently become involved.
* Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ron Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. Hoestler said Nicole and her friends were "over their heads with some dope dealers".
* Nicole's best friend was Faye Resnick, a cocaine addict. Someone broke into Resnick's apartment to take documents and photographs. Later, Resnick skipped town. Simpson's defense team said Nicole and Ron may have been killed by drug dealers to scare Resnick into paying her drug debt. Prosecutors said there was no evidence to back this theory.

[tv]

Since you realize this, then please stop trying?:)

Please stop accusing me of something I haven't done.

[tv]

tv

I thought i had posted this sorry.hopefully this will answer your question to me.


* The murder of Ron and Nicole was among a string of murders of people associated with Simpson, Ron, and Nicole. Casimir Sucharski, a friend of Simpson, was murdered two weeks after Ron and Nicole. On March 19, 1995, Simpson's friend, record company promoter Charles Minor, was murdered. On July 30, 1993, eleven months before the famous double murder, Ron Goldman's friend Brett Cantor was killed with a knife in a manner identical to Ron and Nicole: from behind and across the throat and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Michael Nigg, a waiter at the Mezzaluna (where Ron Goldman was also a waiter) was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.
* Many working at Mezzaluna were involved with the Mafia and/or the drug trade.
* Photos of Nicole with known criminals of the drug trade in a hot tub and on a bed were shown on the news. Simpson said he was upset when he saw his children associated with the drug scene with which Nicole had apparently become involved.
* Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ron Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. Hoestler said Nicole and her friends were "over their heads with some dope dealers".
* Nicole's best friend was Faye Resnick, a cocaine addict. Someone broke into Resnick's apartment to take documents and photographs. Later, Resnick skipped town. Simpson's defense team said Nicole and Ron may have been killed by drug dealers to scare Resnick into paying her drug debt. Prosecutors said there was no evidence to back this theory.

martin, thank you for posting this but it looks like only two murders of people that Ron knew. That's hardly a lot of people. Who did Nicole tell that she was going to use cocaine profits to open a restaurant? If she was such a big time dealer why was she worried about being supported by OJ Simpson? Why did Faye have to get her drugs from a real estate agent instead of Nicole?

[William Anthony]

Please stop accusing me of something I haven't done.

This was your post, which was made after I explained to you that I was not speaking of the legal concept of justice, which is your non-acceptance of my clarification and an attempt to put words in my mouth.

Whatever, William. Your policy of making non-committal statements so you can later deny taking a position is well known to me so I'll accept another wishy washy answer from you as per your usual.

It is my opinion that you do not want to act civilly. With that understanding, I will follow the moderator's instructions until I see fit to respond to you.

[William Anthony]

tv

I thought i had posted this sorry.hopefully this will answer your question to me.


* The murder of Ron and Nicole was among a string of murders of people associated with Simpson, Ron, and Nicole. Casimir Sucharski, a friend of Simpson, was murdered two weeks after Ron and Nicole. On March 19, 1995, Simpson's friend, record company promoter Charles Minor, was murdered. On July 30, 1993, eleven months before the famous double murder, Ron Goldman's friend Brett Cantor was killed with a knife in a manner identical to Ron and Nicole: from behind and across the throat and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Michael Nigg, a waiter at the Mezzaluna (where Ron Goldman was also a waiter) was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.
* Many working at Mezzaluna were involved with the Mafia and/or the drug trade.
* Photos of Nicole with known criminals of the drug trade in a hot tub and on a bed were shown on the news. Simpson said he was upset when he saw his children associated with the drug scene with which Nicole had apparently become involved.
* Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ron Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. Hoestler said Nicole and her friends were "over their heads with some dope dealers".
* Nicole's best friend was Faye Resnick, a cocaine addict. Someone broke into Resnick's apartment to take documents and photographs. Later, Resnick skipped town. Simpson's defense team said Nicole and Ron may have been killed by drug dealers to scare Resnick into paying her drug debt. Prosecutors said there was no evidence to back this theory.

Martin,

I believe it was Michael Peterson, who was convicted, partially because of his involvement with a woman that was found dead from a fall, which was similar to his wife's death and the other woman's body was exhumed and, IIRC, ruled a homicide. I think there is precedent to feel that knowing two people that were murdered raises suspicion.

[martin II]

He may have urged her to go but he did not force her. It's illegal to force an adult to do that kind of thing. It's called kidnapping and the rehab center would have never admitted her against her will. According to Reichardt's civil trial deposition she agreed to go and then changed her mind the next morning. He called Nicole and a few other friends that had been at the intervention and they talked her into it. I think he was the one that was glad to get rid of her.

I don't think CR grabbed her by the arm and walked her to rehab, but that he told her he would withdraw his financial support if she didn't.she had no choice she was broke and her habit was out of control.

[tv]

This was your post, which was made after I explained to you that I was not speaking of the legal concept of justice, which is your non-acceptance of my clarification and an attempt to put words in my mouth.



It is my opinion that you do not want to act civilly. With that understanding, I will follow the moderator's instructions until I see fit to respond to you.

I really don't care.

[tv]

I don't think CR grabbed her by the arm and walked her to rehab, but that he told her he would withdraw his financial support if she didn't.she had no choice she was broke and her habit was out of control.

I didn't see the withdrawal of support in his civil trial testimony. What support was he giving her? According to you she was debt to drug dealers and living with Nicole.

[martin II]

Martin,

I believe it was Michael Peterson, who was convicted, partially because of his involvement with a woman that was found dead from a fall, which was similar to his wife's death and the other woman's body was exhumed and, IIRC, ruled a homicide. I think there is precedent to feel that knowing two people that were murdered raises suspicion.

Whats up with pictures of nicole with known criminals in the drug trade.?
that looks like association.imo

[tv]

Martin,

I believe it was Michael Peterson, who was convicted, partially because of his involvement with a woman that was found dead from a fall, which was similar to his wife's death and the other woman's body was exhumed and, IIRC, ruled a homicide. I think there is precedent to feel that knowing two people that were murdered raises suspicion.

Two of these people murdered were associates of Simpson's so does that raise your suspicions of OJ Simpson?

[William Anthony]

Whats up with pictures of nicole with known criminals in the drug trade.?
that looks like association.imo

Simpson was tried and reasonable doubt was found, IIRC.

[martin II]

The modertator has suggested that all of us ignore opinions that upset us. This way there will be no reason to call posters pig or other nasty names because one dissagrees with a post/opinion and no reason to become angry and complain.This sounds like a great idea to me. just a suggestion.imo

[weezer]

TV,

The government does classify alcohol as a drug as well as cigerettes. I am pretty sure you have heard of the ATF department--Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Alcohol and tobacco bring in major bucks---which is why the taxes on these products are so high.

Wrong -- the government does not classify alcohol as a drug.

[weezer]

tv

I thought i had posted this sorry.hopefully this will answer your question to me.


* The murder of Ron and Nicole was among a string of murders of people associated with Simpson, Ron, and Nicole. Casimir Sucharski, a friend of Simpson, was murdered two weeks after Ron and Nicole. On March 19, 1995, Simpson's friend, record company promoter Charles Minor, was murdered. On July 30, 1993, eleven months before the famous double murder, Ron Goldman's friend Brett Cantor was killed with a knife in a manner identical to Ron and Nicole: from behind and across the throat and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Michael Nigg, a waiter at the Mezzaluna (where Ron Goldman was also a waiter) was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.
* Many working at Mezzaluna were involved with the Mafia and/or the drug trade.
* Photos of Nicole with known criminals of the drug trade in a hot tub and on a bed were shown on the news. Simpson said he was upset when he saw his children associated with the drug scene with which Nicole had apparently become involved.
* Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ron Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. Hoestler said Nicole and her friends were "over their heads with some dope dealers".
* Nicole's best friend was Faye Resnick, a cocaine addict. Someone broke into Resnick's apartment to take documents and photographs. Later, Resnick skipped town. Simpson's defense team said Nicole and Ron may have been killed by drug dealers to scare Resnick into paying her drug debt. Prosecutors said there was no evidence to back this theory.

martin, please post the link where you got this.

[martin II]

I didn't see the withdrawal of support in his civil trial testimony. What support was he giving her? According to you she was debt to drug dealers and living with Nicole.

When she lived with nicole she did not work. He supported her when they were togeather and i believe he may have gaven her some support when she was at nicoles.i guess.
Freebasing cocain daily is very expensive so someone had to be helping her with those high bills. i think he promised to help her when she finished the rehab. Some people have been known to freebase $1,000 or more a day so i don't think it would take long for her to run up a big bill.

[Kate Sachel]

In remembrance of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, as well as all other victims of violence.

Kate

[weezer]

When she lived with nicole she did not work. He supported her when they were togeather and i believe he may have gaven her some support when she was at nicoles.i guess.
Freebasing cocain daily is very expensive so someone had to be helping her with those high bills. i think he promised to help her when she finished the rehab. Some people have been known to freebase $1,000 or more a day so i don't think it would take long for her to run up a big bill.

LOL -- and you have decided this how? I'm assuming that this is your rank speculation based on personal knowledge?

[tv]

When she lived with nicole she did not work. He supported her when they were togeather and i believe he may have gaven her some support when she was at nicoles.i guess.
Freebasing cocain daily is very expensive so someone had to be helping her with those high bills. i think he promised to help her when she finished the rehab. Some people have been known to freebase $1,000 or more a day so i don't think it would take long for her to run up a big bill.

You 'guess' that he gave her support. Do you have evidence of this? Why would drug dealers keep giving her drugs if she wasn't paying up? Also, if Ron and Nicole were the drug dealers you say they were why was obtaining drugs a problem for Faye? Where is all the drug money that Ron and Nicole were making? Was there ever a report of money discovered after their deaths that came from an unknown source? Was a stash of cash found in their homes, cars or or on their persons? Was any cocaine or other drugs found in their homes or cars or any other location?

[martin II]

I didn't see the withdrawal of support in his civil trial testimony. What support was he giving her? According to you she was debt to drug dealers and living with Nicole.

Maby he was relieved that she finished rehab. they did break up for good soon after she returned.

[tv]

Maby he was relieved that she finished rehab. they did break up for good soon after she returned.

You didn't say what support he was giving her.

[martin II]

You 'guess' that he gave her support. Do you have evidence of this? Why would drug dealers keep giving her drugs if she wasn't paying up? Also, if Ron and Nicole were the drug dealers you say they were why was obtaining drugs a problem for Faye? Where is all the drug money that Ron and Nicole were making? Was there ever a report of money discovered after their deaths that came from an unknown source? Was a stash of cash found in their homes, cars or or on their persons? Was any cocaine or other drugs found in their homes or cars or any other location?

tv

i have posted testimony and articles reporting rons and nicoles drug involvement just as others have. i was not there just as you post info about oj doing stuff to nicole. you were not there. If you are becomming upset with my post i will opt to back out. Don't fell like reading some hot words directed at me. ok.

[Kate Sachel]

TV Dinner,

Not sure which "drivel" you are talking about. Faye was living with Nicole a few days prior to the murder. She had slipped back into her addiction and she was living with Nicole. It was in Faye's book where she said she pleaded with Nicole to go away with her and they were in danger. Nicole blew her off. Faye's story is that she was afraid of Simpson but that doesn't make sense, she had nothing to fear from him.

Nicole thought Faye was paranoid and a "drama queen"--however, her death, IMO proves that Faye was not being paranoid because of her drug abuse nor does it appear that she was being a drama queen on this issue.

I agree with that Simpson had every reason to lie, he knew what people wanted to hear from and he refused to say it. IMO, his story never changed and even when given the opportunity to change it, he did not do so.

It was triade that I was one--it was just from personal experience. I have a family member who has the same type of condition that Simpson has and I know the crippling pain that comes with it. I know some of the treatments are also very painful and can create horrific nausea and the only thing that helps is pot. I find it very plausable that Simpson was not smoking pot for recreation, but rather for a medical reason.

It appears to me that G's are making the most outrageous comments about Simpson smoking pot vs the hard core drugs that were involved.

I have also posted that neither Ron or Nicole had to be users of the drugs to be involved with them. I have also posted that Ron may have been mistaken for carrying drugs on that night. The Mezzaluna was rumored to be a hot spot for scoring drugs. Nicole's could have been associated with drugs because of who her friends were.

In Faye's book she did indeed plead with Nicole to run away with her and that she felt that they were in danger. She said that she felt that they were in danger because OJ was going to either kill them or have someone else do it. Nicole did in fact end up dead shortly thereafter, so it does appear that Faye was not paranoid in her belief that OJ would kill.

OJ's story has changed, several times. I do believe that we have gone over those changes, although there are some that find no problem in believing that he could have been in his Bronco looking for cellular phone items, chipping golf balls in his yard, showering, and taking a nap all at the exact same time. The amazing superhuman powers this man has.

I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I personally do not care whether or not OJ had weed in his system on the night of the murders. The only thing I make reference to is that I find it humorous that so many want to jump on the "Nicole was a west LA cocaine b*tch" bandwagon and it turns out that it's actually OJ with an illegal drug in his system.

Marijuana does not bother me, I have been a smoker of it. As I have said previously, I grew up in a very "fast lane" environment, if you will. I have smoked marijuana and even had a stint with cocaine when I was a teenager. It bothers me not whether both OJ and Nicole were recreational cocaine users, I just think that the same negative references should be made toward OJ in that regard if they are going to be brought up in reference to Nicole.

Kate

[tv]

tv

i have posted testimony and articles reporting rons and nicoles drug involvement just as others have. i was not there just as you post info about oj doing stuff to nicole. you were not there. If you are becomming upset with my post i will opt to back out. Don't fell like reading some hot words directed at me. ok.

What hot words? I'm just asking some questions about what evidence there is that Nicole and Ron were drug dealers. Money stash or money from an unknown source? Drugs in their homes, cars, buried in the yard...anything? I can assure you I'm not upset at your posts. I'm just trying to find out more about your theory that drug dealers killed Ron and Nicole and that the murders lay in the world of Faye Resnick. This is the OJ Simpson discussion forum and I'm trying to discuss OJ Simpson and the murders of Ron and Nicole. I think you're the one becoming upset with my posts not the other way around. :shrug:

[martin II]

What hot words? I'm just asking some questions about what evidence there is that Nicole and Ron were drug dealers. Money stash or money from an unknown source? Drugs in their homes, cars, buried in the yard...anything? I can assure you I'm not upset at your posts. I'm just trying to find out more about your theory that drug dealers killed Ron and Nicole and that the murders lay in the world of Faye Resnick. This is the OJ Simpson discussion forum and I'm trying to discuss OJ Simpson and the murders of Ron and Nicole. I think you're the one becoming upset with my posts not the other way around. :shrug:

tv

i would not allow anything you say to upset me as i remain in control of my feelings and thoughts. i have posted info regarding drug involvement of Ron and Nicole put togeather by various media sources and testimony. If there is anything in my post that irritates or cause you some concern i suggest you follow DW directive to just ignore the post as if it was never made and continue to do what you were doing. Or as you say move on.

[weezer]

tv

i would not allow anything you say to upset me as i remain in control of my feelings and thoughts. i have posted info regarding drug involvement of Ron and Nicole put togeather by various media sources and testimony. If there is anything in my post that irritates or cause you some concern i suggest you follow DW directive to just ignore the post as if it was never made and continue to do what you were doing. Or as you say move on.

martin, to speculate about drug use of Ron and/or Nicole based on nothing but gossip is wrong. Your post is irritating because you have a tendency to smear the victims in your need to protect their murderer.

on the night that they were murdered by orenthal james simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown did NOT have drugs in their systems. when he was accused and arrested for butchering two human beings, orenthal james simpson DID have drugs in his sytem.

[martin II]

I agree with others that if oj simpson had traces of marijuana in his system on 6/13 it means nothing other than he did. It seems that one poster believes or want others to believe that it means something sinister or that it is proof of something more than what it is. It is proof that sometimes in the last several weeks before 6/13 oj smoked a joint or two or three.This means that he was was doing what millions of americans do from time to time whether on the weekends or daily.I think it is nonsense to post this time after time when it really means zip.

[weezer]

I agree with others that if oj simpson had traces of marijuana in his system on 6/13 it means nothing other than he did. It seems that one poster believes or want others to believe that it means something sinister or that it is proof of something more than what it is. It is proof that sometimes in the last several weeks before 6/13 oj smoked a joint or two or three.This means that he was was doing what millions of americans do from time to time whether on the weekends or daily.I think it is nonsense to post this time after time when it really means zip.

it means zip to you because you need for it to mean zip. the fact is, you and others continue to post nonsense about Ron and Nicole being involved in drugs. You have been asked to support your claims -- you are not able to. like I've said, the facts are: on the night that Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were butchered by orenthal james simpson, they did NOT have drugs in their systems. when orenthal james simpson was arrested and accused of murdering two human beings, he DID have drugs in his system.

it doesn't matter what millions of people are doing at any given time -- I'm sure that on the night orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole, there were other murders happening. Doesn't diminish what he did. As long as posters continue to post the lies about Ron and Nicole, I will continue to post the truth about orenthal.

[fgump2]

TV Dinner,

Not sure which "drivel" you are talking about. Faye was living with Nicole a few days prior to the murder. She had slipped back into her addiction and she was living with Nicole. It was in Faye's book where she said she pleaded with Nicole to go away with her and they were in danger. Nicole blew her off. Faye's story is that she was afraid of Simpson but that doesn't make sense, she had nothing to fear from him. Nicole's therapist, Susan Forward, thought that Nicole's fear of Simpson was rational and real. When you wrote 'Faye's story is that she was afraid of Simpson' who is the 'she', Faye or Nicole? On what basis do you claim that neither Nicole nor Faye had reason to fear Orenthal SImpson? Faye said that Orenthal had said over the phone to her (Faye) if I catch her with another man before August, I'll kill her. You wrote to me on a posting that this statement made no sense. My response is that anger often causes irrational thinking. I don't claim that all of SImpson's behavior made sense. I don't claim that the bronco chase including Orenthal pointing a gun at his own head made sense.
Nicole thought Faye was paranoid and a "drama queen"--however, her death, IMO proves that Faye was not being paranoid because of her drug abuse nor does it appear that she was being a drama queen on this issue.

I agree with that Simpson had every reason to lie, he knew what people wanted to hear from and he refused to say it. IMO, his story never changed and even when given the opportunity to change it, he did not do so.

It was triade that I was one--it was just from personal experience. I have a family member who has the same type of condition that Simpson has and I know the crippling pain that comes with it. I know some of the treatments are also very painful and can create horrific nausea and the only thing that helps is pot. I find it very plausable that Simpson was not smoking pot for recreation, but rather for a medical reason. THis is an excuse that SImpson never came up with
It appears to me that G's are making the most outrageous comments about Simpson smoking pot vs the hard core drugs that were involved. Does this include the comment I got from Jim Brown about Orenthal having a drug problem?
I have also posted that neither Ron or Nicole had to be users of the drugs to be involved with them. I have also posted that Ron may have been mistaken for carrying drugs on that night. The Mezzaluna was rumored to be a hot spot for scoring drugs. Nicole's could have been associated with drugs because of who her friends were.

SInce you bring up outrageous comments about drug involvement, what about Cochran's comment about the two killings being a typical drug hit (I don't have a link, but it was made well before the criminal trial. Cochran made this claim, but never explained why it was a typical drug hit. Drug hits are usually made with guns with silencers, not knives. Also professional hit men don't use expensive shoes with unusual soles, or unusual gloves. As I have writen before, the FBI expert, John Doublas, set the crime seemed to be that of a spurned lover unrelated to drugs (at least unrelated to drug use by the victims).

I think the rumors of Orenthal being a wife beater and a cocaine user have more substance than the rumors that the Mezzaluna was a hot spot for drugs.

