Random Discussions On The Case

[weezer]

Let's not confuse the burden of proof, just a friendly reminder. :)

there you have it -- finally! some posters confuse the burden of proof with their need to argue orenthal's innocence based on woulda, coulda, shoulda, maybe's, ifs -- and even those don't make sense. :eek:

[weezer]

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.

and the proof is what? that Fuhrman found the glove where hours before Kato heard noises? big woop!

[martin II]

Around 10:40 PM, while talking to his girlfriend Rachel Farrara, Brian Kato Kaelin hears a noise, the description of which is evolving. Originally, a loud noise and "earthquake" like shaking, by the time of the Criminal Trial, it became three rapid thumps --- in the location of the airconditioner protruding through the rear wall of his room; now, the noise is a sliding series of thumps originating behind his headboard, sliding in the direction of the picture. Regardless of it's type, the vibration causes a picture, over his bed, to move. He asks Rachel, "Did we just have an earthquake?" To which he received a negative response.

{For the remainder of the evening, and into the next morning, this event remained foremost in the mind of Kato Kaelin. This was demonstrated by the fact that he could not refrain from mentioning it to any and all who would listen.}



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

Prosecution Theory of Noise doesn't work.

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

At approximately the same time, 10:39 -- the White Stretch Limousine driven by Allan Park has lightly impacted, and remained in contact with, the Ashford gate. This is realized when Park goes to press the communication button -- which will cause a phone inside Rockingham to ring eight times. Getting no response, he returns to the car and drives back onto Rockingham, makes a left and pulls parallel to the Rockingham Gate. He views the property through the driver's side window. His focus: can he negociate the turn pass the Bentley parked in a niche in the driveway? He decides he can't. In his testimony, he will state that there were two dark cars parked there.
In the shower, Simpson hears the distinctive ring of the phone -- indicating the Limousine has arrived. Assuming that it is his regular driver, he completes his shower, gets partially dressed, puts on a dark robe, and does his last minute packing.

Backing up, past Ashford, Park drives back to the Ashford Gate. [Time: 10:43] Once again, he rings the communication button as if it were a buzzer -- expecting each press of the button to cause a distinct ringing inside -- still no response from the house. [Time: 10:47]

Increasingly nervous, and somewhat agitated, certainly scared, Kaelin decides to investigate the "earthquake". Continuing his conversation with Farrara, he comes back to the earthquake several times before finally taking a penlite flashlight and going to investigate. [Time: 10:48]

At 10:48:40, Allan Park calls his mother -- he needs his boss' home number. At 10:49:07, Park calls Dale St. John at home -- no answer. He again tries the Ashford Gate buzzer.

Simpson is now gathering the final items for his trip; and again, believing it's his regular driver, ignors the phone. In the house, at approximately 10:50, OJ Simpson has just finished showering. He had called his daughter, Sydney, prior to going to McDonald's; he had also made several other calls at that time. At 10:03 -- using his cellphone -- he had tried to reach Paula... probably to square things for not taking her to Sydney's recital. The facts being, he didn't want to chance a scene between Nicole and Paula. Especially not one that would cast a cloud on Sydney's Day.

At approximately the same time, 10:48, Kaelin, having located the penlight in the drawer, proceeds west along a path that parallels Ashford; entering onto the driveway at 10:50, he sees the Limousine -- but not the driver. Kaelin -- notices a light in the master bedroom -- as he passes the front door, the area is dark. There is no light coming through the entry door glass. The Coach Lights, on either side of the door, are off. The only light is from several dim edging -- Mushroom -- lights along the driveway. Kaelin proceeds to the south pathway. He lifts the broken gate and swings it out of the way. He heads east. Scared, he stops five to fifteen feet down the south pathway.

At 10:52:17, Allan Park, responding to the car phone, returned to the Limo. Glancing south -- toward the Simpson house -- Park saw the Mushroom lights along the driveway and informed Dale St. John that the house was otherwise dark. A minute or two later, he notes that the brightest light is now at the entrance to the house. Illumination that had not been been on when Kaelin passed, or prior to the carphone ringing.


The area behind the garage is very dark - the penlight provides no useful illumination. His sense of trepidation growing, Kaelin is unsure of what he is seeking, and what he might find. He cautiously retreats to the safety of the driveway, where he and Simpson are seen by Allan Park.

Allan Park establishes the time - approximately 10:54:42 - thirty seconds before his phone conversation ends. He sees Kaelin look west -- in the direction of the Rockingham driveway and gate. Kaelin sees the Limousine is still outside. He also states that the Rockingham Gate was not opened while he was out there, and that there was only one car -- the Bentley -- parked in the niche. Park then sees Simpson -- who has just placed his golf bag, near the driveway, by an entry bench -- returning into the house for the rest of his bags.

In his deposition statement, Kaelin affirms certain details:

Simpson was going into the house.
The Golf Bag wasn't there when he passed on his first trip to the pathway.
Simpson was wearing something dark, which Kaelin believed was a sweatsuit which Simpson had worn to McDonald's.
The coach lights had been turned on while he was on the pathway.
The Rockingham Gate can not be opened without triggering the electronic mechanism.
The Coach Lights could only be turned on from inside the house.
[Mutually exclusive events: Dispelling prosecution myth, we know that Simpson could not have reached the entrance without Kaelin seeing him on the driveway. And certainly, he could not have opened the Rockingham gate to affect entry, without alerting Kaelin. Futher, we know that, had he entered at this time -- that is, had he returned from Bundy at this time -- it would have been impossible for him to be associated with either Kaelin's earthquake, or the glove that was found behind Kaelin's room. Even more impossible, had Simpson just arrived, he could not have turned on the entry light, which had been off when Kaelin passed three minutes earlier.]
Not knowing that Simpson, and another person, were in residence, Park informed his boss, Dale St. John -- to who he's been talking since 10:52:17 -- that, "Somebody's here." To which St.John replies, "Fine. Finish the job, take him to the airport and I will see you tomorrow." [Time: 10:55:12]

Hanging up, Park waits another thirty seconds, or so, before getting out of the car and buzzing the house again. This time, Simpson responds, "I overslept. Just got out of the shower. Be down in a minute." [Time: 10:57]

Simpson denies saying, "I overslept." Stating that he went inside, responded to the phone, removed his robe, went to get his coat, gathered his any other items, and exited the house.

In the mean time, Kaelin has crossed the door yard to the Gate Control and opened the Ashford Gate.

Park drives in, not noticing the Simpson dog, Chachi. Kaelin, seeing the dog laying near the box, realized it could have be hit, and yells to the dog, "Chachi! Move! Move!". The dog goes to lie on the grass near the path on the Ashford side lawn. The Limousine pulls in with the drivers window parallel to the front entrance. He sees several duffle bags on the porch, one of which is unzipped. [Time: 10:58]

[martin II]

Kaelin goes over to talk to Allan Park, who is now getting out of the stretch Limousine, and preparing to open the truck to accept the luggage. "Is OJ running late?" Kaelin asks. To which Allan Park replies, "Mr. Simpson overslept." Kaelin replies, "Oh, he's got flight to catch." Then almost immediately asks, "Did we have an earthquake?" To which park replies, "No, not that I'm aware of. I've been sitting there, and I didn't feel anything move." Kaelin rattles on about the noise and the earthquake, and loads the golf bag into the trunk. Park then meanders over to pet the dog. And Kaelin goes behind the house and down the south pathway for a second time. Now, feeling somewhat more secure in the knowledge that the driver is there, he come within three feet of the second gate. His pen light yields possibly eight feet of view -- not sufficient to see the area behind his room, or around the airconditioner.

At approximately 11:00, OJ Simpson finally emerges from the house, coat in hand and ready to load the Limousine. He runs back into the house, and makes last minute checks for forgotten items. As usual, he's running late -- it's a characteristic well known to, and taken for granted by, all who know him. Coming out and seeing the Limousine in front of the entry, and Kaelin & Park already loading the luggage, he goes back into the house. Allan Park notes that OJ brings nothing in, or out. We later learn that Simpson did forget 'to make sure the lights were out'. Some lights are still on when the police arrive the following morning.

During the conversation between Park and Kaelin, Park notices Simpson going to retrieve something from one of the Two dark cars. Simpson states that he retrieved his cellphone case and battery pack from the Bronco.

Returning to the driveway, Brian Kaelin -- intending to ask Park if he has a better flashlight -- sees Simpson. He also notices a small knapsack behind one of the two dark cars near the southern dim light on the Rockingham Drive. Kaelin tells Simpson, "OJ, I heard this noise and thought it was an earthquake, and thought, maybe, somone is back there." Kaelin goes on to say he wanted to investigate it, but needed a better flashlight. Kaelin asks Park for a flashlight, as Simpson goes inside to see if there's one in the house. When Park says he has none, Kaelin follows Simpson into the house. [Time: 11:02]

Park also notices the small bag -- behind the second dark car -- in the middle of the radius joining the Ashford and Rockingham driveways. He says, "Is that going?" and moves to retreive it. Simpson responds, "I'll get it." and Park finishes to loading the luggage into the Limousine. Kaelin also states he noticed the bag, and that the "I'll get it," comment was directed to him.

Heading towards the kitchen area, Simpson notices the time, and says, "Is it that late? We don't have time to check. I have to catch my flight." Returning outside, Kaelin goes to open the Rockingham gate while Simpson and Park get in the Limousine. [Time: 11:04]

Brian Kaelin then goes back inside his room, and again calls Rachel Farrara. Time -- 11:05.

About 11:35 {The precise time of the call was not entered into evidence -- the depositions indicate it was made from a pay phone at LAX}: Kaelin's conversation with Farrara is interupted by call-waiting. It's Simpson, in his hurry to leave, he forgot to set the house alarm, would Kaelin do it? Simpson gives Kaelin the security code, Kaelin tells Farrara what he has to do, and goes to set the alarm. Kaelin then calls Farrara back, and they talk until (about) 1:00 AM. Prior to falling asleep, Kaelin hears Arnell Simpson return home. [Time: 1:00 AM]



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

As we see, there is no opportunity for Simpson to have droped the incriminating glove near the air conditioner. Consider the prosecution scenario: In the dark -- at approximately 10:42:30 PM, while Kaelin and Farrara are talking -- Simpson opened the broken gate, ran down a dark, and somewhat narrow, pathway, opened a second gate and proceeded to run directly into a protruding airconditioner. The impact somehow caused three thumps, coinciding with Simpson droping the glove -- but nothing else. And the droped glove, obviously, went unnoticed. Simpson then runs back into the house -- remembering to close each of the gates. He suffers no bruise, or contusions, dispite the fact that he impacted with enough force to create an "earthquake". And, he is not in such a hurry as to forget to close a broken gate. He then runs into the house, and secretes all other evidence so that none -- save the glove and blood in the Bronco -- can be found.
If you have problems with that scenario, the prosecution provided a second alternative: Simpson arrives back from committing a double murder, some ten minutes after "the earthquake" -- is seen by Allan park entering the house -- but still, in some unexplained and unwitnessed manner manages to get behind Kaelin's room, and manages to have dropped the glove without crashing into Kaelin -- who was returning from investigating the noise behind his room. To offer this second scenario, Marcia Clark must disregard the testimony she developed with Kaelin, and which he has since affirmed in greater in detail at his February 14th Deposition Hearing.