[tv]

tv

i would not allow anything you say to upset me as i remain in control of my feelings and thoughts. i have posted info regarding drug involvement of Ron and Nicole put togeather by various media sources and testimony. If there is anything in my post that irritates or cause you some concern i suggest you follow DW directive to just ignore the post as if it was never made and continue to do what you were doing. Or as you say move on.

I'm not in the least irritated. I was having a discussion with you about the allegation that Ron and Nicole were drug dealers and trying to find out from you what indications there are that this was true. If you don't want to discuss it there are no hard feelings. I see you want me to move on so I will.

[martin II]

SInce you bring up outrageous comments about drug involvement, what about Cochran's comment about the two killings being a typical drug hit (I don't have a link, but it was made well before the criminal trial. Cochran made this claim, but never explained why it was a typical drug hit. Drug hits are usually made with guns with silencers, not knives. Also professional hit men don't use expensive shoes with unusual soles, or unusual gloves. As I have writen before, the FBI expert, John Doublas, set the crime seemed to be that of a spurned lover unrelated to drugs (at least unrelated to drug use by the victims).

I think the rumors of Orenthal being a wife beater and a cocaine user have more substance than the rumors that the Mezzaluna was a hot spot for drugs.

Today guns seem to be the choice of drug killers but there have planty where knifes were used.

[tv]

it means zip to you because you need for it to mean zip. the fact is, you and others continue to post nonsense about Ron and Nicole being involved in drugs. You have been asked to support your claims -- you are not able to. like I've said, the facts are: on the night that Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were butchered by orenthal james simpson, they did NOT have drugs in their systems. when orenthal james simpson was arrested and accused of murdering two human beings, he DID have drugs in his system.

it doesn't matter what millions of people are doing at any given time -- I'm sure that on the night orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole, there were other murders happening. Doesn't diminish what he did. As long as posters continue to post the lies about Ron and Nicole, I will continue to post the truth about orenthal.

If it had been Nicole or Ron with the illegal substance in their systems the night they were killed it would be mentioned loudly and often by the supporters of OJ Simpson. The fact that they didn't have illegal drugs in their bodies is more important than the fact that he did. It knocks down the theory (that Nicole and Ron were druggies) that is so important to the character assassination of the victims.

[martin II]

SInce you bring up outrageous comments about drug involvement, what about Cochran's comment about the two killings being a typical drug hit (I don't have a link, but it was made well before the criminal trial. Cochran made this claim, but never explained why it was a typical drug hit. Drug hits are usually made with guns with silencers, not knives. Also professional hit men don't use expensive shoes with unusual soles, or unusual gloves. As I have writen before, the FBI expert, John Doublas, set the crime seemed to be that of a spurned lover unrelated to drugs (at least unrelated to drug use by the victims).

I think the rumors of Orenthal being a wife beater and a cocaine user have more substance than the rumors that the Mezzaluna was a hot spot for drugs.

I think the prosecution tried to use the RUMMORS of abuse by oj and craft it into a believable story line at the trial. They failed as it was difficult to translate RUMMORS into provable facts.Which the jury required.

[tv]

I think the prosecution tried to use the RUMMORS of abuse by oj and craft it into a believable story line at the trial. They failed as it was difficult to translate RUMMORS into provable facts.Which the jury required.

OJ Simpson was found guilty of domestic abuse in a court of law. That's not rumor. There was also testimony of abuse that was witnessed.

[martin II]

OJ Simpson was found guilty of domestic abuse in a court of law. That's not rumor. There was also testimony of abuse that was witnessed.

She said he hit her once.

[martin II]

keith zlomsowitch


O.J.’s defense team found links to Zlomsowitch and mobsters in Miami after he testified in the grand jury. In 1995 police pulled over a car in which Zlomsowitch was a passenger and found a substantial quantity of cocaine. The driver, who was arrested and charged, swore it belonged to Zlomsowitch, whose restaurants in California and Colorado were under federal, state and local surveillance for drug trafficking. He was released



http://www.smartfellowspress.com/Flow%20Chart%20Faye.htm

[weezer]

O. J. Simpson's House Searched in a Drug Inquiry
By DANA CANEDY
Published: Wednesday, December 5, 2001
Federal agents executed a search warrant this morning at O. J. Simpson's house in suburban Miami as part of a drug investigation. He was not arrested.

The search, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Miami-Dade police and the Drug Enforcement Administration, was part of a two-year inquiry into an Ecstasy drug ring that the authorities say imported the pills from Europe. The ring is also suspected of laundering money and stealing satellite television equipment, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Florida said.

Eleven people were indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami and arrested today in the case. Mr. Simpson, 54, was not named in the indictment. His lawyer, Yale Galanter, said Mr. Simpson was connected to the case because his name was mentioned in a telephone conversation by ring members that federal authorities taped. Mr. Galanter said that no drugs were found at Mr. Simpson's house and that although his name had been mentioned on the tape, Mr. Simpson's voice was not on the tape. The lawyer said the agents removed legal satellite television dishes that Mr. Simpson had brought with him from California.

''I can assure you Mr. Simpson does not have enough cash in his pocket or in his bank account to ever be involved in any type of money laundering,'' Mr. Galanter said. ''He has never been and never will be involved in any type of illegal drug use, dealing or sale.''

The former football star's one-story ranch house was one of nine searched. Mr. Simpson was at home when agents arrived at 6 o'clock. Two hours later, he left.

Two of those arrested were detained in Chicago. Another was arrested here on Monday night after reportedly offering to sell an undercover agent 8,000 Ecstasy pills. Each pill sells for $20 on the street.

[weezer]

Resnick: Simpson used drugs, threatened to kill ex-wife

February 12, 1996
Web posted at: 12:15 a.m. EST

From Correspondent Jim Hill

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- In New York Sunday, Faye Resnick testified that O.J. Simpson said he would kill Nicole Brown Simpson because she left him.

"O.J. Simpson told Faye Resnick that because Nicole had rejected him, shamed and humiliated him, that he was going to kill Nicole," Resnick's attorney, Leonard Marks, said after her second day of deposition in the civil lawsuits against Simpson.

Marks said that Resnick also said O.J. Simpson used drugs in front of her, and kept a jar of pills he called a "Christmas tree."

[weezer]

FBI documents link ‘clean-living’ Simpson to ecstasy smuggling ring
Date: 15 May 2002
By David Cox In New York

THE tarnished reputation of OJ Simpson was dragged through the mud again yesterday after it was alleged he uses illegal drugs and visits strip clubs.
FBI documents have surfaced claiming the athlete-turned-murder suspect took cocaine and ecstasy and at one time allegedly had a drug dealer living in the guest house of his Miami home.

The drug trafficker drove Simpson’s two children to and from ADVERTISEMENTschool while making illegal deals on his mobile phone, according to confidential FBI documents obtained by the Toledo Blade newspaper in Ohio.

Simpson, 54, has been promoting himself as a clean-living father since his acquittal for the unsolved 1994 murder of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

However, the documents claim he spends his time taking drugs, entertaining girlfriends and frequenting strip clubs.

Allegations against the former American football player, who moved to Florida two years ago, first arose during a 2001 FBI investigation into an international ecstasy ring.

Most of the accusations levelled at Simpson come from three ring members who have already pleaded guilty in the case: Andrew Anderson, Zenaida "Gigi" Galvez and John Thorburn. His house guest, Anderson, 34, was the ring’s Miami supplier, while Thorburn, 32, a local drug dealer, told the FBI he and Simpson had snorted cocaine together.

Galvez, 36, said she sold cocaine to Simpson, and told agents: "Simpson was using cocaine the entire evening", while they visited Miami strip clubs. She also claims to have been warned about the planned FBI raid of OJ’s home.

Agents said they first heard Simpson’s name in a wiretapped telephone conversation between Anderson and Thorburn last year. Thorburn told Anderson he needed more ecstasy, and Anderson said it was in his car "at OJ’s house".

The conversation led to a search of Simpson’s home in December, during which police found four bags of suspected marijuana, cocaine residue, two drug pipes and a can containing marijuana residue.

Simpson insisted yesterday that the FBI investigation was flawed, claiming: "I raise my kids. I play golf. I don’t do drugs, and no drug dealer has ever stayed in my house."

His lawyer, Yale Galanter, said: "The Feds didn’t find anything of any narcotics-related illegal activity in the house. If OJ was guilty, then he’d be behind bars right now."

The US attorney’s office in Miami refused to confirm if Simpson is under investigation.

Rarely out of the media spotlight, Simpson launched a legal battle last month to overturn a 1997, $33.5 million, wrongful death judgment for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.

He contended that his civil rights were violated by the judgment on the 1994 killings and that jurors who found against him in a civil action were "inflamed by emotion".

The petition went on to say that the award to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman was so large as to constitute "cruel and unusual punishment", but the California supreme court refused to consider his request for review.

In March, a law firm sued Simpson for more than $200,000, claiming he failed to pay legal fees resulting from his 1996 child custody battle.

[weezer]

5.03.2006
THIS WEEK'S NATIONAL ENQUIRER: UH-OH! O.J. SIMPSON DOES TOO MUCH BLOW!

Oh, O.J., O.J., O.J.....when are you ever going to learn that doing drugs is bad?! Just say no! The National Enquirer has a juicy story this week about O.J. Simpson, who, at age 59, is still partaking in the drugs. Seems like he had the scare of his life recently (sorry, 2nd scare of his life eh-hem!), during a dirty drug party that took place in an apartment in Miami. Simpson was with his girlfriend Christie Prody (I'm sorry that whole situation between them is just weird!) and another woman partying the night away. According to The National Enquirer, The Juice took too much ecstasy and cocaine and started a freak-freak-freaking out. Hide the knives! The best part is that The Enquirer quotes a source who claimed that The Juice was "doing a lot of Ecstasy to help him make love to Christie." Oh dear. He refused to go to the hospital because he didn't want the press to find out (Gesh! Doesn't he know by now you can't hide from the National Enquirer?) and instead, made his girlfriend stay there and talk with him for hours until he felt better. Seems like The Juice was almost squeezed for good and seeing the devil or something, because during his ordeal he allegedly wondered out loud if he really did kill Nicole and even made a comment that he would have convicted his ass if he was on the jury!

[weezer]

Report: Jailed O.J. Simpson In 'Severe Pain' Over Drug WithdrawlAccess Hollywood - October 18, 2008 4:15 PM PDT

Access Hollywood LOS ANGELES, Calif. -- A jailed O.J. Simpson is going through drug withdrawal, the National Enquirer reported.

A source close to the controversial former football great, who was convicted earlier this month of kidnapping and armed robbery in an incident with two sports memorabilia dealers, reportedly told that mag that Simpson has become "nearly a cripple" after losing access to high quantities of pain medication.

"He has been taking huge doses for years to endure the intense pain of arthritis in his hip and knee joints from his years as a football star," the source told the Enquirer.

Simpson's dosages have reportedly been cut back drastically since his arrival in jail.

"He is undergoing a medical evaluation, and doctors have cut back his pain medications to a level much lower than O.J. is used to," the source said. "The result is severe pain... Sometimes he screams at his jailers, demanding pills, but his cries are going ignored until his evaluation is complete."

Meanwhile, some of Simpson's children are reportedly angry with their father over his latest scandal.

His youngest daughter, Sydney, 25, "won't be shedding many tears when he is sentenced," the source said. And son Justin, 20, has reportedly locked himself in his Florida State dorm room since the guilty verdict.

"Justin is angry with his father for allowing himself to get into such serious trouble," a friend at Florida State told the Enquirer. "Since the guilty verdict, Justin has spoken only with a few people in his dorm. [He]... is trying to deal with life without a father."

[martin II]

. All right. Then, let's start back in. The Brossar stitching was not unique
to Aris. You would agree with that?

A. For my 14 years in the business, I was not aware of Brossar stitching being
used by anybody in present men's product. I did see it in some lady's product,
but I never saw it in a men's glove.

Q. Before you became involved in this case, you didn't do an analysis to
determine whether or not there was Brossar stitching in any glove other than
the Aris leather light, true?

A. Prior to this case?

Q. Yes.

A. I did nothing.

Q. Now, in manufacturers in the world, how many manufacturers in the world are
there that make penny leather gloves, to your knowledge?

A. I don't have a good answer on that. There may be hundreds and hundreds of
them. They may be small, but I'm only familiar with a handful of large
manufacturers.

Q. And did you say that the answer would be true relative to Brossar stitching
that you're not sure how many of those hundreds and hundreds of -- or hundreds,
at least, of manufacturers would use Brossar stitching?

A. I'm not aware of them.

Q. In fact, smaller companies would generally use Brossar stitching over large
companies; isn't that true?

A. I don't have any knowledge to verify that.

Q. Well, the machines that you're company used were manufactured in the 40's
were they not?

A. Or before.

Q. And they were old machines that could be purchased relatively cheaply
because of the fact that they were -- had seen a lot of years of service; isn't
that correct?

A. The only reason I would have to disagree with what you're saying is that the
Brossar stitching system was so slow and so labor intensive, it wasn't really
very profitable. So that on balance, one would really not want to be using this
equipment. They would probably want to using other equipment.

Q. Sir, maybe my question is a poor one. Certainly in modern countries we want
to, regardless of the look of the Brossar stitching, we probably want to do it
quicker and make it more efficient; isn't that correct?

A. True.

Q. In -- a lot of gloves are manufactured in third world countries; isn't that
correct?

A. Correct

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



Q. All right. Now, the three points on a glove, virtually every machine's dress
glove has that; isn't that true?

A. They have the three points. They're not all necessarily in the same
configuration.

Q. But I mean there's one down the middle and then they usually have points to
either side, don't they, sir?

A. That's -- I'm talking about a three-needle point versus just a point.

Q. All right. And the palm, virtually every dress glove that are made for men,
and indeed women, have a palm fit, don't they?

A. Mainly in men's.

Q. Okay.

Now, as I understand it, these gloves are made to fit skin tight and that's the
style that they are made to; that's what their uniqueness is, correct, these
70263 series?

A. Very dressy, very skin tight.

Q. And so they're not what one would consider a glove that you would wear, for
example, certainly at a ski lodge, right?

A. I wouldn't recommend it.

Q. If it gets 20 degrees below zero, it's not the type of glove you want on;
true?

A. That's correct.

Q. You want a bulky glove that has more leather an certainly a thicker lining?
I'll get it out yet.

A. That's correct.

Q. Just for the warmth of the glove?

A. That's correct.

Q. Especially, if you're going to use a glove, you know, and you're going to be
out in the -- in the weather for two to three hours, that's not the type of
glove you would choose. You agree about that -- with that?

A. Not in severe weather.

Q. Okay.

Now, the lining of that glove is as you suggested,

[martin II]

A. Each individual does it differently. But if you want to get it on the best
possible way, you'd have to gradually work your fingers into the lining and
pull the lining down a little bit.

The biggest problem with this glove, with this lining is you put your hand in,
there's a tendency to push the lining down into the fingers which restricts the
fit. So . . .

Q. Once you get the glove on, as you suggested earlier, it is exceedingly skin
tight. That's the design of it, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And so -- and that Mr. Simpson up there, that glove, whatever glove it is,
is tight on his hand. You would agree with that?

A. I would agree.

Q. All right?

A. Based upon the fact that his hand is cupped, that's what broadens out the
hand. That's what will make it appear tight.

Q. And to get that glove off, you're going to have to pull it off by the finger
tips, correct?

That's how the 70263 Aris leather light glove is made, is it not, so it comes
off hard and comes on hard so it looks sleek on the hand?

A. It shouldn't come off hard if your hand is straight.

Q. It's not going to fall off, is it?

A. It should not fall off.

Q. It's not going to fall off in two different locations, is it?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant, speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know if Mr. Simpson was ever known for fumbling --
I'll withdraw the question.

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

Q. Now, that pair that you have in front of you is brown, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. The pair in 641 appears to be the color mean, does it not or does it?

THE COURT: It's not up there.

MR. BAKER: Put it back up.

A. I'm really not sure what color it is. Otherwise it looks -- it's a brownish
shade. We had tremendous problems with brown. Every lot of brown gloves that we
produced, came out a different color. I've never been able to be specific on
the color, but it's in the brown family.

Q. Thanks so much.

Points by Rubin
1. the glove does not fall off. one has to pull it of finger by finger.It did not fall of at Bundy.
2. The glove stitching was not unique to Aris . Other companies used it.
3. This glove would not be worn in cold weather like Buffalo NY.
4. Rubin admits he did a bad job testifying. I agree.

[martin II]

Which evidence do you think was planted?

There is absolutely no doubt that the sock that was soaked in blood was planted. Why? First of all, the blood had EDTA on it, a chemical that's an anticoagulant that is not found in the human body; it's only found in tubes. So we were able to prove that the police had poured blood from the test tubes onto the sock.

Moreover, the splatter pattern on the sock was such that it was consistent only with blood having been poured on the sock, and not with blood having hit one side of the sock and then soaked through the leg in the middle and then hit the other side of the sock.

Third, there was a videotape of the house on the morning of the search which showed that the black socks were not on the white rug in the place where the police claimed they found them. So I think all the jurors concluded that the sock was planted. And once you conclude that the blood on the sock was planted, you begin to have doubts about all the rest of the evidence.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dershowitz.html

[martin II]

"With Fuhrman, it became a matter of credibility," said Sam Diannitto, who is still on the board. It was telling, Mr. Diannitto said, that despite Mr. Fuhrman's vivid boasts, police records said "no complaints of excessive force" had been filed against him. So far, all the proceedings had been confidential. But Mr. Fuhrman chose to appeal to a county judge, and he had to make his records public. In September 1983, the judge, Leon Savitch, upheld the board. Mr. Fuhrman would have to go back to work as a police officer, and his files would sit in the county archives, gathering dust, until Robert Deutsch uncovered them in the police-brutality lawsuit he was filing for Joseph Britton.

The city would settle that suit for the relatively modest sum of $100,000 in February 1995, just before Mr. Simpson's trial began.

The most serious blemish on Mr. Fuhrman's work in the West Los Angeles division was the hostile views he sometimes expressed about minorities and women. His performance evaluation in August 1985, which was made available to The New York Times by a member of the Simpson defense, noted: "He is outspoken and critical in his perception of the department's application of affirmative action. He has been counseled to leave his personal feelings at home and to make every effort to adhere to the affirmative action guidelines.

"He was also counseled by this rating lieutenant and captain regarding his very strong expression of his personal views regarding women and minorities in police work. He was not receptive. He stated he felt as an American citizen, he had a right to express his views."

At the time, some officers say, the West Los Angeles division was known as a retirement assignment for white officers. "There are a bunch of old white guys who hate blacks and women at West L.A.," Mr. Bentley recalled being warned when he was assigned there.

In Mr. Fuhrman's case, some senior officers suspected he was a ringleader in an informal police group called Men Against Women that harassed new female officers in the division.



http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/reviews/fuhrman-profile.html

[martin II]

Coleman, Lucienne—Deputy DA, former friend of Marcia Clark. She believed that O.J.’s defense team was making false charges of racism and evidence planting against Mark Fuhrman until she checked it out. She, and two other deputy DA’s, found that he openly admired the ideas and symbols of Nazi Germany. Coleman and the other deputy DA’s investigating Fuhrman learned from several officers that his statements to them a few years before the murders suggested that he’d had an intimate relationship with Nicole. At the very least, his knowledge of her breast implant surgery showed a special interest in her that predated her death, and, by implication, a special interest in O.J. Simpson. When she reported her findings to Marcia Clark and her boss Bill Hodgman, Clark screamed at her and kicked her out of the office. Hodgman "did not recall" the incident

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/smokinggun2/Bricks.html

[martin II]

When Joseph Britton saw that he was busted, he dropped his knife and ran. After Fuhrman and his partners caught up with him in a parking lot and shot him six times in the chest and shoulder (Fuhrman hit him five times), Fuhrman recovered the knife and put it next to his hand to make it appear that they shot him in self-defense. Witnesses told the whole story and Britton, an armed robber sitting in jail where he belonged, got a hundred thousand dollars from the County of Los Angeles to settle out of court a few weeks before O.J. was scheduled to go on trial for murder.



http://www.smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/smokinggun2/Bricks.html

[weezer]

oh sorry -- all this time I thought we were discussing the murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown by orenthal james simpson. :shrug:

[weezer]

is 'smartfellows' also jasper garrison the jfk conspiracy theorist?