Notice, when you place the prosecution scenarios side-by-side, they are mutually exclusive. And further, as we have seen in both, only Brian Kaelin goes behind the house along the south pathway. And it is Kaelin who opens the broken gate. It is the job of the prosecution to provide a coherent logic. All of the evidence presented must fit the theory of the crime in a coherent manner. In this case, we have two elements that follow mutually exclusive logic.

In addition, we have the testimony of Robert Heidstra, who hears Ronald Goldman confront the killer at 10:40, and sees a Jeep Cherokee, Blazer, or possibly Bronco at Bundy, at 10:45. Knowing that Detective Vannatter established the drive time is 5.5 to 6 minutes between Bundy and Rockingham -- Simpson would have arrived at approximately 10:51. He would have been just in time to run straight into Kaelin, or be seen by Park at 10:52. But, to the extent we have the eyewitness testimony that precludes Simpson from going onto the south pathway after 10:52, Simpson is precluded from dropping the glove behind Kaelin's room. And no amount of prosecutorial manipulation of times can alter that factual reality.


CONCLUSION: The Rockingham Glove was planted.
The prime suspect is Detective Mark Fuhrman.

Back to TimeLine

[tv]

and the proof is what? that Fuhrman found the glove where hours before Kato heard noises? big woop!

Where is the rule that a detective has to have a witness when he finds a piece of evidence? Does that only apply to LE in this case? :shrug:

[martin II]

You mean the 14 that were there two hours before Fuhrman?

tv

the 14 you speak of were stationed outside the crime scene.Most were knocking on doors looking for witnesses and controlling traffic and media.

[martin II]

Where is the rule that a detective has to have a witness when he finds a piece of evidence? Does that only apply to LE in this case? :shrug:

Usually when le is going to a spot where it is believed evidence or a perp is he takes his partner with him. especially if he has reason to believe a perp may be there.

[tv]

tv

the 14 you speak of were stationed outside the crime scene.Most were knocking on doors looking for witnesses and controlling traffic and media.

All 14?

[weezer]

SNIPPED "Around 10:40 PM, while talking to his girlfriend Rachel Farrara, Brian Kato Kaelin hears a noise, the description of which is evolving. Originally, a loud noise and "earthquake" like shaking, by the time of the Criminal Trial, it became three rapid thumps --- in the location of the airconditioner protruding through the rear wall of his room; It was always 3 thumps. . .

At approximately the same time, 10:39 -- the White Stretch Limousine driven by Allan Park has lightly impacted, and remained in contact with, the Ashford gate. link to testimony supporting this statement . . .

At 10:03 -- using his cellphone -- he had tried to reach Paula... per his statement: from his Bronco

Simpson was wearing something dark, which Kaelin believed was a sweatsuit which Simpson had worn to McDonald's.

The coach lights had been turned on while he was on the pathway.

The Coach Lights could only be turned on from inside the house.

Simpson denies saying, "I overslept." and we know what a truthteller orenthal is

Park drives in, not noticing the Simpson dog, Chachi. Kaelin, seeing the dog laying near the box, realized it could have be hit, and yells to the dog, "Chachi! Move! Move!". The dog goes to lie on the grass near the path on the Ashford side lawn. the same dog orenthal said ran out of the gate everytime it opened!

geez :eek:

martin -- when you post from another site stuff that is not common knowledge (like this), you're suppose to supply the link. :rolleyes:

[tv]

Usually when le is going to a spot where it is believed evidence or a perp is he takes his partner with him. especially if he has reason to believe a perp may be there.

I thought you were saying that he should have had someone with him to vouch for his actions or for credibility purposes.

[William Anthony]

This is what I mean about confusing the burden of proof,

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

[weezer]

This is what I mean about confusing the burden of proof,

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

that's the whole point william. I say he's guilty and there was no planting. You say he's innocent and there was planting. The difference between our two positions is I can post testimony/evidence that proves your position to be wrong. You post theories and fantasies and misstatements. :rolleyes:

[tv]

Judge Lance Ito --


"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support."

[William Anthony]

I have never said he was innocent and this is another deliberately false accusation, IMHO. However, be that as it may, I have supplied abundant evidence from the trial that allow the inference of planting. A poster says they can supply proof that there was none. Please, supply that proof. You see the prosecution had to supply the proof and the verdict was they failed, so I am interested in the poster's proof.:)

[martin II]

tv
there were 2 LEAD detectives and another one in the kitchen. Furhman was off the case but he takes kato to vanhatter, does not tell vanhatter what kato has told him and without telling either lead detective what he is about to do and goes alone to the walkway. based on what kato told him he had reason to believe a perp could be there.yet he goes alone and comes back saying he found a glove.

[martin II]

All 14?

Riski sp and maby one or two others were inside.

[weezer]

tv
there were 2 LEAD detectives and another one in the kitchen. Furhman was off the case but he takes kato to vanhatter, does not tell vanhatter what kato has told him and without telling either lead detective what he is about to do and goes alone to the walkway. based on what kato told him he had reason to believe a perp could be there.yet he goes alone and comes back saying he found a glove.

:no: so, rather than give Fuhrman credit for securing the safety of the witness, you accuse him of planting evidence.
Fact: the witness was moved to safety.
Fact: Fuhrman found the match to the glove found at the murder scene.
Fact: The glove found in the same location where the earlier noises were heard by Kato, contained evidence connecting the victims and orenthal to the murder scene. Fact: the glove had no evidence of anyone else's blood, hair, fiber --

[William Anthony]

Judge Lance Ito --


"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support."

They obviously found some, since they were allowed to argue that. Could it have been the testimony about his feelings toward interracial couples and what he would do when he encountered one? I wonder.

[weezer]

They obviously found some, since they were allowed to argue that. Could it have been the testimony about his feelings toward interracial couples and what he would do when he encountered one? I wonder.

are we now back to the trial of Mark Fuhrman? may I remind you, as I am often reminded when I try to argue domestic abuse, that this was not a trial about Mark Fuhrman the racist. This was a murder trial.

[tv]

tv
there were 2 LEAD detectives and another one in the kitchen. Furhman was off the case but he takes kato to vanhatter, does not tell vanhatter what kato has told him and without telling either lead detective what he is about to do and goes alone to the walkway. based on what kato told him he had reason to believe a perp could be there.yet he goes alone and comes back saying he found a glove.

Is it routine for a detective to take along a witness in case his story is questioned later?

[William Anthony]

Fact Kato was in no danger.
Fact MF, a convicted perjurer, testified he found the glove behind Kato's quarters and there was no blood back there.
Fact Kato told MF where he heard the thumps.
Fact an unidentified Caucasian hair was found inside the Rockingham glove.

[tv]

They obviously found some, since they were allowed to argue that. Could it have been the testimony about his feelings toward interracial couples and what he would do when he encountered one? I wonder.

They argued the theory but I think Judge Ito said it all when he said "It is a theory without factual support." In other words, it was a bunch of balogna with no facts to give it credibility.

[William Anthony]

My response was in direct response to a poster I think you are friends with and who mentioned Ito's ruling on MF planting the evidence.

[William Anthony]

They argued the theory but I think Judge Ito said it all when he said "It is a theory without factual support." In other words, it was a bunch of balogna with no facts to give it credibility.

Judges often change their rulings based on new evidence.

[martin II]

The timeline analysis posted above proves that oj could not have commited the murderd and he could not have dropped the glove in the S walkway.

[weezer]

Fact Kato was in no danger.
Fact MF, a convicted perjurer, testified he found the glove behind Kato's quarters and there was no blood back there.
Fact Kato told MF where he heard the thumps.

Fact: the detectives had just come from a brutal/bloody crime scene. So not only do you believe Fuhrman is racist, you also believe he's clairvoyant. (you go william)
Fact: the detective was told by about hearing noises outside his room that scared him.
Fact: Blood was seen by LE and Dr. Lee

[weezer]

Judges often change their rulings based on new evidence.

hmmm -- did ito change his ruling?

[weezer]

The timeline analysis posted above proves that oj could not have commited the murder.

I'm asking one more time for a link to the very long post you made about the timeline analysis.

[William Anthony]

Fact, there was something seen that was thought to be blood which was seen by Dr. Lee.

[weezer]

Fact, there was something seen that was thought to be blood which was seen by Dr. Lee.

ever wonder why he wasn't willing to test it? might it be that he and/or the defense didn't want to know the results? :eek:

[William Anthony]

Did the defense argue that MF planted evidence, in this case, the glove?

[weezer]

Did the defense argue that MF planted evidence, in this case, the glove?

yep -- so they carry the burden of proof, right? so, where's the proof?

[William Anthony]

The defense did not have to prove his innocence but the prosecution had to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which they failed miserably, IMHO. It seem apparent to me that the magnificent one understood this.

[martin II]

Fact, there was something seen that was thought to be blood which was seen by Dr. Lee.

i don't think you got the proof link from that poster. i don't read her post so i am not sure.

[William Anthony]

It is obvious that some don't understand as the only burden of proof, which is placed on a defense, is when they allege an affirmative defense, which has been stated abundantly and confirmed by a G, who is held in high esteem as to her legal knowledge by other Gs.

[William Anthony]

i don't think you got the proof link from that poster. i don't read her post so i am not sure.

We had that discussion and the poster is aware of the false positives rendered by presumptive tests and the poster, who made the same false claim previously, was proven to be false but that doesn't stop other posters from repeating false claims.

[weezer]

It is obvious that some don't understand as the only burden of proof, which is placed on a defense, is when they allege an affirmative defense, which has been stated abundantly and confirmed by a G, who is held in high esteem as to her legal knowledge by other Gs.

we're not holding trial -- neither one of us are lawyers (I'm not even a wannabe) -- we're just posters on a message board. you've been asked for proof of planting and so far have not been able to supply anything but regurgitation of defense spin and twist. I think I've had enough for tonight -- my head is starting to hurt.

[weezer]

We had that discussion and the poster is aware of the false positives rendered by presumptive tests and the poster, who made the same false claim previously, was proven to be false but that doesn't stop other posters from repeating false claims.

martin, last request for the link to the long, long post you made about the timeline analysis.

[weezer]

We had that discussion and the poster is aware of the false positives rendered by presumptive tests and the poster, who made the same false claim previously, was proven to be false but that doesn't stop other posters from repeating false claims.

Dr. Lee saw it and didn't want to test it. I woulda thought he would have at least said, "Sumting wong -- why blood here?" don't you?