[William Anthony]

I agree with others that if oj simpson had traces of marijuana in his system on 6/13 it means nothing other than he did. It seems that one poster believes or want others to believe that it means something sinister or that it is proof of something more than what it is. It is proof that sometimes in the last several weeks before 6/13 oj smoked a joint or two or three.This means that he was was doing what millions of americans do from time to time whether on the weekends or daily.I think it is nonsense to post this time after time when it really means zip.

A voice of sanity.

[William Anthony]

If it had been Nicole or Ron with the illegal substance in their systems the night they were killed it would be mentioned loudly and often by the supporters of OJ Simpson. The fact that they didn't have illegal drugs in their bodies is more important than the fact that he did. It knocks down the theory (that Nicole and Ron were druggies) that is so important to the character assassination of the victims.

Those addicted to drugs, including alcohol, are not druggies and it is rather insensitive to use that word, IMHO, when you speak of people who, IMHO, suffer from a disease.

[William Anthony]

Was not the admitted evidence planter, MF, a part of the trial and was not the issue of evidence planting a part of the trial?

[tv]

Those addicted to drugs, including alcohol, are not druggies and it is rather insensitive to use that word, IMHO, when you speak of people who, IMHO, suffer from a disease.

I was referring to the way in which they are characterized by those who say they were drug users or drug dealers. This is a rather lame way for you to attempt to start an argument with me. Bye. :seeya:

[martin II]

Police Watch, a non-profit citizen advocacy group in Los Angeles, had received five complaints against Fuhrman since 1988. "I work with these files every day," says Police Watch official Michael Salcido, "and I personally handled over a thousand intakes a year and I know no other officer that has five counts against him"

It wasn't over for Fuhrman though. Now he had to answer a felony charge of perjury. He ended up pleading no contest, and received three years probation. He can no longer carry a gun or hold public office. He also could not be a cop anymore. Contrary to what many believe however, Fuhrman wasn't fired by the LAPD. He resigned, which meant he got his police pension. Meanwhilem the Justice Department initiated a review of allegations in 1995 against Fuhrman that came about when suspects Fuhrman arrested noticed that his descriptions of incidents on those tapes were similar to their own cases, and could be a possible case of brutality against him. Three years later, federal prosecutors determined that the five-year statute of limitations had long passed in relation to the allegations against Fuhrman and decided not to prosecute him. It was never determined that the charges against him were untrue, just that they could not do anything about them.

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=29

[GreenIce]

First of all it wasn't CR's idea for the intervention. He simply went along with it. It was Faye's friends that organized the intervention. It's always been my understanding that Sydney said 'a friend' was on the phone with her mother not specifically Faye. Nicole was known to tell the kids that she was talking to a friend when she was arguing with Simpson on the phone. Everyone characterizes her phone conversation as either laughing or crying. Why is it so far fetched to believe she had more than one phone conversation that night? We know she had at least three.

TV,

Please provide the names of the person who organized the intervention, please provide the name of the person who invited the Jenners, Nicole, her ex, and her soon to ex? Who's house was it at? Which friend realized that Faye was out of control?

Sydney said that her mother was fighting with her best friend. So you really believe that Sydney did not know who her mother's best friend was? Do you really believe the police showed interest in this statement and do you really believe that Sydney only described this person by "best friend". It is more likely that Sydney said that her mother was fight with "Faye" and when asked "Faye who?", she probably said, Faye, mommy's best friend.

Denise Brown was the one who came up with that crock about Nicole calling Simpson her best friend when she didn't want Sydney to know she was talking to her father. Denise drop the nonsense when Faye went public and said Nicole was talking to her but Nicole was giggling, not crying. Also, it is very possible that Sydney became concerned when she heard her mother crying and may very well have gone to ask her mother what was going on or perhaps stood out of her mother's sight for a few seconds and then asked her. I think any child who heard their mother cry would be uspet enough to try to find out what was wrong. IMO.

There are different accounts, one has Sydney hearing the best friend's voice, but it had never been clear if Sydney heard the voice over the phone.
In the book "Killing Time", it says that Sydney gave a statement to the police that she heard the "hey, hey, hey" and the two men arguing and it was not her father's voice. Which if true, leads me to believe that Nicole and Ron were killed closer to 11:00 p.m. and the killer's did not leave the area until after 11:00 p.m. It is also unclear if Justin also heard his mother's crying or fighting. According to one of the books, Sydney asked her brother if he heard it and he shrugged his shoulders.

Marcia Clark does bring up some excellent points about this. She said she did not use the dog walker because she did not believe that he would have been the only person to hear the "hey, hey, hey" and the arguing between two men. That neighbors would have also heard this. However, isn't it possible that other people did hear this but they were not used by the DA's or they did not want to get involved? If other people heard this, to include Sydney, then this again messes with her timeline big time.

What I always found interesting were the state witnesses who apparently listened to a dog bark for 45 minutes and yet were not alarmed or did not check out why this dog was going beserk and then "wailing".

I do not believe Sydney heard the murders, I do believe she heard enough to know that when she was taken out of the house by the police that night and put in the police car, she associated that fight with their being taken out of the home and her mother not coming to pick them up.

IMO, had Sydney confirmed her mother was fighting with her father on the phone that night and that she heard her father's voice at the condo that night, she would have taken the stand or testified in-camera. The Browns would have made sure she testified. Again, IMO.

I do find it interesting that the Browns would not let the DA's question Sydney and when Johnnie Cochran told Clark in a sidebar that he would call Sydney testify about what she heard that night, Clark knew what Johnnie did, "OJ would never allow you to call her to the stand!". Like to know how she knew that but she was right. Her testimony about her bed time alone could have shed a lot of light on this case, IMO.

[GreenIce]

martin, thank you for posting this but it looks like only two murders of people that Ron knew. That's hardly a lot of people. Who did Nicole tell that she was going to use cocaine profits to open a restaurant? If she was such a big time dealer why was she worried about being supported by OJ Simpson? Why did Faye have to get her drugs from a real estate agent instead of Nicole?

TV,

How many people do you personally have known that have been murdered? One of the murders was very similar to how Ron was murdered and I think both are unsolved to this day. In the Goldmans' book, they talk about one of the murdered friend of Ron's and an encounter they had with the brother. I can't remember the details and I no longer have the book. You don't think it is strange that two waiters from the same restaraunt being murdered in very similar fashion is a bit odd?

IMO, I do not believe that Nicole would knowingly get into the drug trade. However, that does not mean that she was never approached about it and maybe considered it for a nanosecond with the stories about how it is "easy" money and how the person or persons telling her their "stories" made it seem like big money with little chance of being caught. It is also possible that Nicole was being used as a "reference" by Faye Resnick to secure more drugs with the promise that the debts would be paid by Nicole.

I can't imagine anyone ever telling anyone that they were going into the drug trade and what they were going to do with the money. That would be an insane act and as well as signing a death warrant, IMO.

Do you really think Faye would tell the DA's that she was in debt to drug dealers? Do you think that she did not know the consequences of "ratting" out her drug dealers? Faye knew if she talked, they would know she cooperated with the police. Did the DA's ever question the real estate agent about his side job? Did he confirm that he was the one who provided her with the drugs and that she habit was only a few dollars a day?

To the best of my knowledge, Nicole had around $90,000.00 left from her settlement from Simpson--that hardly puts her in dire need of money. However, Faye had very little money of her own. Her account of her finances were contradicted by her then boyfriend and she was homeless. I am sure the truth of her money issues could have been very easily proved or disproved.

[tv]

TV,

Please provide the names of the person who organized the intervention, please provide the name of the person who invited the Jenners, Nicole, her ex, and her soon to ex? Who's house was it at? Which friend realized that Faye was out of control? Why do you want me to provide this?

Sydney said that her mother was fighting with her best friend. So you really believe that Sydney did not know who her mother's best friend was? Do you really believe the police showed interest in this statement and do you really believe that Sydney only described this person by "best friend". It is more likely that Sydney said that her mother was fight with "Faye" and when asked "Faye who?", she probably said, Faye, mommy's best friend. Speculation on your part.

Denise Brown was the one who came up with that crock about Nicole calling Simpson her best friend when she didn't want Sydney to know she was talking to her father. Denise drop the nonsense when Faye went public and said Nicole was talking to her but Nicole was giggling, not crying. Also, it is very possible that Sydney became concerned when she heard her mother crying and may very well have gone to ask her mother what was going on or perhaps stood out of her mother's sight for a few seconds and then asked her. I think any child who heard their mother cry would be uspet enough to try to find out what was wrong. IMO. Most of this is speculation on your part once again. What evidence do you have that this is a 'crock' from Denise?

There are different accounts, one has Sydney hearing the best friend's voice, but it had never been clear if Sydney heard the voice over the phone.
In the book "Killing Time", it says that Sydney gave a statement to the police that she heard the "hey, hey, hey" and the two men arguing and it was not her father's voice. Which if true, leads me to believe that Nicole and Ron were killed closer to 11:00 p.m. and the killer's did not leave the area until after 11:00 p.m. It is also unclear if Justin also heard his mother's crying or fighting. According to one of the books, Sydney asked her brother if he heard it and he shrugged his shoulders. I really don't know what response to give to all this.

Marcia Clark does bring up some excellent points about this. She said she did not use the dog walker because she did not believe that he would have been the only person to hear the "hey, hey, hey" and the arguing between two men. That neighbors would have also heard this. However, isn't it possible that other people did hear this but they were not used by the DA's or they did not want to get involved? If other people heard this, to include Sydney, then this again messes with her timeline big time. I can't address this timeline theory of yours or I'll have to cancel the truce.

What I always found interesting were the state witnesses who apparently listened to a dog bark for 45 minutes and yet were not alarmed or did not check out why this dog was going beserk and then "wailing". I hear dogs bark, wail and howl in my neighborhood all the time and I don't investigate.

I do not believe Sydney heard the murders, I do believe she heard enough to know that when she was taken out of the house by the police that night and put in the police car, she associated that fight with their being taken out of the home and her mother not coming to pick them up. I don't think she heard the murders or she wouldn't have called her mother from the police station.

IMO, had Sydney confirmed her mother was fighting with her father on the phone that night and that she heard her father's voice at the condo that night, she would have taken the stand or testified in-camera. The Browns would have made sure she testified. Again, IMO. I've never thought she heard or knew her mother and father fought on the phone but it's my opinion that they did.

I do find it interesting that the Browns would not let the DA's question Sydney and when Johnnie Cochran told Clark in a sidebar that he would call Sydney testify about what she heard that night, Clark knew what Johnnie did, "OJ would never allow you to call her to the stand!". Like to know how she knew that but she was right. Her testimony about her bed time alone could have shed a lot of light on this case, IMO. Again, no comment

A lot of what you've posted here is speculation and rumor. There is no testimony or police statements that confirms what you say about Sydney.

[GreenIce]

SInce you bring up outrageous comments about drug involvement, what about Cochran's comment about the two killings being a typical drug hit (I don't have a link, but it was made well before the criminal trial. Cochran made this claim, but never explained why it was a typical drug hit. Drug hits are usually made with guns with silencers, not knives. Also professional hit men don't use expensive shoes with unusual soles, or unusual gloves. As I have writen before, the FBI expert, John Doublas, set the crime seemed to be that of a spurned lover unrelated to drugs (at least unrelated to drug use by the victims).

I think the rumors of Orenthal being a wife beater and a cocaine user have more substance than the rumors that the Mezzaluna was a hot spot for drugs.

fgump2,

Nicole saw Susan Forward twice, while preparing for her divorce hearing. See Forward only twice as well as the circumstances, asks more questions and does not provide any answers. Nicole, I believe was seeing at least two or 3 different therapists. Do you know for a fact that Nicole sought out Forward or was Forward recommended to her by her divorce lawyer? Why did Nicole only see her twice?

Why wasn't Forward's comments used in the divorce proceedings? Why didn't Forward testify in the divorce proceedings and/or the criminal trial?

There is nothing outrageous about my comments about how drugs could have played a role in the murders. My point has always been "guilt by association". I have also made comments about how easy a person can be tempted into getting involved in illegal acts--that a common "sales pitch" is that you can make big money in a short period of time, there is very little chance of getting caught and you can walk away from it any time you want.

A professional hitman knows that his reputation and career is based on how well he performs the tasks his employers are paying for as well as how he makes sure that his work is not traced back to him and his employers. A professional hitman is going to do his homework and know every possible detail and prepare properly. He knows the minutest detail can lead to his capture and/or his death. The methods he uses may be the one he feels the most comfortable with or he maybe following the employer's orders.

I agree with you about killing people with guns---so it makes no sense that Simpson could kill with a knife when he was known to have many guns. Had he used a gun, time management would not have been an issue, IMO.

[tv]

TV,

How many people do you personally have known that have been murdered? One of the murders was very similar to how Ron was murdered and I think both are unsolved to this day. In the Goldmans' book, they talk about one of the murdered friend of Ron's and an encounter they had with the brother. I can't remember the details and I no longer have the book. You don't think it is strange that two waiters from the same restaraunt being murdered in very similar fashion is a bit odd? I've known several people that have been murdered. OJ Simpson also knew two people that had been murdered but no one seems to think that's odd.

IMO, I do not believe that Nicole would knowingly get into the drug trade. However, that does not mean that she was never approached about it and maybe considered it for a nanosecond with the stories about how it is "easy" money and how the person or persons telling her their "stories" made it seem like big money with little chance of being caught. It is also possible that Nicole was being used as a "reference" by Faye Resnick to secure more drugs with the promise that the debts would be paid by Nicole. This story sure has changed from Ron and Nicole making plans to start a restaurant using money from selling cocaine.

I can't imagine anyone ever telling anyone that they were going into the drug trade and what they were going to do with the money. That would be an insane act and as well as signing a death warrant, IMO.

Do you really think Faye would tell the DA's that she was in debt to drug dealers? Do you think that she did not know the consequences of "ratting" out her drug dealers? Faye knew if she talked, they would know she cooperated with the police. Did the DA's ever question the real estate agent about his side job? Did he confirm that he was the one who provided her with the drugs and that she habit was only a few dollars a day? There has been no evidence presented or information provided that Faye was in debt to drug dealers. Rumor and speculation.

To the best of my knowledge, Nicole had around $90,000.00 left from her settlement from Simpson--that hardly puts her in dire need of money. However, Faye had very little money of her own. Her account of her finances were contradicted by her then boyfriend and she was homeless. I am sure the truth of her money issues could have been very easily proved or disproved. Faye was not homeless -- she was living with Nicole. Who said Nicole was in dire need of money? According to another poster, Christian Reichardt was 'supporting' Faye but he's unable to say how he was supporting her. My question that never got answered was if Ron and Nicole were drug dealers why didn't their drug money or the drugs themselves turn up after the murders? Do you think they still have hidden treasure somewhere that hasn't been found?

Goodnight :seeya:

[GreenIce]

A lot of what you've posted here is speculation and rumor. There is no testimony or police statements that confirms what you say about Sydney.

TV,

The information I posted about came from books. Johnnie Cochran did ask Lange about what Sydney heard, Lange responded that he did hear about this and that is when a side bar was called.

I am not positive but I do believe that any statement given to the police by a minor child is protected by different laws then those of an adult. A child can't he held over in jail until they decided to cooperate. I do not believe a child's statement is releasable under the Freedom of Information Act. If the Browns were able to deny the DA's to question Sydney and Simpson denied his lawyers to question Sydney, they could have made sure that Sydney's statement did not become public knowledge and therefore making it impossible for Sydney to testify.

Sydney and Justin sat for almost 5 hours in the police station, don't you think the two cops assigned to watch them were also listening to them? In American Tragedy, the female cop was trying to keep them occupied and when Sydney said the statement about Mommy's best friend, the cops made the choice not to ask her who's mommy best friend was. Does that make any sense to you? Just like the male cop who supposed tried to track down their relatives and waited until about 5:30 a.m. to ask Sydney if she knew any of her family member's phone numbers--which is how they got Arnelle's.

Also, why wouldn't they be asked if they knew where there father was? What his phone number was? By not asking these questions, IMO, makes it look more suspious. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

TV,

"I've known several people that have been murdered. OJ Simpson also knew two people that had been murdered but no one seems to think that's odd."

And you just telling me this now--our planned vacation together is now a no go!:)

Goodnight!

[GreenIce]

TV,

There has been no evidence presented or information provided that Faye was in debt to drug dealers. Rumor and speculation.


My point was, did the DA's take the information Faye gave them and investigate it? Did the LAPD? Did her drug dealer confirm what Faye said? CR felt that both sides wanted nothing to do with drugs and did not follow up on the information he gave them.

Does it make sense to you that the LAPD would seek out this drug dealer and just ask him about Faye and then just say thank you and leave? Wouldn't they have had to arrest him for being a drug dealer? The LAPD and the DA's could not investigate this issue without bringing charges against this self admitted drug dealer. IMO.

[bobaugust]

What is ridiculous, insulting and a personal attack is your claim that I claimed something when I have repeatedly informed you that it is not my claim but a reasonable inference I drew from all the testimony.

Your inferences based on mistaken testimony, imaginary evidence, and speculation are unreasonable and any claims you make from those inferences are false claims.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have posted the testimony where Parl contradicted what he, Park, said on direct. Because you don't see it or fail to comprehend it, as you like to say, doesn't mean it did not happen. :)

Just because you think Park contradicted what he previously testified to doesn’t mean that he did. I see no contradictions and evidently neither did Baker since IIRC he never said these were contradictions.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Can I take that to mean that you don't agree with the remainder of Petro's braggadocios claim?

I completely agree with what Petrocelli wrote. There is no evidence that Nicole’s fresh blood was planted on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Extrapolating from the time of his previous testimony that 60 seconds would have been when he waited thirty seconds to hang up with his boss and thirty more seconds for someone to open the gate for him.


Park testified that during the time he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin he never observed him walking in any direction. Baker never asked Park about going to the intercom and speaking with Simpson nor did he ask Park about seeing Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

Ridiculous interpretations and inferences based on mistaken testimony, imaginary evidence, and speculation are unreasonable inferences that result in comments that make no sense and claims that are false. Like claiming Park waited thirty seconds to hang up with his boss and thirty seconds for someone to open the gate for him. Like claiming when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes. Like claiming Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified that the first person he saw that night was a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. Like claiming Mark Fuhrman said he saw two gloves and a hat under the plant leaves at Bundy. Like claiming Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The inference is, through all the testimony/evidence, the socks were not in the bedroom when they should have been, the amount of EDTA is more than what is found in unpreserved human blood and the blood was not seen on the socks until three weeks after they were collected, that the blood was planted, which is the inference I drew.

The testimony by the photographer was that he photographed Simpson’s bedroom after the socks had been collected. The small trace contamination of EDTA found in the evidence stains in the third test results was 1000 times less then the amount of EDTA found in the reference samples. The small dark stains on the dark colored socks were never seen until the socks were examined under high intensity lighting.

There is no evidence of any blood being planted on Simpson’s sock. Your inferences are unreasonable and any claims you make from those inferences are false claims.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

And a thousand time what should have been found in unpreserved human blood.

The defense blood planting theories were that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock and Simpson’s blood found on the rear gate at Bundy came from their reference samples. EDTA testing, degradation comparisons, and crime scene photographs proved those theories false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I was referring to the way in which they are characterized by those who say they were drug users or drug dealers. This is a rather lame way for you to attempt to start an argument with me. Bye. :seeya:

You used the word.

[William Anthony]

Your inferences based on mistaken testimony, imaginary evidence, and speculation are unreasonable and any claims you make from those inferences are false claims.

bobaugust

My inferences are drawn from actual testimony/evidence and I do not make claims or have to insert could haves, maybes, entirely possible, and call things perceptions or change the accepted way memory works to try to make my conclusions right, since I do not form conclusions. :)

[William Anthony]

Just because you think Park contradicted what he previously testified to doesn’t mean that he did. I see no contradictions and evidently neither did Baker since IIRC he never said these were contradictions.

bobaugust

I posted the testimony which is a direct contradiction of Park's testimony on direct and just because I do not have to have things spelled out for me does not mean it did not happen or because you don't see them or, as you like to say, comprehend them does not mean they did not happen.

[William Anthony]

I completely agree with what Petrocelli wrote. There is no evidence that Nicole’s fresh blood was planted on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

Thanks for admitting this, which is just another way of saying that Ms. NBS's blood may not have come from her reference sample. However, Petro's claim was that Cotton's testimony destroyed the defense's theory that there was "any evidence planting. I hope you understand what Petro claimed, since you quoted it.

[William Anthony]

Park testified that during the time he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin he never observed him walking in any direction. Baker never asked Park about going to the intercom and speaking with Simpson nor did he ask Park about seeing Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

Ridiculous interpretations and inferences based on mistaken testimony, imaginary evidence, and speculation are unreasonable inferences that result in comments that make no sense and claims that are false. Like claiming Park waited thirty seconds to hang up with his boss and thirty seconds for someone to open the gate for him. Like claiming when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes. Like claiming Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified that the first person he saw that night was a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. Like claiming Mark Fuhrman said he saw two gloves and a hat under the plant leaves at Bundy. Like claiming Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders.

bobaugust

Ah, I see that, as you like to say, did not comprehend that Park said on direct that, after a minute, he saw Kato walk up the driveway in a particular direction but on cross Baker got Park to admit that, after a minute, he saw Kato at the gate control box and that he never saw Kato walk in any direction in that minute.

Insulting and rude posts made because one does not want to admit to what the evidence is does not change the fact that the evidence is what it is.:) To deny what the actual testimony was and to try to say that someone made a claim from that testimony as opposed to drawing inferences after a consideration of all the testimony on a subject is an act of desperation, IMHO.:)

[William Anthony]

The testimony by the photographer was that he photographed Simpson’s bedroom after the socks had been collected. The small trace contamination of EDTA found in the evidence stains in the third test results was 1000 times less then the amount of EDTA found in the reference samples. The small dark stains on the dark colored socks were never seen until the socks were examined under high intensity lighting.

There is no evidence of any blood being planted on Simpson’s sock. Your inferences are unreasonable and any claims you make from those inferences are false claims.

bobaugust

Please, post the testimony that the photographer said he photographed the bedroom after the socks had been collected? I have never denied that the large amount of EDTA found on the sock and gate stain, which was a thousand times that which was in unpreserved human blood, is a thousand times less that the amount of EDTA in a purple or, if you will, lavender top test tube. How does one start with a thousand times less of something and get a thousand times more without adding or how does one start with a something and get a thousand time less without diluting; either of which indicates evidence manipulation and planting. The blood on the socks which was not seen until much later and the blood on the gate which was not collected until much later both had a thousand times more EDTA than was found in unpreserved human blood and that is a coincidence that allows a reasonable inference, when placed in context with the other evidence, that those stains were planted.

When the evidence allows a reasonable inference that evidence is planted, then there is reasonable doubt, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

The defense blood planting theories were that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock and Simpson’s blood found on the rear gate at Bundy came from their reference samples. EDTA testing, degradation comparisons, and crime scene photographs proved those theories false.

bobaugust

Untrue, IMHO.

[tv]

You used the word.

Yes I did and if this is all you have to discuss with me I'm not interested.

[tv]

TV,

"I've known several people that have been murdered. OJ Simpson also knew two people that had been murdered but no one seems to think that's odd."

And you just telling me this now--our planned vacation together is now a no go!:)

Goodnight!

Smart girl. :)

[tv]

TV,

There has been no evidence presented or information provided that Faye was in debt to drug dealers. Rumor and speculation.


My point was, did the DA's take the information Faye gave them and investigate it? Did the LAPD? Did her drug dealer confirm what Faye said? CR felt that both sides wanted nothing to do with drugs and did not follow up on the information he gave them.

Does it make sense to you that the LAPD would seek out this drug dealer and just ask him about Faye and then just say thank you and leave? Wouldn't they have had to arrest him for being a drug dealer? The LAPD and the DA's could not investigate this issue without bringing charges against this self admitted drug dealer. IMO.GreenIce, they can't arrest a drug dealer just because he says he's a drug dealer. There has to be some evidence such as being in possession of a certain amount of drugs or being caught selling them.

[martin II]

Goodnight :seeya:

When faye was with CR she did not work and she did not work when she lived at nicoles so some one was giving her some support especially since she was buying cocain daily. that is my opinion like it is your opinion that oj beat nicole on a regular basis. there are two ways to get drugs from a supplier. pay or credit. it was the investigator that investigated ron and nicole about drugs.not me. who do you the people comming to see faye at nicoles that nicole said she did not like.Her preacher.

[martin II]

GreenIce, they can't arrest a drug dealer just because he says he's a drug dealer. There has to be some evidence such as being in possession of a certain amount of drugs or being caught selling them.

For the most part narcotic cops know who is selling drugs in a place like brentwood.

[tv]

When faye was with CR she did not work and she did not work when she lived at nicoles so some one was giving her some support especially since she was buying cocain daily. that is my opinion like it is your opinion that oj beat nicole on a regular basis. there are two ways to get drugs from a supplier. pay or credit. it was the investigator that investigated ron and nicole about drugs.not me. who do you the people comming to see faye at nicoles that nicole said she did not like.Her preacher.

No problem if you state it as opinion and not fact. Are you saying that Faye's preacher was doing drugs with her at Nicole's house? :eek:

[tv]

For the most part narcotic cops know who is selling drugs in a place like brentwood.

Then they probably knew OJ Simpson's supplier.

[William Anthony]

Yes I did and if this is all you have to discuss with me I'm not interested.

Then follow the moderator's instructions as I do, until I find a post too offensive and feel compelled to comment.

[martin II]

GI
Here are some comments by oj.

On Friday, Simpson spoke of the messy end of his relationship with Ms. Simpson, saying that in the months before her murder she was volatile, obsessive, unpredictable.

"I didn't know who I was talking to from day to day. She was loving one day, upset about something the next day."

He said she followed him around, harassed his maid and called him just to yell at him.

Just days before her murder, Simpson ordered his maid and personal assistant to take calls from Ms. Simpson only if they dealt with the couple's children, Sydney and Justin.

"I just felt I needed to separate myself from her," he said. "It seemed to be problem after problem after problem."

Simpson said it came to a head when his ex-wife yelled at him on the phone about the seating arrangements for a charity dinner, accusing him of meddling in her life by inviting one of her friends.

"That was pretty much the last straw with me," he said. "I just decided I needed to distance myself."

By The Associated Press

[martin II]

Then they probably knew OJ Simpson's supplier.

That may be true if he had one.i am looking for a report that i had at some time about a ongoing DEA investigation in brentwood centered around that resturant where ron worked and another location in Brentwood.

i do find it interesting that two of rons friends involved in some way with drugs were killed. one in the same manner as ron.with a knife not a gun.if i were speculating i would say it must have or could have the same killer.
Someone killed Canter and did not leave a trace.

[martin II]

No problem if you state it as opinion and not fact. Are you saying that Faye's preacher was doing drugs with her at Nicole's house? :eek:

Faye testified that she had no job. fact. faye was doing drugs fact. no i am saying that the bad people that nicole did not like was not fays preacherf. i think. or guess.

[martin II]

Then follow the moderator's instructions as I do, until I find a post too offensive and feel compelled to comment.

i agree and would add there is nothing wrong with one feeling irritated by a posters opinion. whats against the rules is if one does allow themselves to be irritated and then lashes out and attempts to dictate what is right and what is wrong. ignoring the post is the best way.

[martin II]

What i think is faye was the most active addict in the groupe. i think both nicole and oj did drugs sometimes but i also think they were not the only ones in their friendship group that did it.but when the murders happened everyone was doing a misdirection and pointing the fingers at oj.It was popular then to do so. on 6/12 both oj and nicole had drugs in their system.SO WHAT. Hers was legal and his was not. SO WHAT

[martin II]

Cochran was well respected by his peers and average people.


Mr. Cochran is the only attorney ever to be the recipient of the Trial Lawyer of the Year Award from both the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association and the Criminal Courts Bar Association. Mr. Cochran is a member of the prestigious International Academy of Trial Lawyers and The American College of Trial Lawyers, whose membership consists of the top one percent of trial attorneys in the United States. Mr. Cochran was inducted into The Inner Circle of Advocates, an organization of the country's top 100 plaintiff lawyers. His autobiography, Journey to Justice, a national bestseller written with Tim Rutten, was recently published by One World/Ballantine Books.

[martin II]

Fgump2

Contrary to your claim. most of rons blood was NOT in his abdominal cavity.

But, there were also four deep stab wounds: one to the thigh, one to the abdomen, and two to the right side of his chest. The fact that some blood was found in the abdominal and pleural cavities shows that those wounds occurred before Goldman had died, and his heart stopped pumping blood, but the fact that only 100 cc of blood was found by Dr. Golden in the abdominal cavity and 150 cc in the pleural cavity shows that he did not live long after these wounds were suffered. (We are indebted to Prien to point this out.) Both chest wounds cut branches of the pulmonary artery, and the abdominal wound cut the abdominal aorta. The volume flow rate from these wounds would have been great, and the fact that there was relatively little blood in these cavities indicates the stab wounds were administered very shortly (seconds) before Goldman died.

[martin II]

On July 20, 1994, as the lead defense investigator in the OJ Simpson case, Bill Pavelic told the mainstream media, that LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman was a racist and a pathological liar. Mark Fuhrman was vociferously defended by two of Las Angeles “finest”..... discredited LAPD Chief of Police, Daryl Gates and Private Investigator to the Stars, Anthony Pellicano.

The allegations against Mark Fuhrman by Bill Pavelic were made months before Fuhrman’s “celebrated” testimony in the OJ Simpson trial....and.....on January 29, 1996, Bill Pavelic spent hours and hours with California Department of Justice investigators Vickie Ward and George Fawrup, painstakingly going over Mark Fuhrman’s perjuries, Anthony Pellicano’s witness intimidations and myriad of other corruption related issues.

[martin II]

The photographer stood on the fence and bent that wire that was found months later.



Interestingly, neither the photographer's feet nor a ladder are visible in this picture which shows a fairly wide angle. One wonders how the photographer (LAPD's Rokhar) supported himself to take the picture. The only source of support visible in the picture is the fence post, and if the photographer stood directly above these objects his foot would be right at the place of the bent prongs. This suggests a rather benign cause of the fence's condition, and does not require that Simpson make some physically impossible maneuver.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

[martin II]

William

I found this that i had saved.


2:30 AM Police arrive at Bundy. Careful not to disturb the crime area, the police do not enter; instead, they circle the area making observation from vantage points six or more feet from the bodies. Most of the observations are made from angles that parallel the bushes -- the doorway and outside the gate. At the closest vantage point, beside the walkway, they have their attention divided between observing evidence and trying not to disturb the area. From this near vantage point, all observations are made with a high powered flashlight that casts a heavy shadow (from the thick bushes) across the second glove which is behind, and slightly under Goldman's foot.
4:00 AM Fuhrman had noticed the second glove when he was behind the fence viewing Goldman. When he was remooved from the case, he decided to investigate what he thought he saw -- he uses Rokahr, the photographer as an excuse to enter the crime scene -- fortunately, Rokahr asks Mark Fuhrman to point to the glove and cap. This puts Fuhrman inside the crime area. When finished, the photographer exits the area to take general photos. Fuhrman is alone, he confirms the second glove. Moving Goldman's foot, he decides to "collect it" -- this would again make him part of the case. As part of the chain of custody, he would have to be called to testify to the location of the glove. He might get some flak for what he did, but nothing that would jeopardize the presentation of the evidence -- in the LAPD Detectives are authorized to collect blood evidence; and are provided the collection equipment. All the other officers are outside the tapes. There is nobody there to witness what he has done.
5:20 AM Fuhrman, at Rockingham, sees the small drop of blood on the Bronco. He suspects that Simpson is the killer. And his racial bias allows him the luxury of planting evidence on "guilty" people.
5:30 AM Vannatter decides that the Bronco is part of a possible crime scene. He also decides that there is reason to do a forced entry into the Rockingham Estate.
5:45 AM When talking to Kaelin, Fuhrman learns about the noise at 10:45. He learns that the limo was there after that, he also knows when the Akita was found, so he knows the murders were before 10:55.
5:55 AM At this point, he bring Kaelin to Vannatter and goes to investigate the noise. Under the assumption that Simpson did it, and knowing the past history with Nicole, he decides it's alright to plant the evidence, find it, and become a critical part of an historic -- possibly career making -- case.
6:30 AM Vannatter has already made a rush to judgement - that happens to be right - and has OJ handcuffed upon his arrival home at
7:00 AM Ordered by Vannatter to return to Bundy, check that glove to confirm it matches the Rockingham glove, Fuhrman has a second set of photographs take. This time, he lifts the bush -- establishing that there is only one glove at Bundy, and providing a means of covering for his prior entry into the crime scene. This time, the photograph is witnessed by another officer -- Officer Riske. Fuhrman has what, in a normal case, would be an alibi.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/guilty.html

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, they can't arrest a drug dealer just because he says he's a drug dealer. There has to be some evidence such as being in possession of a certain amount of drugs or being caught selling them.

TV,

The point is, how did the LAPD and the DA's and Petrocelli confirm that Faye was telling the truth about her addiction and how much money she was spending a day on it? How she paid off her debts? Who is the only person who can confirm or deny what Faye said about the drugs she was using!

[William Anthony]

William

I found this that i had saved.


2:30 AM Police arrive at Bundy. Careful not to disturb the crime area, the police do not enter; instead, they circle the area making observation from vantage points six or more feet from the bodies. Most of the observations are made from angles that parallel the bushes -- the doorway and outside the gate. At the closest vantage point, beside the walkway, they have their attention divided between observing evidence and trying not to disturb the area. From this near vantage point, all observations are made with a high powered flashlight that casts a heavy shadow (from the thick bushes) across the second glove which is behind, and slightly under Goldman's foot.
4:00 AM Fuhrman had noticed the second glove when he was behind the fence viewing Goldman. When he was remooved from the case, he decided to investigate what he thought he saw -- he uses Rokahr, the photographer as an excuse to enter the crime scene -- fortunately, Rokahr asks Mark Fuhrman to point to the glove and cap. This puts Fuhrman inside the crime area. When finished, the photographer exits the area to take general photos. Fuhrman is alone, he confirms the second glove. Moving Goldman's foot, he decides to "collect it" -- this would again make him part of the case. As part of the chain of custody, he would have to be called to testify to the location of the glove. He might get some flak for what he did, but nothing that would jeopardize the presentation of the evidence -- in the LAPD Detectives are authorized to collect blood evidence; and are provided the collection equipment. All the other officers are outside the tapes. There is nobody there to witness what he has done.
5:20 AM Fuhrman, at Rockingham, sees the small drop of blood on the Bronco. He suspects that Simpson is the killer. And his racial bias allows him the luxury of planting evidence on "guilty" people.
5:30 AM Vannatter decides that the Bronco is part of a possible crime scene. He also decides that there is reason to do a forced entry into the Rockingham Estate.
5:45 AM When talking to Kaelin, Fuhrman learns about the noise at 10:45. He learns that the limo was there after that, he also knows when the Akita was found, so he knows the murders were before 10:55.
5:55 AM At this point, he bring Kaelin to Vannatter and goes to investigate the noise. Under the assumption that Simpson did it, and knowing the past history with Nicole, he decides it's alright to plant the evidence, find it, and become a critical part of an historic -- possibly career making -- case.
6:30 AM Vannatter has already made a rush to judgement - that happens to be right - and has OJ handcuffed upon his arrival home at
7:00 AM Ordered by Vannatter to return to Bundy, check that glove to confirm it matches the Rockingham glove, Fuhrman has a second set of photographs take. This time, he lifts the bush -- establishing that there is only one glove at Bundy, and providing a means of covering for his prior entry into the crime scene. This time, the photograph is witnessed by another officer -- Officer Riske. Fuhrman has what, in a normal case, would be an alibi.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/guilty.html

Those are certainly a set of reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, IMHO.

[GreenIce]

Smart girl. :)

TV,

And you thought we would never agree on any thing!!!!!

[martin II]

William

You had asked about details of the BM boot.
"Please note that Mr. Goldberg and Mr Poser referrs to the Lorenzo Bruno Maglia item in evidence as a semi and demi boot. Not a casual dress shoe."

Nicole could not have grabbed ojs ankle and deposited blood on the sock because the demi boot top was covering the sock. There was the pant leg, the top of the boot and then the sock. The only other place for the blood to have deposited on the sock was in that LAPD LAB.
Some had thought it was a low cut regular dress shoe. But it was like a "chuka" as we used to call them.

martin II

[GreenIce]

When faye was with CR she did not work and she did not work when she lived at nicoles so some one was giving her some support especially since she was buying cocain daily. that is my opinion like it is your opinion that oj beat nicole on a regular basis. there are two ways to get drugs from a supplier. pay or credit. it was the investigator that investigated ron and nicole about drugs.not me. who do you the people comming to see faye at nicoles that nicole said she did not like.Her preacher.

Martin,

I am confused about the preacher, who's preacher? Nicole was Catholic so her preacher would be a priest. Did Nicole seek out her priest in regards to Faye? Kris Jenner is also a devout Catholic.

Faye converted to Judism when she married Paul Resnick. I belive her daughter was also adopted by Mr. Resnick and she was being raised in the Jewish faith. So if you are talking about Faye's preacher, then he would be rabbi.

[GreenIce]

The photographer stood on the fence and bent that wire that was found months later.



Interestingly, neither the photographer's feet nor a ladder are visible in this picture which shows a fairly wide angle. One wonders how the photographer (LAPD's Rokhar) supported himself to take the picture. The only source of support visible in the picture is the fence post, and if the photographer stood directly above these objects his foot would be right at the place of the bent prongs. This suggests a rather benign cause of the fence's condition, and does not require that Simpson make some physically impossible maneuver.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

Martin,

I just want to understand this, the LAPD photographer stood on a wire to take pictures of what? Was this in his testimony?

[martin II]

TV,

The point is, how did the LAPD and the DA's and Petrocelli confirm that Faye was telling the truth about her addiction and how much money she was spending a day on it? How she paid off her debts? Who is the only person who can confirm or deny what Faye said about the drugs she was using!

Her dealer would know
But the lawyers knew that freebasing is very highly addictive and requires one to continue smoking until the money or drugs run out. When this happend the user goes looking for more of both. They knew that her story of $20.00 a day was a lie.

[martin II]

Martin,

I just want to understand this, the LAPD photographer stood on a wire to take pictures of what? Was this in his testimony?

The picture was taken from up high looking down on the glove.Rockingham glove.
Wagner says that the only position that the photographer could have been in
when the picture was taken was from standing on top of the fence. There was no ladder or anything else to stand on to get that picture from that angle. That the one bent wire on top of the fence was directly above the glove so the photographer had to be standing on top of the fence and bent that one wire when he took the picture..imo

[martin II]

Martin,

I am confused about the preacher, who's preacher? Nicole was Catholic so her preacher would be a priest. Did Nicole seek out her priest in regards to Faye? Kris Jenner is also a devout Catholic.