[William Anthony]

Let me correct the record. You have been asking for proof of planting. I haven't done any investigation. Have you? I must rely on the evidence produced at trial. I am aware that you are not and could never be a wanna be lawyer and that your head occasionally spins around on your neck throwing those brains into a state of confusion. :) Lighthearted banter, Lighthearted banter. :seeya:,:seeya:,:seeya:

[William Anthony]

Why would he say it was blood, if he did not test it?

[martin II]

Fact Kato was in no danger.
Fact MF, a convicted perjurer, testified he found the glove behind Kato's quarters and there was no blood back there.
Fact Kato told MF where he heard the thumps.
Fact an unidentified Caucasian hair was found inside the Rockingham glove.

Fact; there was no proof that oj jumped that fence or was in the walkway on 6/12 There was no proof that oj or anyone else was in the walkway other than furhman on 6/13

[weezer]

Let me correct the record. You have been asking for proof of planting. I haven't done any investigation. Have you? I must rely on the evidence produced at trial. I am aware that you are not and could never be a wanna be lawyer and that you head occasionally spins around on your neck throwing those brains into a state of confusion. :) Lighthearted banter, Lighthearted banter. :seeya:,:seeya:,:seeya:

I'm sure you understand the rules about personal attacks --

[weezer]

Fact; there was no proof that oj jumped that fence or was in the walkway on 6/12 There was no proof that oj or anyone else was in the walkway other than furhman on 6/13

sure there was -- the glove matching the glove at the murder scene was found on that walk. right where kato heard the noises earlier. the glove on the walk connected orenthal to the two people he butchered.

[weezer]

Why would he say it was blood, if he did not test it?

I don't know -- he said lots of things I didn't understand why he would say them.

[martin II]

We had that discussion and the poster is aware of the false positives rendered by presumptive tests and the poster, who made the same false claim previously, was proven to be false but that doesn't stop other posters from repeating false claims.

I was pretty sure you would not get the proof.

[William Anthony]

Not a personal attack, just a comment on your head spinning in your post and your comment on a wannabe lawyer. I hope you did not take anything that I said as a personal attack and it was meant in the most respectful manner possible as I am sure this comment of yours was meant. However, I do stand corrected as you did not say your head was spinning only that you had a headache as a result of your claim that I regurgitated the defense spin and twist.

we're not holding trial -- neither one of us are lawyers (I'm not even a wannabe) -- we're just posters on a message board. you've been asked for proof of planting and so far have not been able to supply anything but regurgitation of defense spin and twist. I think I've had enough for tonight -- my head is starting to hurt.

[tv]

i don't think you got the proof link from that poster. i don't read her post so i am not sure.

martin, the planting theory originated with the defense -- it's not up to anyone to disprove their wild theories that are 'without factual support.' I can't speak for weezer but rather than go on a scavenger hunt to disprove your theories I prefer to just stick to Judge Ito's ruling.

[William Anthony]

martin, the planting theory originated with the defense -- it's not up to anyone to disprove their wild theories that are 'without factual support.' I can't speak for weezer but rather than go on a scavenger hunt to disprove your theories I prefer to just stick to Judge Ito's ruling.

Which was obviously overruled whether de jure or de facto. How's that for a wannabe lawyer? :)

[martin II]

Vanhatter the lead detective and two other dectives investigated the fence area and concluded that NO one jumped the fence in the s walkway and no one includes oj. end of story.

[tv]

Which was obviously overruled whether de jure or de facto. How's that for a wannabe lawyer? :)

Neither fact nor law overruled it. Even the jury said they didn't consider Mark Fuhrman in their brief deliberations.

[William Anthony]

Neither fact nor law overruled it. Even the jury said they didn't consider Mark Fuhrman in their brief deliberations.

WTH? Your original remark dealt with the defense arguing that MF planted the glove and Ito's ruling that they couldn't, which everyone understands they did.

[martin II]

martin, the planting theory originated with the defense -- it's not up to anyone to disprove their wild theories that are 'without factual support.' I can't speak for weezer but rather than go on a scavenger hunt to disprove your theories I prefer to just stick to Judge Ito's ruling.


i am not sure what the meaning of your post but

It is not my theory that there was no evidence that oj jumped the fence. It was testimony that no one did so.testimony backed by the lead detective.
It was testimony that proved that oj was in his house when park was ringing that buzzer.
Actually it was part of Parks testimony alomg with Katos that proved oj was in his house. Judges itos ruling did or cannot disprove that testimony. i see no reason to mention weezers comments to me.:cool:

[William Anthony]

Neither fact nor law overruled it. Even the jury said they didn't consider Mark Fuhrman in their brief deliberations.

Have you ever considered the reason why the jury did not consider MF in their deliberations is because they were sophisticated enough to understand that he probably did and was everything the magnificent one called him and everything the prosecution conceded he was, meaning they had all made up their minds as to what he was and no need to consider him anymore?

[martin II]

Neither fact nor law overruled it. Even the jury said they didn't consider Mark Fuhrman in their brief deliberations.

i think the jury understood that furhman was a racist so there was no reason to deliberate on that. they stuck to other issues where there were questions and all agreed Park deserved a closer look.when they looked it all came togeather for them.

[tv]

WTH? Your original remark dealt with the defense arguing that MF planted the glove and Ito's ruling that they couldn't, which everyone understands they did.

He was saying the theory was without merit. There's no need for you to become uncivil.

[tv]

i am not sure what the meaning of your post but

It is not my theory that there was no evidence that oj jumped the fence. It was testimony that no one did so.testimony backed by the lead detective.
It was testimony that proved that oj was in his house when park was ringing that buzzer.
Actually it was part of Parks testimony alomg with Katos that proved oj was in his house. Judges itos ruling did or cannot disprove that testimony. i see no reason to mention weezers comments to me.:cool:

As you've pointed out to me before this is a discussion board and we can respond to or comment on any post we wish. That's what I was doing. :seeya:

[martin II]

tv
jury in deliberations.
one juror; Is furhman a racist
12 jurors ; yes
one juror: could he have planted the glove
12 jurors: yes.
one juror; do we need to discuss him
12 jurors ; no

[martin II]

As you've pointed out to me before this is a discussion board and we can respond to or comment on any post we wish. That's what I was doing. :seeya:

just making a request.i am staying away from nasty name calling and fights.

[tv]

tv
jury in deliberations.
one juror; Is furhman a racist
12 jurors ; yes
one juror: could he have planted the glove
12 jurors: yes.
one juror; do we need to discuss him
12 jurors ; no

You're making this up. Time for me to call it a night.

[martin II]

He was saying the theory was without merit. There's no need for you to become uncivil.

they did ague it right?

[martin II]

You're making this up. Time for me to call it a night.

i sure did and expected you to know i did.

[William Anthony]

He was saying the theory was without merit. There's no need for you to become uncivil.

Is it becoming uncivil to ask you to clarify your position when he said the theory was without merit based on the evidence he thought he would hear but obviously that changed since the defense argued it. :) There is no need for you to make false accusations.

[martin II]

You're making this up. Time for me to call it a night.

tv
i was attempting to explain my position by using a simple example. i was sure you would understand that i did not post it as fact.

[tv]

Is it becoming uncivil to ask you to clarify your position when he said the theory was without merit based on the evidence he thought he would hear but obviously that changed since the defense argued it. :) There is no need for you to make false accusations.

I don't know what false accusation you refer to but I'm not arguing with you. Judge Ito made the ruling and stated the Court's position that the planting theory was without merit. That's the way it is no matter how you try to spin it.

[tv]

tv
i was attempting to explain my position by using a simple example. i was sure you would understand that i did not post it as fact.

You didn't state that in your post so I thought you were stating it as fact. Since the jury didn't consider Mark Fuhrman in their deliberations we know that discussion never took place.

[martin II]

You didn't state that in your post so I thought you were stating it as fact. Since the jury didn't consider Mark Fuhrman in their deliberations we know that discussion never took place.

i had posted that they did not discuss furhman so i thought you would know it was not fact.i don't think it is worth further discussion.thanks for your understanding.:cool:

[tv]

i had posted that they did not discuss furhman so i thought you would know it was not fact.i don't think it is worth further discussion.thanks for your understanding.:cool:

I agree it's not worth discussing.:)

[weezer]

I agree it's not worth discussing.:)

for some, a lie told often enough becomes their truth. ;)

[martin II]

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.

Can you explain how furhman went from a disgraced racist detective to a well known crime investigative author and tv personality if not by support of the american book purchasing public and others? His support by some here is well documented even by some women. Furhman was an adult when he was exposded for who he was.imo

[William Anthony]

I don't know what false accusation you refer to but I'm not arguing with you. Judge Ito made the ruling and stated the Court's position that the planting theory was without merit. That's the way it is no matter how you try to spin it.

Then why was the defense allowed to argue it?:)

[William Anthony]

i had posted that they did not discuss furhman so i thought you would know it was not fact.i don't think it is worth further discussion.thanks for your understanding.:cool:

That's is possibly because he was exposed to the world as to what he was and there was no need to for those intelligent and sophisticated jurors to consider him. Stick a fork in him because he was done.

[William Anthony]

If a lie is told often enough by some, then their truth becomes MF was creating a role in a screen play when he spoke those vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words and told of his and other LE members exploits.

[William Anthony]

Can you explain how furhman went from a disgraced racist detective to a well known crime investigative author and tv personality if not by support of the american book purchasing public and others? His support by some here is well documented even by some women. Furhman was an adult when he was exposded for who he was.imo

Embrace the racist and hate the defendant that was acquitted, all of which is in black and white.

[GreenIce]

Then why was the defense allowed to argue it?:)

William,

I remember when Judge Ito made this ruling and IMO, he was saying that there was no proof that Fuhrman planted the glove, he did not say that the glove was not planted.

However, I think this is one of times when he was a "Dancing Ito". IMO, I can't remember when he made this statement, but I do wonder, if he was ever tipped off about his wife and MF. I don't think she would have told him and I can completely understand why she would never tell him, but someone had to warn him. Seems to me that even then MF was surrounded by the aura of the LAPD--it protected him again. IMO.

[GreenIce]

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".

fgump2,

Divorce or break ups do not bring out the best people. IMO, I think it would be very hard to find a couple who have not said things that they are not proud of or become angry with themselves because they lost control.

The problem in this case is that the public wants to decided when the truth is "trashing" Nilcole or when it is just being brutally honest. For example, Simpson talking about Nicole was different from day to day--that is trashing Nicole.

However, Nicole getting into bed to give a man a "Brentwood Hello" is considered brutal honestly. Which by the way, we don't know if the Brentwood Hello is true or not but we do Simpson is not the only one who was having a hard time with Nicole's in the last few weeks of her life. She friends, to include Kris Jenner, Cora Fischman and Ron Shipp were deeply worried about Nicole. It seemed to me that the concern was much deeper then Nicole spreading her wings.