Faye converted to Judism when she married Paul Resnick. I belive her daughter was also adopted by Mr. Resnick and she was being raised in the Jewish faith. So if you are talking about Faye's preacher, then he would be rabbi.

I see i was not clear. nicole did not like the people comming to see faye.I was asking tv did she think the people were bad peopole or fayes preacher. like a joke. There was no faye preacher.SORRY.

[tv]

TV,

And you thought we would never agree on any thing!!!!!

I think you posted something one time a few months ago that I agreed with but now I can't remember what it was...oh, well...at least we agree on this! :tongue:

[martin II]

TV,

The point is, how did the LAPD and the DA's and Petrocelli confirm that Faye was telling the truth about her addiction and how much money she was spending a day on it? How she paid off her debts? Who is the only person who can confirm or deny what Faye said about the drugs she was using!

The DA could have easily jacked up faye and found out who her supplier was and brought them for questioning about their wherebouts on 6/12 if they had been interested in a good investigation.i think that would be normal.

[William Anthony]

William

You had asked about details of the BM boot.
"Please note that Mr. Goldberg and Mr Poser referrs to the Lorenzo Bruno Maglia item in evidence as a semi and demi boot. Not a casual dress shoe."

Nicole could not have grabbed ojs ankle and deposited blood on the sock because the demi boot top was covering the sock. There was the pant leg, the top of the boot and then the sock. The only other place for the blood to have deposited on the sock was in that LAPD LAB.
Some had thought it was a low cut regular dress shoe. But it was like a "chuka" as we used to call them.

martin II

Thanks for the information and I think that if it was like a semi boot then the jury may have drawn a reasonable inference that Ms. NBS did not touch the ankle area or any other part of the sock.

[fgump2]

"With Fuhrman, it became a matter of credibility," said Sam Diannitto, who is still on the board. It was telling, Mr. Diannitto said, that despite Mr. Fuhrman's vivid boasts, police records said "no complaints of excessive force" had been filed against him. So far, all the proceedings had been confidential. But Mr. Fuhrman chose to appeal to a county judge, and he had to make his records public. In September 1983, the judge, Leon Savitch, upheld the board. Mr. Fuhrman would have to go back to work as a police officer, and his files would sit in the county archives, gathering dust, until Robert Deutsch uncovered them in the police-brutality lawsuit he was filing for Joseph Britton.

The city would settle that suit for the relatively modest sum of $100,000 in February 1995, just before Mr. Simpson's trial began.

The most serious blemish on Mr. Fuhrman's work in the West Los Angeles division was the hostile views he sometimes expressed about minorities and women. His performance evaluation in August 1985, which was made available to The New York Times by a member of the Simpson defense, noted: "He is outspoken and critical in his perception of the department's application of affirmative action. He has been counseled to leave his personal feelings at home and to make every effort to adhere to the affirmative action guidelines.

"He was also counseled by this rating lieutenant and captain regarding his very strong expression of his personal views regarding women and minorities in police work. He was not receptive. He stated he felt as an American citizen, he had a right to express his views."

At the time, some officers say, the West Los Angeles division was known as a retirement assignment for white officers. "There are a bunch of old white guys who hate blacks and women at West L.A.," Mr. Bentley recalled being warned when he was assigned there.

In Mr. Fuhrman's case, some senior officers suspected he was a ringleader in an informal police group called Men Against Women that harassed new female officers in the division.



http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/reviews/fuhrman-profile.html

You seem to be implying that the blue wall of silence isn't so solid after all.

[fgump2]

Here are some comments by oj.

On Friday, Simpson spoke of the messy end of his relationship with Ms. Simpson, saying that in the months before her murder she was volatile, obsessive, unpredictable.


"I didn't know who I was talking to from day to day. She was loving one day, upset about something the next day."

He said she followed him around, harassed his maid and called him just to yell at him.

Just days before her murder, Simpson ordered his maid and personal assistant to take calls from Ms. Simpson only if they dealt with the couple's children, Sydney and Justin.

"I just felt I needed to separate myself from her," he said. "It seemed to be problem after problem after problem."

Simpson said it came to a head when his ex-wife yelled at him on the phone about the seating arrangements for a charity dinner, accusing him of meddling in her life by inviting one of her friends.

"That was pretty much the last straw with me," he said. "I just decided I needed to distance myself."

By The Associated Press[/QUOTE]

This contradicts his what he wrote in his farewell note: " If we had a problem it's because I loved her so much... recently we came to the understanding tht we weren't right for each other , at lest not for now.. Despite our love we were different and that's why we mutually agreed to go our separate ways". One thing that is consistent with the farewell note is tht he wants people to know that whatever problems there were her fault:"I have felt like a battered husband or boyfriend" and "I took the heat New year's 1989 because that was what I was supposed to do,. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy".

Hey, if he felt like a battered husband, I guess there was more to it than that they weren't right for each other.

Of course Orenthal's firend A. Austin said some things that contradicted both the farewell note and the statements that Martin posted. Austin said that Nicole dumped him and Orenthal was upset about it.

Nicole's diary also contradicted Orenthal's most recent version.. In her diary Nicole wrote that about a week before the murders she had hung up on him, and then a few days before the murders he called her up and said "you hung up on me b***h, you'll pay for this".

One consistency Orenthl has shown is unwillingness to admit that he was partly at fault in his problems with women.

I got a question the blood on the sock. If the shoe would have blocked it, why didn't the magnificent one and the world's best criminologist bring this up at the criminal trial?

[William Anthony]

I don't think anyone has said that the blue wall of silence is not impenetrable, only that it is likely to be upheld, especially by select members within a group, such as, "the West Los Angeles division was known as a retirement assignment for white officers. "There are a bunch of old white guys who hate blacks and women at West L.A", and it may be breached by those outside the group.

[William Anthony]

I got a question the blood on the sock. If the shoe would have blocked it, why didn't the magnificent one and the world's best criminologist bring this up at the criminal trial?

The magnificent one chose to argue lack of evidence, since at that point there was no evidence that Simpson owned the shoes and the lack of evidence that Simpson's pants were rolled up.

"Look for the spatter that you expect on them. Look and see why it went over to side 3. There's a leg in it. Now, isn't it interesting how you get this blood on this sock with your pants? Your pants have to be almost up. This would take a real contortion to do it.

He changes out of his tennis shoes, his Reebok tennis shoes and his sweat socks, and puts on some dress socks and puts on some Bruno Magli shoes. And let me just stop right there for a minute. Put a pin in that, the Bruno Magli shoes. And you heard all about Bruno Magli shoes and Bruno Magli shoes and we searched all around the world and we went to Bloomingdales, and what we did we find there is nobody who ever sold O.J. Simpson any Bruno Magli shoes. They searched. They tried."

[martin II]

The magnificent one chose to argue lack of evidence, since at that point there was no evidence that Simpson owned the shoes and the lack of evidence that Simpson's pants were rolled up.

"Look for the spatter that you expect on them. Look and see why it went over to side 3. There's a leg in it. Now, isn't it interesting how you get this blood on this sock with your pants? Your pants have to be almost up. This would take a real contortion to do it.

He changes out of his tennis shoes, his Reebok tennis shoes and his sweat socks, and puts on some dress socks and puts on some Bruno Magli shoes. And let me just stop right there for a minute. Put a pin in that, the Bruno Magli shoes. And you heard all about Bruno Magli shoes and Bruno Magli shoes and we searched all around the world and we went to Bloomingdales, and what we did we find there is nobody who ever sold O.J. Simpson any Bruno Magli shoes. They searched. They tried."


i like how he stopped and 'PUT A PIN IN THAT" It is like he is talking to a personal friend.

[martin II]

You seem to be implying that the blue wall of silence isn't so solid after all.

You are misreading the post if it sounds like that to you.imo

[martin II]

Here are some comments by oj.

On Friday, Simpson spoke of the messy end of his relationship with Ms. Simpson, saying that in the months before her murder she was volatile, obsessive, unpredictable.


"I didn't know who I was talking to from day to day. She was loving one day, upset about something the next day."

He said she followed him around, harassed his maid and called him just to yell at him.

Just days before her murder, Simpson ordered his maid and personal assistant to take calls from Ms. Simpson only if they dealt with the couple's children, Sydney and Justin.

"I just felt I needed to separate myself from her," he said. "It seemed to be problem after problem after problem."

Simpson said it came to a head when his ex-wife yelled at him on the phone about the seating arrangements for a charity dinner, accusing him of meddling in her life by inviting one of her friends.

"That was pretty much the last straw with me," he said. "I just decided I needed to distance myself."

By The Associated Press

This contradicts his what he wrote in his farewell note: " If we had a problem it's because I loved her so much... recently we came to the understanding tht we weren't right for each other , at lest not for now.. Despite our love we were different and that's why we mutually agreed to go our separate ways". One thing that is consistent with the farewell note is tht he wants people to know that whatever problems there were her fault:"I have felt like a battered husband or boyfriend" and "I took the heat New year's 1989 because that was what I was supposed to do,. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy".

Hey, if he felt like a battered husband, I guess there was more to it than that they weren't right for each other.

Of course Orenthal's firend A. Austin said some things that contradicted both the farewell note and the statements that Martin posted. Austin said that Nicole dumped him and Orenthal was upset about it.

Nicole's diary also contradicted Orenthal's most recent version.. In her diary Nicole wrote that about a week before the murders she had hung up on him, and then a few days before the murders he called her up and said "you hung up on me b***h, you'll pay for this".

One consistency Orenthl has shown is unwillingness to admit that he was partly at fault in his problems with women.

I got a question the blood on the sock. If the shoe would have blocked it, why didn't the magnificent one and the world's best criminologist bring this up at the criminal trial?[/QUOTE]

Cora testified to how Nicole was going back and forth in her rtelationship with oj.She was confused about what she wanted to do and this caused oj some concern as it would most. One day she was asking him to let her come back and two weeks later she wanted to play the field for a while. she made many contradictory moves.
Regardless that they both moved on they still loved each other or had respect for each other.Read his book.

[martin II]

I don't think anyone has said that the blue wall of silence is not impenetrable, only that it is likely to be upheld, especially by select members within a group, such as, "the West Los Angeles division was known as a retirement assignment for white officers. "There are a bunch of old white guys who hate blacks and women at West L.A", and it may be breached by those outside the group.

In light of furhmans involvement in MAW it is odd to see so many women giving him full support.

[martin II]

Feminist Majority Foundation and National Center For Women & Policing Call for Citizens' Commission to Oversee Independent Investigation of Gender Bias In LAPD
Department Plagued by Reports of Sexual Harassment and Threats Against Women Officers and Wifebeating Cover-up

Los Angeles -- At a press conference today the Feminist Majority Foundation and the National Center for Women & Policing, joined by City Council members Jackie Goldberg and Rita Walters, called for an independent investigation of gender bias within the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). “The call for an investigation follows recent revelations in the media of widespread, orchestrated harassment and intimidation of women officers and the Department's cover-up and failure to prosecute officers who engage in brutal wife-beating and family violence.
The Los Angeles Police Commission is expected to soon release a 250-page report on the Department's investigation of the Mark Fuhrman tapes. The tapes confirm the existence of a clandestine all-male organization within the LAPD called 'Men Against Women' (MAW), whose ultimate objective is to drive women from the force using harassment and intimidation. The organization, founded in the mid-1980's following a federal court order to hire more women officers, also used mock trials of male officers accused of "fraternizing" with women officers.


http://www.feminist.org/news/pressstory.asp?id=4577



The July 30, 1996 edition of the Los Angeles Times reported that former Detective Mark Fuhrman would receive a reprimand for disparaging the abilities of female police officers. Fuhrman participated actively in creating a hostile work environment during his time at the West Los Angeles Police station were he allegedly was a member of a group know as Men Against Women. The Los Angeles Police Department may not legally be able to impose more than a reprimand on Mr. Fuhrman for his activities in disparaging women officers and creating a hostile work environment. However, the LAPD can and must take action against the daily disparaging of women officers that occurs in nearly every precinct and division in the Police Department.



http://www.womenandpolicing.org/ncwpTestCivRights.html

[William Anthony]

i like how he stopped and 'PUT A PIN IN THAT" It is like he is talking to a personal friend.

That was part of his magnificence, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

In light of furhmans involvement in MAW it is odd to see so many women giving him full support.

He and his supporters may deserve the "Fickle Finger of Fate" award.

[martin II]

The Blue Wall of Silence.


http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/what-is-meant-by-the-blue-wall-of-silence.htm

[William Anthony]

Feminist Majority Foundation and National Center For Women & Policing Call for Citizens' Commission to Oversee Independent Investigation of Gender Bias In LAPD
Department Plagued by Reports of Sexual Harassment and Threats Against Women Officers and Wifebeating Cover-up

Los Angeles -- At a press conference today the Feminist Majority Foundation and the National Center for Women & Policing, joined by City Council members Jackie Goldberg and Rita Walters, called for an independent investigation of gender bias within the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). “The call for an investigation follows recent revelations in the media of widespread, orchestrated harassment and intimidation of women officers and the Department's cover-up and failure to prosecute officers who engage in brutal wife-beating and family violence.
The Los Angeles Police Commission is expected to soon release a 250-page report on the Department's investigation of the Mark Fuhrman tapes. The tapes confirm the existence of a clandestine all-male organization within the LAPD called 'Men Against Women' (MAW), whose ultimate objective is to drive women from the force using harassment and intimidation. The organization, founded in the mid-1980's following a federal court order to hire more women officers, also used mock trials of male officers accused of "fraternizing" with women officers.


http://www.feminist.org/news/pressstory.asp?id=4577



The July 30, 1996 edition of the Los Angeles Times reported that former Detective Mark Fuhrman would receive a reprimand for disparaging the abilities of female police officers. Fuhrman participated actively in creating a hostile work environment during his time at the West Los Angeles Police station were he allegedly was a member of a group know as Men Against Women. The Los Angeles Police Department may not legally be able to impose more than a reprimand on Mr. Fuhrman for his activities in disparaging women officers and creating a hostile work environment. However, the LAPD can and must take action against the daily disparaging of women officers that occurs in nearly every precinct and division in the Police Department.



http://www.womenandpolicing.org/ncwpTestCivRights.html

I don't understand this, unless LAPD did not have a policy against gender discrimination by its employees, as it pertains to those employees, who disparaged other employees on the basis of their gender.

[William Anthony]

The Blue Wall of Silence.


http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/what-is-meant-by-the-blue-wall-of-silence.htm

A very interesting and informative link, IMHO.

[martin II]

He and his supporters may deserve the "Fickle Finger of Fate" award.

Most women denounce men that work against equality for women in the work place.

[William Anthony]

Most women denounce men that work against equality for women in the work place.

Which is why I say they are fickled and MF seems to have disparaged some of his staunchest supporters, judging from some of the posters on this board.

[GreenIce]

The picture was taken from up high looking down on the glove.Rockingham glove.
Wagner says that the only position that the photographer could have been in
when the picture was taken was from standing on top of the fence. There was no ladder or anything else to stand on to get that picture from that angle. That the one bent wire on top of the fence was directly above the glove so the photographer had to be standing on top of the fence and bent that one wire when he took the picture..imo

Martin,

Who directed the photographer to get that shot of the glove? It appears to me that the crime scene photographers work closely with the detectives and are told what pictures to take and from what angles.

However, didn't Dr. Lee go back there and he said no one climbed that fence?
No one jumped over the fence?

[GreenIce]

I think you posted something one time a few months ago that I agreed with but now I can't remember what it was...oh, well...at least we agree on this! :tongue:

TV,

The world will be a better place for it!:)

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Who directed the photographer to get that shot of the glove? It appears to me that the crime scene photographers work closely with the detectives and are told what pictures to take and from what angles.

However, didn't Dr. Lee go back there and he said no one climbed that fence?
No one jumped over the fence?

I don't know which glove you are speaking of but here is the testimony about the Bundy glove.

"MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, if, as you indicated yesterday during the interview, that you first encountered Mark Fuhrman at 4:10 A.M., how long did it take you to walk with Mark Fuhrman to the location where these items of evidence were in the green foliage approximately?

MR. ROKAHR: I really don't want to narrow myself down on that because I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you for a specific--whether it's four minutes or seven minutes, sir. I'm just asking you, would it be fair to say, for instance, that it's less than 15 minutes from the time that Mr. Fuhrman encountered you and the time you got to those items of evidence which are in the green foliage?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Would that be a fair estimate of time?

MR. ROKAHR: Could be 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, 30. I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would it be a fair estimate that it was something between 15 minutes and 30 minutes?

MR. ROKAHR: I think it's a fair estimate.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. So, sir, if, as you told me yesterday, that it was approximately 4:10 in the morning when you encountered Mr. Fuhrman at 875 Bundy at the time that he was having you take pictures of items of evidence that were in and about the green foliage, would that be sometime between 4:25 in the morning and 4:40 in the morning based on your estimate, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I would say it's fair.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the couple of pictures that Detective Fuhrman instructed you to take at that point, sir, were they pictures of Mr. Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fuhrman--I'm sorry. Did Detective Fuhrman instruct you to take any pictures of him pointing at objects of evidence?

MR. ROKAHR: No, he didn't. I requested him to point to the evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And was the evidence that you requested him to point to the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that would be the glove and the hat at Bundy; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you at that moment take pictures of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, was one of the reasons that you asked Detective Fuhrman to point to the item is because it was nighttime and thus, the glove was difficult to see?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct."

[tv]

TV,

The world will be a better place for it!:)I'm all for helping make the world a better place so it looks like you and I agree once again! This could get to be a habit. :)

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

I have been going through Jeff Toobin's book, "The Run Of His Life". I have discovered some interesting things, and I wonder if you picked up on these.

The Westec person who gave Simpson's phone number of the cops told them a maid was supposed to be on the premisis--never said she lived inside the main the house. There were three guest houses, Arnelle had one, Kato had one and the maid had the other. If the maid never had a room inside the main house, then why did Vanatter say he asked Arnelle where the maid's room was? Also, why didn't any of the four detectives ask Kato or Arnelle about the maid? Like do you know where the maid it is?

Also, Phillips and Fuhrman were given the order to give a personal notification to Simpson at 2:30 a.m. After they "lost" the case", they just stood around and waited for the replacements--Lange and Vanatter. Phillips kept on bring up the personal notification issue. Vanatter kept putting it off until he saw the rest of the crime scene.

IMO, what this means, is that Phillips and Fuhrman had permission to go to Rockingham long before Lange and Vanatter arrived at the crime scene. IMO, had anyone seen Fuhrman at Rockingham that night or Phillips, such as the maid next door---they were covered with the "personal notification" cover story.

Also, the notes Lange does take about what MF told him aren't making sense, he said that MF told him about the time he want to the Simpsons'. However, Lange notes contain that he was arrested in one incident. First off, MF's never filed a criminal report because no crime had taken place. That means that Lange and Vanatter were told of at least two incidents. I can see not jumping the gun on the 1985 incident but knowing a later incident was much different and the police were called and charges were filed. I don't think Simpson was ever arrested but I know charges were filed.

Did Arnelle, Kato or the maid ever testify to where Simpson normally parked his Bronco, on which street? According to Toobin, it was not MF who noticed the bronco parked a little askewed--it was Vanatter.

One more interesting note, Nicole's residence on her registration for her jeep plates, was Rockingham. Riske ran the plates. So it was Nicole's jeep was linked to Rockingham very quickly. I wonder if her car also had the address as Rockingham.

[GreenIce]

I don't know which glove you are speaking of but here is the testimony about the Bundy glove.

"MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, if, as you indicated yesterday during the interview, that you first encountered Mark Fuhrman at 4:10 A.M., how long did it take you to walk with Mark Fuhrman to the location where these items of evidence were in the green foliage approximately?