I do believe Simpson did feel guilty about his attitude toward the end of the relationship, he just wanted out, he wanted out of the mix. What is so horrible about that? Also, is really that much out of the norm that the things that bring a couple together are the very same things that can pull a couple apart?

How is saying the "World of Faye Resnick" is trashing Nicole? You make a good point, he did mention Faye in this statement and he said he didn't think it had anything to do with the murders. He if killed her, he would have been pointing at everyone and who better to blame then a "junkie who was in rehab". I am pretty sure he knew Faye was living with Nicole and then went into rehab. He talked with CR about Faye. Never does he steer the police in her direction.

He also never points a finger at Kato. His lawyers wanted to look at Kato and said no, he was a good guy and wouldn't be mixed up in this. Even when he knew that the thumps Kato heard could not be proven, there was no trace evidence, he still didn't point the finger at him.

IMO, I think they loved each other very much and if Nicole was alive today, they would still love each other very much, however, loving someone and being in love with someone are two different things. You can also love someone so much but not trust them.

[William Anthony]

William,

I remember when Judge Ito made this ruling and IMO, he was saying that there was no proof that Fuhrman planted the glove, he did not say that the glove was not planted.

However, I think this is one of times when he was a "Dancing Ito". IMO, I can't remember when he made this statement, but I do wonder, if he was ever tipped off about his wife and MF. I don't think she would have told him and I can completely understand why she would never tell him, but someone had to warn him. Seems to me that even then MF was surrounded by the aura of the LAPD--it protected him again. IMO.

Some Gs have relied on the statement but know that the defense argued the theory of planting, indicating that somewhere along the line, Ito's ruling was overruled de jure or de facto, or both. :)

[bobaugust]

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

Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony when he said he thought Kaelin remained standing on the pathway near the driveway after seeing him come from behind the house and down the pathway until he saw him go to the gate control box. We know Park was mistaken because Kaelin testified that after he came from behind the house down the pathway too the driveway he saw the limo parked there and then he continued on to behind the garage. Kaelin testified when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there and that is when he went to the gate control box.

bobaugust

[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)

Nothing Baker asked or Park answered contradicted Park’s previous testimony. Park did see Kaelin AT the gate control box after he saw him come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

When Park was not paying attention to Kaelin he did not observe Kaelin walking in any direction until he saw him come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

The only trap here is the one you have imagined.

bobaugust

[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?

What is it that you don’t understand about Park’s testimony that when he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin he didn’t observe him walking in any direction? Park didn’t change his testimony on cross, Baker never asked him any questions about talking to Simpson on the intercom or seeing Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

bobaugust

[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. :)

Ford testified that his job was to video tape the rooms in the house after the evidence had been collected and that is what he said he did. Ford testified that when he first went to video tape Simpson’s bedroom that Fung was still working in there so Ford video taped the other bedrooms and returned to Simpson’s bedroom when Fung had completed his work in there. The socks had already been collected, that’s why they were not shown in the video tape.

Your argument that because the trace contamination found in the third test results in both evidence stains and Martz’s own nonpreserved blood is 1000 times more than what would be found in a normal person’s blood is irrelevant since neither the evidence stains or Martz’s blood was contaminated with EDTA when it was in anyone’s body.

Dr. Lee gave a reasonable logical explanation for how those three blood samples were contaminated when the third test was conducted.

The crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders that when enlarged showed one of the supposed planted blood drops on the bottom of the rear gate at Bundy was not “allegedly taken the morning after the murders” it was taken the morning after the murders and Simpson’s defense never claimed otherwise. All of the crime scene frist generation photographs taken the morning after the murders including that photograph were originally provided to the defense. When the prosecution presented that enlarged photograph in court Simpson’s defense argued that they only had the small version not the blowup version. But because they could see the same stain in their photograph by simply using a magnifying glass Judge Ito overruled the defense objective and the enlarged photograph was entered into evidence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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.

Park never testified in the criminal trial that Kaelin stood on the driveway for a minute or more. Park did testify in the criminal trial that there were times he was looking at the dashboard. There is no credible evidence to support the inference that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified he first saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight and no attorney in this case ever inferred, suggested or claimed Park was mistaken about that.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Fact Kato was in no danger.
Fact MF, a convicted perjurer, testified he found the glove behind Kato's quarters and there was no blood back there.
Fact Kato told MF where he heard the thumps.
Fact an unidentified Caucasian hair was found inside the Rockingham glove.

There was no unidentified hair ever found inside the Rockingham glove.

[bobaugust]

i am not sure what the meaning of your post but

It is not my theory that there was no evidence that oj jumped the fence. It was testimony that no one did so.testimony backed by the lead detective.
It was testimony that proved that oj was in his house when park was ringing that buzzer.
Actually it was part of Parks testimony alomg with Katos that proved oj was in his house. Judges itos ruling did or cannot disprove that testimony. i see no reason to mention weezers comments to me.:cool:

There was no testimony that proved Simpson was in the house when Park rang the intercom during the fifteen minutes he was waiting outside the gate before he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. If you think there was the post it please.

bobaugust

[martin II]

fgump2,

Divorce or break ups do not bring out the best people. IMO, I think it would be very hard to find a couple who have not said things that they are not proud of or become angry with themselves because they lost control.

The problem in this case is that the public wants to decided when the truth is "trashing" Nilcole or when it is just being brutally honest. For example, Simpson talking about Nicole was different from day to day--that is trashing Nicole.