MR. ROKAHR: I really don't want to narrow myself down on that because I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you for a specific--whether it's four minutes or seven minutes, sir. I'm just asking you, would it be fair to say, for instance, that it's less than 15 minutes from the time that Mr. Fuhrman encountered you and the time you got to those items of evidence which are in the green foliage?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Would that be a fair estimate of time?

MR. ROKAHR: Could be 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, 30. I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would it be a fair estimate that it was something between 15 minutes and 30 minutes?

MR. ROKAHR: I think it's a fair estimate.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. So, sir, if, as you told me yesterday, that it was approximately 4:10 in the morning when you encountered Mr. Fuhrman at 875 Bundy at the time that he was having you take pictures of items of evidence that were in and about the green foliage, would that be sometime between 4:25 in the morning and 4:40 in the morning based on your estimate, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I would say it's fair.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the couple of pictures that Detective Fuhrman instructed you to take at that point, sir, were they pictures of Mr. Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fuhrman--I'm sorry. Did Detective Fuhrman instruct you to take any pictures of him pointing at objects of evidence?

MR. ROKAHR: No, he didn't. I requested him to point to the evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And was the evidence that you requested him to point to the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that would be the glove and the hat at Bundy; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you at that moment take pictures of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, was one of the reasons that you asked Detective Fuhrman to point to the item is because it was nighttime and thus, the glove was difficult to see?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct."

William,

I was talking about the Rockingham glove.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I have been going through Jeff Toobin's book, "The Run Of His Life". I have discovered some interesting things, and I wonder if you picked up on these.

The Westec person who gave Simpson's phone number of the cops told them a maid was supposed to be on the premisis--never said she lived inside the main the house. There were three guest houses, Arnelle had one, Kato had one and the maid had the other. If the maid never had a room inside the main house, then why did Vanatter say he asked Arnelle where the maid's room was? Also, why didn't any of the four detectives ask Kato or Arnelle about the maid? Like do you know where the maid it is?

Also, Phillips and Fuhrman were given the order to give a personal notification to Simpson at 2:30 a.m. After they "lost" the case", they just stood around and waited for the replacements--Lange and Vanatter. Phillips kept on bring up the personal notification issue. Vanatter kept putting it off until he saw the rest of the crime scene.

IMO, what this means, is that Phillips and Fuhrman had permission to go to Rockingham long before Lange and Vanatter arrived at the crime scene. IMO, had anyone seen Fuhrman at Rockingham that night or Phillips, such as the maid next door---they were covered with the "personal notification" cover story.

Also, the notes Lange does take about what MF told him aren't making sense, he said that MF told him about the time he want to the Simpsons'. However, Lange notes contain that he was arrested in one incident. First off, MF's never filed a criminal report because no crime had taken place. That means that Lange and Vanatter were told of at least two incidents. I can see not jumping the gun on the 1985 incident but knowing a later incident was much different and the police were called and charges were filed. I don't think Simpson was ever arrested but I know charges were filed.

Did Arnelle, Kato or the maid ever testify to where Simpson normally parked his Bronco, on which street? According to Toobin, it was not MF who noticed the bronco parked a little askewed--it was Vanatter.

One more interesting note, Nicole's residence on her registration for her jeep plates, was Rockingham. Riske ran the plates. So it was Nicole's jeep was linked to Rockingham very quickly. I wonder if her car also had the address as Rockingham.

The personal notification thing makes no sense in regard to four detectives going to make notification, as well as MF milking the clock. Seeing a car parked askew is probably the highest example of unbelievable excellent detective work in regard to a belief that something untoward had happened and allegedly not knowing at the time to whom the car belonged, just as seeing socks in a bedroom looked out of place and later claimed to have one of the victim's blood on them. I think Kato testified to the Bronco's normal parking place. Yes, they should have been concerned about the maid's whereabouts, if it was true that they were concerned they might find other victims. I know those poor detectives did not find out from Riske of the Rockingham address and knew of no other way to find it than to have MF direct them.:)

[William Anthony]

William,

I was talking about the Rockingham glove.

I will have to research that issue as my memory fails me as to who took a picture of the glove in the location where it was allegedly found, if there was one taken.

[GreenIce]

I will have to research that issue as my memory fails me as to who took a picture of the glove in the location where it was allegedly found, if there was one taken.

William,

Martin made a post about a picture taken, I think Rohkar. That he climbed the fence, stood on the wire and took a picture from above the Rockingham glove. I hope that reads clearer to you--I don't know another way to ask.

[William Anthony]

William,

Martin made a post about a picture taken, I think Rohkar. That he climbed the fence, stood on the wire and took a picture from above the Rockingham glove. I hope that reads clearer to you--I don't know another way to ask.

I saw the picture and read that interesting article, with which some parts I agree completely, but I did not see anything in Rohkar's testimony that he took the picture. There was obviously a picture taken which looks like it was taken from a top view of the area.

[GreenIce]

The personal notification thing makes no sense in regard to four detectives going to make notification, as well as MF milking the clock. Seeing a car parked askew is probably the highest example of unbelievable excellent detective work in regard to a belief that something untoward had happened and allegedly not knowing at the time to whom the car belonged, just as seeing socks in a bedroom looked out of place and later claimed to have one of the victim's blood on them. I think Kato testified to the Bronco's normal parking place. Yes, they should have been concerned about the maid's whereabouts, if it was true that they were concerned they might find other victims. I know those poor detectives did not find out from Riske of the Rockingham address and knew of no other way to find it than to have MF direct them.:)

William,

By Phillips and MF not going to Rockingham ASAP, doesn't this mean they were disobeying a direct order and just stood around and talked for an hour before Lange and Vanatter got there?

Simpson's car was parked on Rockingham, correct? Toobin's book says that Arnelle was looking for her father's car on Ashford, that is where he always parked it. I am getting really confused!!!!!

He also writes that MF being a Jr. detective, he back off and had nothing to do so he walked around the coroner to the Bronco. Well, what if someone had answered the call or the buzzer? He, as a Jr. detective, just walks off on his own? Didn't they take two different cars? So how did MF know that Vanatter noticed the Bronco was parked like it was parked in a hurry but never acted on it?

[William Anthony]

William,

By Phillips and MF not going to Rockingham ASAP, doesn't this mean they were disobeying a direct order and just stood around and talked for an hour before Lange and Vanatter got there?

Simpson's car was parked on Rockingham, correct? Toobin's book says that Arnelle was looking for her father's car on Ashford, that is where he always parked it. I am getting really confused!!!!!

He also writes that MF being a Jr. detective, he back off and had nothing to do so he walked around the coroner to the Bronco. Well, what if someone had answered the call or the buzzer? He, as a Jr. detective, just walks off on his own? Didn't they take two different cars? So how did MF know that Vanatter noticed the Bronco was parked like it was parked in a hurry but never acted on it?

The obeying a direct order thing was attempted to be handled with a convoluted definition of what immediate meant.:)

I think that is what the testimony was by Kato-he had never seen the car parked on Rockingham. I may be confused also.

MF was quite busy once he got to Rockingham and very lackadaisical while he was at Bundy where the victims' bodies were, IMHO.

[GreenIce]

The obeying a direct order thing was attempted to be handled with a convoluted definition of what immediate meant.:)

I think that is what the testimony was by Kato-he had never seen the car parked on Rockingham. I may be confused also.

MF was quite busy once he got to Rockingham and very lackadaisical while he was at Bundy where the victims' bodies were, IMHO.

William,

You have had this debate forever with Bob--at what gate was Park at when he saw Kato, I thought it was Rockingham. Is that correct?

[GreenIce]

William,

IMO, I think Phillips and MF getting the order at 2:30 a.m. to give personal notification as well as telling Lange and Vanatter about the DV calls, proves that it more likely then not that at least MF went to Rockingham before the four of them went.

He had ever legal reason to do so and IMO, it was the only conclusion he could have come to at that time.

MF walking away and walking the corner to the Bronco, IMO proves he knew no one was going to answer the buzzer at the gate.

[William Anthony]

William,

You have had this debate forever with Bob--at what gate was Park at when he saw Kato, I thought it was Rockingham. Is that correct?

No, according to the testimony, Park was at the Ashford gate.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, I think Phillips and MF getting the order at 2:30 a.m. to give personal notification as well as telling Lange and Vanatter about the DV calls, proves that it more likely then not that at least MF went to Rockingham before the four of them went.

He had ever legal reason to do so and IMO, it was the only conclusion he could have come to at that time.

MF walking away and walking the corner to the Bronco, IMO proves he knew no one was going to answer the buzzer at the gate.

I think that there is any question they disobeyed a direct order.

I do not know whether he went to Rockingham before the others.

Although MF was off the case, he did a lot of investigating on his own. The why is the question and the reason why in my mind.

[GreenIce]

No, according to t he testimony, Park was at the Ashford gate.

William,

Did you ever read the testimony of Mr. Cale? He was a DA's witness regarding the Bronco?

Reading his testimony, it seems to me that his testimony just doesn't ring true.

Did the DA's highlight the fact that Simpson normally parked the Bronco on Ashford and not Rockingham?

[William Anthony]

William,

Did you ever read the testimony of Mr. Cale? He was a DA's witness regarding the Bronco?

Reading his testimony, it seems to me that his testimony just doesn't ring true.

Did the DA's highlight the fact that Simpson normally parked the Bronco on Ashford and not Rockingham?

If I did read Mr. Cale's testimony, I don't think I paid attention to it and I don't remember reading it but I will look again.

The prosecution tried to make muster of the fact that he normally parked on Ashford, IIRC. However, let me look to make sure. A quick look revealed that it was Ashford.

[GreenIce]

I think that there is no question they disobeyed a direct order.

I do not know whether he went to Rockingham before the others.

Although MF was off the case, he did a lot of investigating on his own. The why is the question and the reason why in my mind.

William,

The more I think about it, the more it makes no sense that Lange and Vanatter would want MF and Phillips taken off of the case. It appears to me that Lange and Vanatter had to know that MF had very valuable information and possibly Phillips. Wouldn't it only help Lange and VA to keep them on the case.

Another thing, when Riske called in about the murders, he explained why he did not use the house phone. He knew that Simpson was a celebrity and that this would be a high profile. So if that is the case, why was Phillips sent out and not someone from RHD right away?

Also, Phillips called MF in, yet MF wasn't on call. Why did Phillips call him? According to MF, he says he didn't know why Phillips called him but he knew that if Ron called him, Ron needed him----why?

[William Anthony]

I skimmed Mr. Cale's testimony and I remember it from the trial. It makes no sense as it proves nothing. As I recall, the Bronco was parked inside the gate at sometime and then Simpson moved it to the street. In the part I skimmed, I did not see a question as to whether or not Mr. Cale looked inside the Rockingham gate to see if the Bronco was on the driveway.

[William Anthony]

William,

The more I think about it, the more it makes no sense that Lange and Vanatter would want MF and Phillips taken off of the case. It appears to me that Lange and Vanatter had to know that MF had very valuable information and possibly Phillips. Wouldn't it only help Lange and VA to keep them on the case.

Another thing, when Riske called in about the murders, he explained why he did not use the house phone. He knew that Simpson was a celebrity and that this would be a high profile. So if that is the case, why was Phillips sent out and not someone from RHD right away?

Also, Phillips called MF in, yet MF wasn't on call. Why did Phillips call him? According to MF, he says he didn't know why Phillips called him but he knew that if Ron called him, Ron needed him----why?

I thought that Riske testified he did use the house phone for the reason you stated. Phillips obviously needed MF's expertise, :), whereas Vannatter and Lang and the higher-ups did not think it was needed or maybe wanted. I believe the testimony was that robbery homicide had better resources, whatever that may mean as it pertains to human resources, such as MF.

[GreenIce]

I thought that Riske testified he did use the house phone for the reason you stated. Phillips obviously needed MF's expertise, :), whereas Vannatter and Lang and the higher-ups did not think it was needed or maybe wanted. I believe the testimony was that robbery homicide had better resources, whatever that may mean as it pertains to human resources, such as MF.

William,

That is what I thought, that RHD was an "elite" unit that handled high profile cases. So why weren't the called first?

[William Anthony]

William,

That is what I thought, that RHD was an "elite" unit that handled high profile cases. So why weren't the called first?

Could it be that they needed MF to use his expertise to access the situation and do what needed to be done before the arrival of RHD?

[martin II]

I skimmed Mr. Cale's testimony and I remember it from the trial. It makes no sense as it proves nothing. As I recall, the Bronco was parked inside the gate at sometime and then Simpson moved it to the street. In the part I skimmed, I did not see a question as to whether or not Mr. Cale looked inside the Rockingham gate to see if the Bronco was on the driveway.

see Shapero sp questioning of cale. he was not truthful. i will look fo the info that he wanted to be in the case and had a friend call le for him so they would come to him. he was not truthful about where he was on rockingham. if he was where he claimed to be he would have seem the bently when oj and kato returned from the burger place.he says he did not see it.

[martin II]

I thought that Riske testified he did use the house phone for the reason you stated. Phillips obviously needed MF's expertise, :), whereas Vannatter and Lang and the higher-ups did not think it was needed or maybe wanted. I believe the testimony was that robbery homicide had better resources, whatever that may mean as it pertains to human resources, such as MF.

Riske did use the house phone.
i think phillips called mf. but vanhatter and lang knowing his history decided to bump him because at that time they were playing it straight.but as we know mf hung around and managed to put himself right in the middle of the investigation to do what he does.

[martin II]

I saw the picture and read that interesting article, with which some parts I agree completely, but I did not see anything in Rohkar's testimony that he took the picture. There was obviously a picture taken which looks like it was taken from a top view of the area.

i don't think it was Rohkar. it was another media photographer. i will read wagner to see.

[William Anthony]

see Shapero sp questioning of cale. he was not truthful. i will look fo the info that he wanted to be in the case and had a friend call le for him so they would come to him. he was not truthful about where he was on rockingham. if he was where he claimed to be he would have seem the bently when oj and kato returned from the burger place.he says he did not see it.


Thanks,

It is as I suspected.

"Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT ABOUT A BENTLEY? DID YOU SEE ANY BENTLEY AT THE ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY AT 9:35?

A: NO, SIR. I DIDN'T LOOK INTO THE PROPERTY.

Q: PARDON?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT ABOUT A BENTLEY? DID YOU SEE ANY BENTLEY AT THE ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY AT 9:35?

A: NO, SIR. I DIDN'T LOOK INTO THE PROPERTY.

Q: PARDON?

A: I DIDN'T -- I MEAN, I DIDN'T LOOK IN THE GATE."

[William Anthony]

Riske did use the house phone.
i think phillips called mf. but vanhatter and lang knowing his history decided to bump him because at that time they were playing it straight.but as we know mf hung around and managed to put himself right in the middle of the investigation to do what he does.

I think MF may have misunderstood, when Vannatter told him we have been placed in the thick of it, to mean place it in the thicket.:)

[martin II]

William and Martin,

I have been going through Jeff Toobin's book, "The Run Of His Life". I have discovered some interesting things, and I wonder if you picked up on these.

The Westec person who gave Simpson's phone number of the cops told them a maid was supposed to be on the premisis--never said she lived inside the main the house. There were three guest houses, Arnelle had one, Kato had one and the maid had the other. If the maid never had a room inside the main house, then why did Vanatter say he asked Arnelle where the maid's room was? Also, why didn't any of the four detectives ask Kato or Arnelle about the maid? Like do you know where the maid it is?

Also, Phillips and Fuhrman were given the order to give a personal notification to Simpson at 2:30 a.m. After they "lost" the case", they just stood around and waited for the replacements--Lange and Vanatter. Phillips kept on bring up the personal notification issue. Vanatter kept putting it off until he saw the rest of the crime scene.

IMO, what this means, is that Phillips and Fuhrman had permission to go to Rockingham long before Lange and Vanatter arrived at the crime scene. IMO, had anyone seen Fuhrman at Rockingham that night or Phillips, such as the maid next door---they were covered with the "personal notification" cover story.

Also, the notes Lange does take about what MF told him aren't making sense, he said that MF told him about the time he want to the Simpsons'. However, Lange notes contain that he was arrested in one incident. First off, MF's never filed a criminal report because no crime had taken place. That means that Lange and Vanatter were told of at least two incidents. I can see not jumping the gun on the 1985 incident but knowing a later incident was much different and the police were called and charges were filed. I don't think Simpson was ever arrested but I know charges were filed.

Did Arnelle, Kato or the maid ever testify to where Simpson normally parked his Bronco, on which street? According to Toobin, it was not MF who noticed the bronco parked a little askewed--it was Vanatter.

One more interesting note, Nicole's residence on her registration for her jeep plates, was Rockingham. Riske ran the plates. So it was Nicole's jeep was linked to Rockingham very quickly. I wonder if her car also had the address as Rockingham.

oj normally parked his car on Ashford. that day he drove it into the yard to get something out and then drove it out of the rockingham side driveway and parked it on rockingham where it was found. katos car was also parked in the Ashford spot.

i don't remember who testified to this but there was a period of time at bundy when vanhatter was in the front yard that MF went around to the alley behind nicoles garage and was not seen by vanhatter/Lang for a period of time.i don't remember how long he was gone. does anyone remember this?

[William Anthony]

oj normally parked his car on Ashford. that day he drove it into the yard to get something out and then drove it out of the rockingham side driveway and parked it on rockingham where it was found. katos car was also parked in the Ashford spot.

i don't remember who testified to this but there was a period of time at bundy when vanhatter was in the front yard that MF went around to the alley behind nicoles garage and was not seen by vanhatter/Lang for a period of time.i don't remember how long he was gone. does anyone remember this?

I thought that there was some testimony to the effect or maybe it was in closing arguments that MF was watched for some reason at all times when he was in the crime scenes, except when he went behind Kato's quarters.

[martin II]

Thanks,

It is as I suspected.

"Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT ABOUT A BENTLEY? DID YOU SEE ANY BENTLEY AT THE ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY AT 9:35?

A: NO, SIR. I DIDN'T LOOK INTO THE PROPERTY.

Q: PARDON?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT ABOUT A BENTLEY? DID YOU SEE ANY BENTLEY AT THE ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY AT 9:35?

A: NO, SIR. I DIDN'T LOOK INTO THE PROPERTY.

Q: PARDON?

A: I DIDN'T -- I MEAN, I DIDN'T LOOK IN THE GATE."

you see.
If he was standing at ashford and rockingham at 9;35 as he said he was he would have seen the bently pull up at 9;35 with kato and oj.the bently would have the lights on and there would not be a lot of other cars on the street.

Cale thought he would just be able to say he did not see the bronco.. he forgot that the bently arrived at the time he was there and shaperio caught him off guard by asking about the bently.

[William Anthony]

oj normally parked his car on Ashford. that day he drove it into the yard to get something out and then drove it out of the rockingham side driveway and parked it on rockingham where it was found. katos car was also parked in the Ashford spot.

i don't remember who testified to this but there was a period of time at bundy when vanhatter was in the front yard that MF went around to the alley behind nicoles garage and was not seen by vanhatter/Lang for a period of time.i don't remember how long he was gone. does anyone remember this?

From the magnificent one's closing,

"Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time."

[William Anthony]

you see.
If he was standing at ashford and rockingham at 9;35 as he said he was he would have seen the bently pull up at 9;35 with kato and oj.the bently would have the lights on and there would not be a lot of other cars on the street.

Cale thought he would just be able to say he did not see the bronco.. he forgot that the bently arrived at the time he was there and shaperio caught him off guard by asking about the bently.

Exactly, and that is why, even if it was later that he was on the corner, his testimony proves nothing as he did not look onto the property through the gate.

[martin II]

9:33 Bentley arrives - Cale must be later
BY MR. SHAPIRO: When you were walking your dog, sir, did you see a Bently automobile driving up Rockingham?
Cales: No, sir.
SHAPIRO: If a Bentley had been driving up between 9:30 and 9:45, would you be in a position to see it?
Cales: If it had its headlights on, and --
SHAPIRO: Did you see that vehicle driving up between 9:30 and 9:45?
Cales: No, sir.

So the bently drives up rockingham at 9;33 9;35 with head lights on. cale says he is sure his time was 9;35. yet he did not see the bently arrive at 9;35

[martin II]

Exactly, and that is why, even if it was later that he was on the corner, his testimony proves nothing as he did not look onto the property through the gate.

Correct

he knew he was suppose to say he did not see the bronco.but like other witnesses that lie, he forgot and said he did not see any car including the bently that arrived at 9;35 WITH HEAD LKIGHTS ON when he said he was there.Shaperio asked him it he could be wrong about his time he said NO he was sure.

[martin II]

From the magnificent one's closing,

"Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time."

I guess someone must have said look mf is there watch him closely.

[William Anthony]

Correct

he knew he was suppose to say he did not see the bronco.but like other witnesses that lie, he forgot and said he did not see any car including the bently that arrived at 9;35 WITH HEAD LKIGHTS ON when he said he was there.Shaperio asked him it he could be wrong about his time he said NO he was sure.

Remember the prosecution called Mr. Cale. Did you mean human mistake and error?

[William Anthony]

I guess someone must have said look mf is there watch him closely.

Why would they not want MF, who was specifically called out, not to have the opportunity to have access to any evidence?

[William Anthony]

oj normally parked his car on Ashford. that day he drove it into the yard to get something out and then drove it out of the rockingham side driveway and parked it on rockingham where it was found. katos car was also parked in the Ashford spot.

i don't remember who testified to this but there was a period of time at bundy when vanhatter was in the front yard that MF went around to the alley behind nicoles garage and was not seen by vanhatter/Lang for a period of time.i don't remember how long he was gone. does anyone remember this?

Let's see, MF goes to the alley, the Bronco and behind Kato's quarters alone. Things that make you go----

[martin II]

Review of Rubins testimony,

Rubin the glove expert testified that once his tight fitting glove is on ones hands one HAS TO TAKE THEM OFF BY PULLING EACH FINGER ONE AT A TIME.
If he accept his testimony then it seems that it would be impossible for the left hand glove to have cone off in the fight with Ron as it was not be
possible for Ron to do what Rubin said is required to get the glove off. It also would be impossible or very unlikely for oj to have just dropped the right hand glove at Rockingham when he was supposed to have jumped that fence.imo

[fgump2]

Review of Rubins testimony,

Rubin the glove expert testified that once his tight fitting glove is on ones hands one HAS TO TAKE THEM OFF BY PULLING EACH FINGER ONE AT A TIME.
If he accept his testimony then it seems that it would be impossible for the left hand glove to have cone off in the fight with Ron as it was not be
possible for Ron to do what Rubin said is required to get the glove off. It also would be impossible or very unlikely for oj to have just dropped the right hand glove at Rockingham when he was supposed to have jumped that fence.imo

What you wrote is misleading. Simpson may have taken the right hand glove off before he drove the bronco home. THe left glove is harder to explain. Simpson may have taken the glove off deliberately, although I don't know why he would have done that. SInce Ron and Orenthal were struggling with a lot of intensity, improbably things were bound to happen.

In a situation as complicated as two people getting murdered there are bound to be some improbable results. To give an example, suppose a man gets in an airplane on a windy day with a tennis ball, and flys up to a high altitude, and then throws out the tennis ball. The chances of the tennis ball landing in any one place are extremely small, and yet the tennis ball has to land somewhere. To ask the prosecution to explain things like why the left glove came off is like trying to explain why the (hypothetical) tennis ball landed in one location instead of another location.

The possibility of Orenthal leaving his left hand glove at Bundy after killing two people is much easier to believe in than the number of coincidences necessary to think Orenthal could be innocent.

[William Anthony]

The above post may be a well written treatise on misunderstanding the concept of reasonable doubt, in that it relies on what is easier to believe rather than what is required to be proven and what is reasonable to believe and is based on a lot of hypothetical assumption to support a conclusion. Evidence must be produced that allows a reasonable inference that one took a tennis ball onto an airplane, dropped said tennis ball while on the airplane at a particular time and based on the weather conditions at the time the ball was dropped that it would land where it did, not just some place. However, if the above post was meant to show that the prosecution dropped the ball, then I agree.

[William Anthony]

What you wrote is misleading. Simpson may have taken the right hand glove off before he drove the bronco home. THe left glove is harder to explain. Simpson may have taken the glove off deliberately, although I don't know why he would have done that. SInce Ron and Orenthal were struggling with a lot of intensity, improbably things were bound to happen.

In a situation as complicated as two people getting murdered there are bound to be some improbable results. To give an example, suppose a man gets in an airplane on a windy day with a tennis ball, and flys up to a high altitude, and then throws out the tennis ball. The chances of the tennis ball landing in any one place are extremely small, and yet the tennis ball has to land somewhere. To ask the prosecution to explain things like why the left glove came off is like trying to explain why the (hypothetical) tennis ball landed in one location instead of another location.

The possibility of Orenthal leaving his left hand glove at Bundy after killing two people is much easier to believe in than the number of coincidences necessary to think Orenthal could be innocent.

I truly think I understand what you may be saying. However, some use this type of thinking to excuse the prosecution's failure to meet its burden on issues it brought forth.

[fgump2]

In light of furhmans involvement in MAW it is odd to see so many women giving him full support.

I haven't seen much full support for Fuhrman on this board or anywhere else from either men or women.
Could you give some evidence that a large portion of the american public has ever supportd either Fuhrman or the racist statements he made.

The most I have seen some support for him on two issues.
First of all most people think that regardless of what his faults are or were, he probably didn't tamper with the evidence of the 2 murders in question.

Secondly there are many people who feel sympathy for Fuhrman because of the amount of criticism and riducule he has recieved. I feel this way myself. Everyone would look bad if they were judged on their worst statements.
I think there is good and bad in everyone.

I disapprove of both the racist and eqostistical traits he showed.statements he made, and also of the eqostistical statements he made, but I also disapprove of the amount of hatred and scorn that some people show Fuhrman. As many people have said ,hatred cannot be ended by hatred.

I remember as a kid sometimes observing the amount of hatred and scorn that some kids recieved from others, and I sometims thought that regardless of their misdeeds, the unpopular kids shouldn't be treated that way. I guess a lot of people have never felt that sympathy for an unpopular person.

[fgump2]

Greenice has criticized people who complain about Orenthal trashing Nicole, I try to show here that he did trash here unnecearily.
First of all some Greenice comments from post 10165: The defense could have destroyed Nicole and they did not. Simpson would not hear of it. He did not want Nicole trashed. The only trashing of Nicole during the early days and the criminal trial were done by her family and friends. You only need to read Faye's book and Shelia Weller's book.

I find very interesting when ever a G is asked to provide examples of the "trashing" Simpson did, none are ever given. Since none are never given, it is really difficult to understand why you feel he trashed her and had a vested interest in trashing Nicole. He had nothing to gain to by this and he knew it.

The most important part of the trash Nicole defense was the "World of Faye Resnick" remarks that Orenthal and is defense team made. This annoyed people, and yet it could be defended if it was true. But if it was true, then why didn't Orenthal say something about it in his statement to the police? Also is there any evidence that either Orenthal or his defense team communicated this information in the week after the murders? I think it was something they coooked up later.

Nicole and Orenthal accused each other of illegal drug use in the year or so before her death. It is common for people in an bad relationship to make the same accusation against each other. Pro Orenthal people are being either naive or deliberately dishonest if they listen only to Orenthal's side.

Martin supplied some of Orenthal's unnecesary criticism of Nicole in his post,
10361: On Friday, Simpson spoke of the messy end of his relationship with Ms. Simpson, saying that in the months before her murder she was volatile, obsessive, unpredictable. "I didn't know who I was talking to from day to day. She was loving one day, upset about something the next day."
He said she followed him around, harassed his maid and called him just to yell at him. Just days before her murder, Simpson ordered his maid and personal assistant to take calls from Ms. Simpson only if they dealt with the couple's children, Sydney and Justin. "I just felt I needed to separate myself from her," he said. "It seemed to be problem after problem after problem...
I just decided I needed to distance myself."

This is bound to add to the discomfort of his Justin and Sydney. It was not made to serve any purpose in court, it wasn't made in response to a question by a lawyer. The statement "Gentlemen don't talk" often refers to sexual acts, but it can and should refer to non sexual things also.

This statement that Martin quoted also contradicts what he wrote in his farewell note which included: "If we had a problem it was because I loved her so much. Recently we came to the conclusion that for now we were not right for each other.. Despite our love we were different, and that's why we mutually agreed to go our separate ways". Either this part of the farewell note was a lie, or the statement that Martin quoted was a lie. There is too much difference. I think both were lies.

Orenthal's friend Alan Austin came up with a third version of what was going on between Orenthal and Nicole in the weeks before the killings. Alan Austin said that Nicole dumped Orenthal, and that Orenthal was upset about this. I think there is other evidence that Nicole dumped him and he was upset about it.

If a person comes up with different versions of what happened during an important period of their life, it is reasonable to they weren't being honest.

The farewell note has contradictions in it also. At the start he said that their relationship was mutual love. at the end he wrote "At times I felt like a battered husband or boyfriend". This is hard to reconcile with his statements about mutual love and 'if we had a problem, it was because I loved her so much".

[William Anthony]

I haven't seen much full support for Fuhrman on this board or anywhere else from either men or women.
Could you give some evidence that a large portion of the american public has ever supportd either Fuhrman or the racist statements he made. (MF is seen and given a voice on national television)

The most I have seen some support for him on two issues.
First of all most people think that regardless of what his faults are or were, he probably didn't tamper with the evidence of the 2 murders in question.

Secondly there are many people who feel sympathy for Fuhrman because of the amount of criticism and riducule he has recieved. I feel this way myself. Everyone would look bad if they were judged on their worst statements.
I think there is good and bad in everyone. (I think it is far worse to judge anyone on the color of their skin and to tell someone that you would violated your oath to serve and protect when you saw an interracial couple.

I disapprove of both the racist and eqostistical traits he showed.statements he made, and also of the eqostistical statements he made, but I also disapprove of the amount of hatred and scorn that some people show Fuhrman. As many people have said ,hatred cannot be ended by hatred. (Disapproval is one thing but to say that MF made the statements only because he was in a screenplay is support, IMHO.)

I remember as a kid sometimes observing the amount of hatred and scorn that some kids recieved from others, and I sometims thought that regardless of their misdeeds, the unpopular kids shouldn't be treated that way. I guess a lot of people have never felt that sympathy for an unpopular person. (It appears that MF did not feel sympathy for the unpopular Black or Jewish races or the unpopular female gender.

I hope you understand my position.

[fgump2]

I hope you understand my position.

if Fuhrman was hostile to female police officers, it is odd that he was providing material for a woman who was going to write a play that would refute that point of view' also odd that he had good work relationships with some minority and femal police officers and employees; but of course people are complicated and full of contradictions.
I don't know if Fuhrman was ever a nazi in terms of either beliefs or actual membership. It is possible he was and is both.

When the 1995 SImpson trial was going on, I heard a lot of people talk about it. I never heard anyone support Fuhrman's neo nazi statements.

[William Anthony]

if Fuhrman was hostile to female police officers, it is odd that he was providing material for a woman who was going to write a play that would refute that point of view' also odd that he had good work relationships with some minority and femal police officers and employees; but of course people are complicated and full of contradictions.
I don't know if Fuhrman was ever a nazi in terms of either beliefs or actual membership. It is possible he was and is both.

When the 1995 SImpson trial was going on, I heard a lot of people talk about it. I never heard anyone support Fuhrman's neo nazi statements.

Let's just go by the statements on the tapes and the testimony of the witnesses and consider with all this evidence how America has embraced MF and supported him even though he is a convicted perjurer. He is often seen running his mouth on tv shows about crimes and has written, I think some poster claimed, a best selling novel. If there was no truth to one of the incidents he spoke of on the tapes, then there would be not need for him to tell Ms. LHM she could not use it, because the statute of limitation had not run out, IMHO.

[martin II]

if Fuhrman was hostile to female police officers, it is odd that he was providing material for a woman who was going to write a play that would refute that point of view' also odd that he had good work relationships with some minority and femal police officers and employees; but of course people are complicated and full of contradictions.
I don't know if Fuhrman was ever a nazi in terms of either beliefs or actual membership. It is possible he was and is both.

When the 1995 SImpson trial was going on, I heard a lot of people talk about it. I never heard anyone support Fuhrman's neo nazi statements.

Remember Furhman was origionally hired by LHM to talk about MAW because it was well known that MAW was hostile to women officers and he talked to her for money.
Also remember the officer that claimed furhman wrote the Nazi sign on his locker.

Furhman was not hired by LHM to refute the existance of MAW he was to talk about how MAW did prevent women from progress.

What is odd is that lapd never punished these white guys that were operating inside lapd with all of their hatred and breaking of the rules.

[martin II]

Greenice has criticized people who complain about Orenthal trashing Nicole, I try to show here that he did trash here unnecearily.
First of all some Greenice comments from post 10165: The defense could have destroyed Nicole and they did not. Simpson would not hear of it. He did not want Nicole trashed. The only trashing of Nicole during the early days and the criminal trial were done by her family and friends. You only need to read Faye's book and Shelia Weller's book.

I find very interesting when ever a G is asked to provide examples of the "trashing" Simpson did, none are ever given. Since none are never given, it is really difficult to understand why you feel he trashed her and had a vested interest in trashing Nicole. He had nothing to gain to by this and he knew it.

The most important part of the trash Nicole defense was the "World of Faye Resnick" remarks that Orenthal and is defense team made. This annoyed people, and yet it could be defended if it was true. But if it was true, then why didn't Orenthal say something about it in his statement to the police? Also is there any evidence that either Orenthal or his defense team communicated this information in the week after the murders? I think it was something they coooked up later.

Nicole and Orenthal accused each other of illegal drug use in the year or so before her death. It is common for people in an bad relationship to make the same accusation against each other. Pro Orenthal people are being either naive or deliberately dishonest if they listen only to Orenthal's side.

Martin supplied some of Orenthal's unnecesary criticism of Nicole in his post,
10361: On Friday, Simpson spoke of the messy end of his relationship with Ms. Simpson, saying that in the months before her murder she was volatile, obsessive, unpredictable. "I didn't know who I was talking to from day to day. She was loving one day, upset about something the next day."
He said she followed him around, harassed his maid and called him just to yell at him. Just days before her murder, Simpson ordered his maid and personal assistant to take calls from Ms. Simpson only if they dealt with the couple's children, Sydney and Justin. "I just felt I needed to separate myself from her," he said. "It seemed to be problem after problem after problem...
I just decided I needed to distance myself."

This is bound to add to the discomfort of his Justin and Sydney. It was not made to serve any purpose in court, it wasn't made in response to a question by a lawyer. The statement "Gentlemen don't talk" often refers to sexual acts, but it can and should refer to non sexual things also.

This statement that Martin quoted also contradicts what he wrote in his farewell note which included: "If we had a problem it was because I loved her so much. Recently we came to the conclusion that for now we were not right for each other.. Despite our love we were different, and that's why we mutually agreed to go our separate ways". Either this part of the farewell note was a lie, or the statement that Martin quoted was a lie. There is too much difference. I think both were lies.

Orenthal's friend Alan Austin came up with a third version of what was going on between Orenthal and Nicole in the weeks before the killings. Alan Austin said that Nicole dumped Orenthal, and that Orenthal was upset about this. I think there is other evidence that Nicole dumped him and he was upset about it.

If a person comes up with different versions of what happened during an important period of their life, it is reasonable to they weren't being honest.

The farewell note has contradictions in it also. At the start he said that their relationship was mutual love. at the end he wrote "At times I felt like a battered husband or boyfriend". This is hard to reconcile with his statements about mutual love and 'if we had a problem, it was because I loved her so much".

i don't think it is odd that two people have good times as well as bad in their relationships as nicole and oj did.i also don't find it odd that either or both would speak of it.

[martin II]

What you wrote is misleading. Simpson may have taken the right hand glove off before he drove the bronco home. THe left glove is harder to explain. Simpson may have taken the glove off deliberately, although I don't know why he would have done that. SInce Ron and Orenthal were struggling with a lot of intensity, improbably things were bound to happen.

In a situation as complicated as two people getting murdered there are bound to be some improbable results. To give an example, suppose a man gets in an airplane on a windy day with a tennis ball, and flys up to a high altitude, and then throws out the tennis ball. The chances of the tennis ball landing in any one place are extremely small, and yet the tennis ball has to land somewhere. To ask the prosecution to explain things like why the left glove came off is like trying to explain why the (hypothetical) tennis ball landed in one location instead of another location.

The possibility of Orenthal leaving his left hand glove at Bundy after killing two people is much easier to believe in than the number of coincidences necessary to think Orenthal could be innocent.

Some have said that the glove just came off in the struggle with ron.Rubin testified that this was unlikely to have happened based on what he knew was required to take the glove off.
if you dissagree with Rubin then take it to him. i have posted his testimony in a effort to inform those that thought the glove could have just fallen off.

[martin II]

Remember the prosecution called Mr. Cale. Did you mean human mistake and error?

Too much prompting.

[martin II]

Some have created many excuses as to how the glove at bundy came off the killers hand. One was that oj in the middle of a fight just stopped and took it off or that for some reason he took the glove off before the fight with ron.The only reasonable reason is the killer took it off and left it to be found as part of his larger plan.

[martin II]

Purdy, Andy—LAPD officer intimidated by Mark Fuhrman (see Coleman, Lucien). Mark Fuhrman openly harassed him for marrying a Jew. When someone broke into his locker and painted swastikas inside, the incident was investigated by Internal Affairs. The investigators found Fuhrman’s fingerprints inside. Purdy was a good friend of Deputy DA Lucien Coleman when he told her that Mark Fuhrman was capable of doing everything the defense accused him of, including planting evidence. He kept a log of Fuhrman’s racist activities until Coleman asked him to repeat his story to Bill Hodgman and Marcia Clark. He destroyed the log and told her that he would perjure himself rather than tell anyone in authority what he knew about Fuhrman.

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/Iago/appendix.htm

[William Anthony]

Some have said that the glove just came off in the struggle with ron.Rubin testified that this was unlikely to have happened based on what he knew was required to take the glove off.
if you dissagree with Rubin then take it to him. i have posted his testimony in a effort to inform those that thought the glove could have just fallen off.

The prosecution had Simpson, trying to avoid detection on a warm mid-June evening, dressed in what could be considered a clown disguise, including gloves that do not fit. If it does not fit...

[martin II]

if Fuhrman was hostile to female police officers, it is odd that he was providing material for a woman who was going to write a play that would refute that point of view' also odd that he had good work relationships with some minority and femal police officers and employees; but of course people are complicated and full of contradictions.
I don't know if Fuhrman was ever a nazi in terms of either beliefs or actual membership. It is possible he was and is both.

When the 1995 SImpson trial was going on, I heard a lot of people talk about it. I never heard anyone support Fuhrman's neo nazi statements.

fgump2

you may want to consider this from geocities timeline analysis.


Based on the change in lighting in the Rockingham Driveway, we can conclude that Simpson was at home prior to 10:50 -- when Kaelin entered the driveway area. Allowing seven minutes to exit Bundy, drive to Rockingham and get inside, the murders had to end prior to 10:42. If we add in the allowance for removing bloody clothes and cleaning up, the murders occured prior to Heidstra hearing Ronald Goldman confront the killer -- possibly prior to the Akita barking.

At no time, in this whole sequence of events, is Simpson able to go behind the house on to the south walkway. The broken gate was closed, at 10:50, when Kaelin opens it, and is inconsistant with anyone rushing behind a house, then rushing back again -- people in a rush forget things, like closing broken gates, or setting alarms. Simpson forgot to set the alarm -- an action consistant with noticing the time {"IS IT THAT LATE?"} and hurrying off. But, as we shall see in the forensics section, the killer was in no hurry -- something inconsistant with someone who already had a Limousine waiting for ten minutes -- before the Akita began to bark.

[martin II]

The prosecution had Simpson, trying to avoid detection on a warm mid-June evening, dressed in what could be considered a clown disguise, including gloves that do not fit. If it does not fit...

Based on the compete timeline of all events the following is true.
1. Park did not see Kato go to the garage the first time.
2. Oj was in his house when Park first arrived at Rockingham and when Kato heard the noise at 10:40 10:45
3. The person driving the car at Dorothy and Bundy that Heidstra saw at 10:45 was not driven by oj.

imo

[William Anthony]

Based on the compete timeline of all events the following is true.
1. Park did not see Kato go to the garage the first time.
2. Oj was in his house when Park first arrived at Rockingham and when Kato heard the noise at 10:40 10:45
3. The person driving the car at Dorothy and Bundy that Heidstra saw at 10:45 was not driven by oj.

imo

I would say that the evidence allows a person to draw all three of those reasonable inferences.

[martin II]

The prosecution had Simpson, trying to avoid detection on a warm mid-June evening, dressed in what could be considered a clown disguise, including gloves that do not fit. If it does not fit...

Well LE had the clown outfit in hand examined it and decided it was not connected to the murders.later when they ran into trouble they told us that the left the outfit at ojs and when they went back for it it was gone.That was a slick way to try to make oj responsible for the outfit they had said was not connected to the case but now was because they had found some fibers
that they could not explain and never did.imo

[William Anthony]

Well LE had the clown outfit in hand examined it and decided it was not connected to the murders.later when they ran into trouble they told us that the left the outfit at ojs and when they went back for it it was gone.That was a slick way to try to make oj responsible for the outfit they had said was not connected to the case but now was because they had found some fibers
that they could not explain and never did.imo

I don't want anyone to see me or pay attention to me so I am going to dress in a sweat suit that is too small with dress shoes and socks and a wool cap and a pair of gloves that do not fit. :)

[martin II]

I would say that the evidence allows a person to draw all three of those reasonable inferences.

Well NO 2 would allow the jury to understand that although there were questions about planting they knew someone did it and it was safe for them to ignore the blood evidence.or put a question mark next to it.

[martin II]

I don't want anyone to see me or pay attention to me so I am going to dress in a sweat suit that is too small with dress shoes and socks and a wool cap and a pair of gloves that do not fit. :)

And go to my ex wifes house where all the neighbors know me and my car on sight, Plus i planned to do the killings at a time i knew the limo driver would be parked in front of my house waiting on me.

[William Anthony]

Well NO 2 would allow the jury to understand that although there were questions about planting they knew someone did it and it was safe for them to ignore the blood evidence.or put a question mark next to it.

They all support the theory that the evidence was planted, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

And go to my ex wifes house where all the neighbors know me and my car on sight, Plus i planned to do the killings at a time i knew the limo driver would be parked in front of my house waiting on me.

And smoke some marijuana so that I can move slower.

[bobaugust]

My inferences are drawn from actual testimony/evidence and I do not make claims or have to insert could haves, maybes, entirely possible, and call things perceptions or change the accepted way memory works to try to make my conclusions right, since I do not form conclusions. :)

Because your inferences regarding this issue are based on mistaken testimony nothing you have inferred or claimed is reasonable or makes any sense.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I posted the testimony which is a direct contradiction of Park's testimony on direct and just because I do not have to have things spelled out for me does not mean it did not happen or because you don't see them or, as you like to say, comprehend them does not mean they did not happen.

Baker never asked Park about Park talking to Simpson on the intercom or Park seeing Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box. All Baker’s questions did was simply reaffirmed the fact that when Park wasn’t paying attention to Kaelin he never saw what Kaelin did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Thanks for admitting this, which is just another way of saying that Ms. NBS's blood may not have come from her reference sample. However, Petro's claim was that Cotton's testimony destroyed the defense's theory that there was "any evidence planting. I hope you understand what Petro claimed, since you quoted it.

I completely agree with what Petrocelli wrote. There is no evidence that Nicole’s fresh blood was planted on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Ah, I see that, as you like to say, did not comprehend that Park said on direct that, after a minute, he saw Kato walk up the driveway in a particular direction but on cross Baker got Park to admit that, after a minute, he saw Kato at the gate control box and that he never saw Kato walk in any direction in that minute.

Insulting and rude posts made because one does not want to admit to what the evidence is does not change the fact that the evidence is what it is.:) To deny what the actual testimony was and to try to say that someone made a claim from that testimony as opposed to drawing inferences after a consideration of all the testimony on a subject is an act of desperation, IMHO.:)

Park’s answer to Baker’s question never contradicted his previously testimony. Park answered correctly that approximately a minute later he did see Kaelin at the gate control box. Baker never asked Park anything about Park talking to Simpson on the intercom or seeing Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

Evidently what you consider ALL the evidence is Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony and what you fantasize Kaelin did after he returned from his first trip to investigate the noises he heard while you ignore Park’s civil trial testimony that he never saw what Kaelin did until he saw him go to the gate control box.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Please, post the testimony that the photographer said he photographed the bedroom after the socks had been collected? I have never denied that the large amount of EDTA found on the sock and gate stain, which was a thousand times that which was in unpreserved human blood, is a thousand times less that the amount of EDTA in a purple or, if you will, lavender top test tube. How does one start with a thousand times less of something and get a thousand times more without adding or how does one start with a something and get a thousand time less without diluting; either of which indicates evidence manipulation and planting. The blood on the socks which was not seen until much later and the blood on the gate which was not collected until much later both had a thousand times more EDTA than was found in unpreserved human blood and that is a coincidence that allows a reasonable inference, when placed in context with the other evidence, that those stains were planted.

When the evidence allows a reasonable inference that evidence is planted, then there is reasonable doubt, IMHO.

The amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results in the two evidence stains and Martz’s own nonpreserved blood was not a large amount, it was a small trace amount. Was that trace amount 1000 times more than found in a normal person’s blood? Yes but that fact is irrelevant since that small trace amount of EDTA was never in any person’s blood when that blood was in their body; it was the result of a contamination in the test equipment when the third test was conducted. The relevant fact is that small trace contamination was 1000 times less then what was found in both Nicole and Simpson’s reference samples.

Degradation tests proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample, conclusively proving the defense sock blood planting theory false.

A Photograph taken the morning after the murders when enlarged clearly showed one of the blood drops, that was later found to be Simpson’s blood, on the bottom of the rear gate at Bundy conclusively proving the defense gate blood planting theory false.

July 19, 1995 Willie Ford

MR. DARDEN: You were instructed to videotape a room only after it had been possessed by the criminalist, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: That was correct.

MR. DARDEN: And that is why we don't see socks in these photographers; isn't that correct, Mr. Ford?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. Object as hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: No. Have a seat, counsel.

MR. FORD: That's correct, sir.

bobaugust

[weezer]

The amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results in the two evidence stains and Martz’s own nonpreserved blood was not a large amount, it was a small trace amount. Was that trace amount 1000 times more than found in a normal person’s blood? Yes but that fact is irrelevant since that small trace amount of EDTA was never in any person’s blood when that blood was in their body; it was the result of a contamination in the test equipment when the third test was conducted. The relevant fact is that small trace contamination was 1000 times less then what was found in both Nicole and Simpson’s reference samples.

Degradation tests proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample, conclusively proving the defense sock blood planting theory false.

A Photograph taken the morning after the murders when enlarged clearly showed one of the blood drops, that was later found to be Simpson’s blood, on the bottom of the rear gate at Bundy conclusively proving the defense gate blood planting theory false.

July 19, 1995 Willie Ford

MR. DARDEN: You were instructed to videotape a room only after it had been possessed by the criminalist, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: That was correct.

MR. DARDEN: And that is why we don't see socks in these photographers; isn't that correct, Mr. Ford?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. Object as hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: No. Have a seat, counsel.

MR. FORD: That's correct, sir.

bobaugust

boy-oh-boy, cockroach did not want him to answer that question did he? :eek:

[William Anthony]

Because your inferences regarding this issue are based on mistaken testimony nothing you have inferred or claimed is reasonable or makes any sense.

bobaugust

How have you decided which testimony you claim is mistaken? I see which testimony changed or was molded.:)

[martin II]

I don't know which glove you are speaking of but here is the testimony about the Bundy glove.

"MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, if, as you indicated yesterday during the interview, that you first encountered Mark Fuhrman at 4:10 A.M., how long did it take you to walk with Mark Fuhrman to the location where these items of evidence were in the green foliage approximately?

MR. ROKAHR: I really don't want to narrow myself down on that because I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you for a specific--whether it's four minutes or seven minutes, sir. I'm just asking you, would it be fair to say, for instance, that it's less than 15 minutes from the time that Mr. Fuhrman encountered you and the time you got to those items of evidence which are in the green foliage?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Would that be a fair estimate of time?

MR. ROKAHR: Could be 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, 30. I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would it be a fair estimate that it was something between 15 minutes and 30 minutes?

MR. ROKAHR: I think it's a fair estimate.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. So, sir, if, as you told me yesterday, that it was approximately 4:10 in the morning when you encountered Mr. Fuhrman at 875 Bundy at the time that he was having you take pictures of items of evidence that were in and about the green foliage, would that be sometime between 4:25 in the morning and 4:40 in the morning based on your estimate, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I would say it's fair.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the couple of pictures that Detective Fuhrman instructed you to take at that point, sir, were they pictures of Mr. Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fuhrman--I'm sorry. Did Detective Fuhrman instruct you to take any pictures of him pointing at objects of evidence?

MR. ROKAHR: No, he didn't. I requested him to point to the evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And was the evidence that you requested him to point to the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that would be the glove and the hat at Bundy; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you at that moment take pictures of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, was one of the reasons that you asked Detective Fuhrman to point to the item is because it was nighttime and thus, the glove was difficult to see?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct."

Does anyone know how many times Furhman was directly over the glove/s at
Bundy. Was he over/at the gloves at any time before The photographer took the pictures?

[William Anthony]

Baker never asked Park about Park talking to Simpson on the intercom or Park seeing Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box. All Baker’s questions did was simply reaffirmed the fact that when Park wasn’t paying attention to Kaelin he never saw what Kaelin did.

bobaugust

"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?" (This is a question on crosss)

A. Yes. (answer on cross)

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. (This is an answer on direct)

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. (The trap closed on cross and snared Park)

[William Anthony]

Park’s answer to Baker’s question never contradicted his previously testimony. Park answered correctly that approximately a minute later he did see Kaelin at the gate control box. Baker never asked Park anything about Park talking to Simpson on the intercom or seeing Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

Evidently what you consider ALL the evidence is Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony and what you fantasize Kaelin did after he returned from his first trip to investigate the noises he heard while you ignore Park’s civil trial testimony that he never saw what Kaelin did until he saw him go to the gate control box.

bobaugust

What is it that you don't understand about this question, "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?"

When testimony changes from what it was on direct to what it is on cross that indicates to me that the witness was mistaken.:) What does it indicate to you?

[weezer]

What is it that you don't understand about this question, "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?"

When testimony changes from what it was on direct to what it is on cross that indicates to me that the witness was mistaken.:) What does it indicate to you?

well, in the criminal trial, it indicated that cockroach and company twisted and spinned until no one recognized the question or the answer.

[William Anthony]

The amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results in the two evidence stains and Martz’s own nonpreserved blood was not a large amount, it was a small trace amount. (Says who?)Was that trace amount 1000 times more than found in a normal person’s blood? Yes (Enough to be toxic, which is why there was testimony that Martz was dead) but that fact is irrelevant since that small trace amount of EDTA was never in any person’s blood when that blood was in their body; it was the result of a contamination in the test equipment when the third test was conducted. (Says who? "If not planted a convincing argument must be made to explain the EDTA") The relevant fact is that small trace contamination was 1000 times less then what was found in both Nicole and Simpson’s reference samples.

Degradation tests proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample, conclusively proving the defense sock blood planting theory false.

A Photograph taken the morning after the murders (Allegedly taken then) when enlarged clearly showed one of the blood drops, that was later found to be Simpson’s blood, on the bottom of the rear gate at Bundy conclusively proving the defense gate blood planting theory false.

July 19, 1995 Willie Ford

MR. DARDEN: You were instructed to videotape a room only after it had been possessed by the criminalist, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FORD: That was correct.

MR. DARDEN: And that is why we don't see socks in these photographers; isn't that correct, Mr. Ford?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. Object as hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: No. Have a seat, counsel.

MR. FORD: That's correct, sir.

bobaugust

This is what he was told not what happened. :) The video and the evidence collection log and DF's changed testimony allows us a reasonable inference as to what happened. :)

[William Anthony]

I don't understand the basis for allowing the hearsay testimony but there may have been one.

[William Anthony]

Does anyone know how many times Furhman was directly over the glove/s at
Bundy. Was he over/at the gloves at any time before The photographer took the pictures?

I don't know but he was over them enough to say the word them as you correctly picked out in your question. :)

[William Anthony]

The only one who twisted and spun was Ms. Clark, who understood as did Petro, what the discrepancies in the testimonies meant and Park testified on cross that Petro and others told him what to say (coached him). I wish Baker had followed up with who the others were but one only has to look at Ms. Clark's changes in the wording of her questions from the grand jury and preliminary hearing to the criminal trial to draw a reasonable inference who may have coached him and why. Petro went all out for the change in the socio political production. :);)

[weezer]

The only one who twisted and spun was Ms. Clark, who understood as did Petro, what the discrepancies in the testimonies meant and Park testified on cross that Petro and others told him what to say (coached him). I wish Baker had followed up with who the others were but one only has to look at Ms. Clark's changes in the wording of her questions from the grand jury and preliminary hearing to the criminal trial to draw a reasonable inference who may have coached him and why. Petro went all out for the change in the socio political production. :);)

not intended as a personal attack or insult: too bad you're too biased that you refuse to look at all of the evidence from both trials to draw your reasonable inferences. kinda makes a lot of the stuff you post look a little silly. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

The only thing that is silly is the refusal to look at all the evidence and admit what is there in black and white. The defense only crossed Park. Ms. Clark was the one that changed the questions. Perhaps, if one went back and reviewed the questions posed to Park and Kato and how they were worded, there would be no reason to explain that a comment that sounds like a personal attack was not a personal attack.:) I have supported what I said with the testimonies, which is why I feel good when posters make comments that sound like a personal comment but say that they are not. :);)

[tv]

I thought you were the one that wants everyone to use disclaimers to clarify when their statements aren't intended as personal attacks or insults. It's hard to keep up with your changing posting requirements. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I thought you were the one that wants everyone to use disclaimers to clarify when their statements aren't intended as personal attacks or insults. It's hard to keep up with your changing posting requirements. :shrug:

What did I say that made you think I changed or that I did not believe the poster as I said I feel good when..."?

[weezer]

The only thing that is silly is the refusal to look at all the evidence and admit what is there in black and white. The defense only crossed Park. Ms. Clark was the one that changed the questions. Perhaps, if one went back and reviewed the questions posed to Park and Kato and how they were worded, there would be no reason to explain that a comment that sounds like a personal attack was not a personal attack.:) I have supported what I said with the testimonies, which is why I feel good when posters make comments that sound like a personal comment but say that they are not. :);)

the thing that Petrocelli was able to do in the civil trial was remove the irrelevent and unsubstantiated garbage. He was able to concentrate of the crime itself and prove the murderer to be orenthal james simpson. most of the testimonies you post to 'support' your theories/claims were proven wrong but you act like a little kid that puts his hands over his ears and says, "la,la,la. . . .I can't hear you." you requested the disclaimer and yourself often use the 'lighthearted banter' -- go figure. :shrug:

[tv]

What did I say that made you think I changed or that I did not believe the poster as I said I feel good when..."?

I guess I just misunderstood you. It happens.

[William Anthony]

Yes, I posted all the testimonies and the cross to show how I draw my inferences, which, IMHO, is the adult and mature way to handle a situation, and I do not have to rely on those who posts, ifs, could haves, maybes, entirely possibles and perceptions to reach a conclusion or rely on others, who disagree with the commonly accepted fact that events are more fresh in the memory when the testimony is given close in time with the event. These tactics, if not humorous, would be taxing but I think the poster community can see who is acting childish in making such posts and in relying on them.

[William Anthony]

I guess I just misunderstood you. It happens.

Yes, quite a bit but I am not interested in discussing what frequently happens but rather in discussing the case. If you are not, then I understand and will handle the situation appropriately.

[tv]

Yes, quite a bit but I am not interested in discussing what frequently happens but rather in discussing the case. If you are not, then I understand and will handle the situation appropriately.

Okay, then.

[weezer]

Yes, I posted all the testimonies and the cross to show how I draw my inferences, which, IMHO, is the adult and mature way to handle a situation, and I do not have to rely on those who posts, ifs, could haves, maybes, entirely possibles and perceptions to reach a conclusion or rely on others, who disagree with the commonly accepted fact that events are more fresh in the memory when the testimony is given close in time with the event. These tactics, if not humorous, would be taxing but I think the poster community can see who is acting childish in making such posts and in relying on them.

come on william -- you have been given testimony and evidence that your inferences are fantasies -- based on your own hatred. To ignore the civil trial is folly and makes any poster look foolish and uninformed.

[William Anthony]

How can I be ignoring the socio political production when I have posted testimony from it showing that Park testified that "Petro and others" told him what to say and 2 & 1/2 years later Park specifically for the first time and after giving testimony in three prior proceedings recalled looking at the dashboard and couldn't say that Kato stood and still stood for another minute as he had previously testified, which obviously every intelligent lawyer or person that worked for the lawyers, IMHO, realized by the discrepancies that a reasonable inference could be drawn that Park did not see Kato come from behind the house and down the Ashford pathway. :) I do agree that for a poster to ignore the testimonies I have posted makes them look foolish and uninformed but I would not have used those words even if I agree with your use of them.

[martin II]

I don't know but he was over them enough to say the word them as you correctly picked out in your question. :)

i read something yesterday that said he was alone/over the gloves twice at bundy including when the photo was taken.

[William Anthony]

i read something yesterday that said he was alone/over the gloves twice at bundy including when the photo was taken.

He seemed to like to be alone with the gloves. :)

[tv]

i read something yesterday that said he was alone/over the gloves twice at bundy including when the photo was taken.

How could he have been alone with the gloves when the picture was taken?

[weezer]

He seemed to like to be alone with the gloves. :)

which still doesn't supply proof of any kind that anyone planted anything. sorry

[martin II]

He seemed to like to be alone with the gloves. :)

What would be helpful would be a time line analysis of furhmans activities starting when he arrived but since most did not take notes that is impossible.

[weezer]

How could he have been alone with the gloves when the picture was taken?

lol -- don't be confusing the conspiracy with facts. . .

[martin II]

How could he have been alone with the gloves when the picture was taken?

Furhman found the photogrer and brought him inside to do a walk through.So he was there first.see the posted testimony.

i should have said just before the photo.

[weezer]

Furhman found the photogrer and brought him inside to do a walk through.So he was there first.see the posted testimony.

i should have said just before the photo.

what about all of the other LE that was there before that?

[tv]

lol -- don't be confusing the conspiracy with facts. . .

Sorry, I got carried away for a minute. :o

[William Anthony]

Let's not confuse the burden of proof, just a friendly reminder. :)

[tv]

what about all of the other LE that was there before that?

You mean the 14 that were there two hours before Fuhrman?

[William Anthony]

They seemed to have let MF hang on the line by himself when it came to the gloves that did not fit, as no one testified they went with him behind Kato's quarters where he allegedly found it.