However, Nicole getting into bed to give a man a "Brentwood Hello" is considered brutal honestly. Which by the way, we don't know if the Brentwood Hello is true or not but we do Simpson is not the only one who was having a hard time with Nicole's in the last few weeks of her life. She friends, to include Kris Jenner, Cora Fischman and Ron Shipp were deeply worried about Nicole. It seemed to me that the concern was much deeper then Nicole spreading her wings.

I do believe Simpson did feel guilty about his attitude toward the end of the relationship, he just wanted out, he wanted out of the mix. What is so horrible about that? Also, is really that much out of the norm that the things that bring a couple together are the very same things that can pull a couple apart?

How is saying the "World of Faye Resnick" is trashing Nicole? You make a good point, he did mention Faye in this statement and he said he didn't think it had anything to do with the murders. He if killed her, he would have been pointing at everyone and who better to blame then a "junkie who was in rehab". I am pretty sure he knew Faye was living with Nicole and then went into rehab. He talked with CR about Faye. Never does he steer the police in her direction.

He also never points a finger at Kato. His lawyers wanted to look at Kato and said no, he was a good guy and wouldn't be mixed up in this. Even when he knew that the thumps Kato heard could not be proven, there was no trace evidence, he still didn't point the finger at him.

IMO, I think they loved each other very much and if Nicole was alive today, they would still love each other very much, however, loving someone and being in love with someone are two different things. You can also love someone so much but not trust them.


i agree.
even in his book he did not talk about drugs and nicole. he did talk about some instances where nicole was not at her best but he never trashed her in that book. most of it was how nicole was getting in the way with his relationshep with Paula and how she had changed. When cora told him that faye had told her she and nicole had a lesbin relationship he said he did not believe it.He also talked about what a good mom she was.
i think that some have such hate for oj that any comment about nicole is taken as trashing her and that is just misdirected anger imo.:cool:

[martin II]

There was no testimony that proved Simpson was in the house when Park rang the intercom during the fifteen minutes he was waiting outside the gate before he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. If you think there was the post it please.

bobaugust

I have posted what you request several times.

[martin II]

Park never testified in the criminal trial that Kaelin stood on the driveway for a minute or more. Park did testify in the criminal trial that there were times he was looking at the dashboard. There is no credible evidence to support the inference that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified he first saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight and no attorney in this case ever inferred, suggested or claimed Park was mistaken about that.

bobaugust

It does matter when Park testified to Kato standing on the sidewalk.He testified to that.

[martin II]

It does NOT matter when Park testified to Kato standing on the sidewalk.He testified to that.

The important thing is he did say it.

[tv]

i agree.
even in his book he did not talk about drugs and nicole. he did talk about some instances where nicole was not at her best but he never trashed her in that book. most of it was how nicole was getting in the way with his relationshep with Paula and how she had changed. When cora told him that faye had told her she and nicole had a lesbin relationship he said he did not believe it.He also talked about what a good mom she was.
i think that some have such hate for oj that any comment about nicole is taken as trashing her and that is just misdirected anger imo.:cool:

There are multiple instances of talking about drugs and Nicole in his book.

[martin II]

Embrace the racist and hate the defendant that was acquitted, all of which is in black and white.

In terms of facts and accuracy, many of the books on this trial should have never been published. It is the publishing industry that supported furhman because his book would be anti oj and there was a market in america for that slant. Many that still support him today do so out of hatred for oj. They are willing to forgive his racist views as long as he is a symble of anti oj.imo

[martin II]

There are multiple instances of talking about drugs and Nicole in his book.

i will look to see if my memory was faulty on this issue. what did he say?

[tv]

i will look to see if my memory was faulty on this issue. what did he say?

He says numerous times that that she's on drugs. I see now where you get a lot of your information -- it's taken right out of the murderer's book. I can't believe he wrote those words knowing his children would read them. No, wait...of course I believe it, he'll do anything to make himself look like a saint for putting up with her. Hey, maybe if he gets thirsty in jail he can turn the water into wine.

[William Anthony]

There was no unidentified hair ever found inside the Rockingham glove.

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/chain_of_custody.htm

[William Anthony]

Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony when he said he thought Kaelin remained standing on the pathway near the driveway after seeing him come from behind the house and down the pathway until he saw him go to the gate control box. We know Park was mistaken because Kaelin testified that after he came from behind the house down the pathway too the driveway he saw the limo parked there and then he continued on to behind the garage. Kaelin testified when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there and that is when he went to the gate control box.

bobaugust

So, you arbitrarily decided that Park was mistaken when he testified that he saw Kato standing but was correct when he said before he saw Kato standing that he saw Kato walk down the Ahsford pathway, even though Kato said he was running, because that supports your conclusion and you ignore that testimony which does not, correct? :)

[William Anthony]

Nothing Baker asked or Park answered contradicted Park’s previous testimony. Park did see Kaelin AT the gate control box after he saw him come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

When Park was not paying attention to Kaelin he did not observe Kaelin walking in any direction until he saw him come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

The only trap here is the one you have imagined.

bobaugust

Why is it that you choose to ignore this testimony of Park on direct,

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

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

Can you not see the trap with this testimony on cross

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

A. Don't really care.

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

A. Don't know.

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

A. True."

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

A. Yes."

Park testified that he saw Kato walk up to the gate control box in approximately a minute but then contradicted that testimony by saying he did not see Kato walk in any direction but saw him at the gate control box, or is it that you can't admit it, because your conclusion maybe wrong?.

[William Anthony]

Ford testified that his job was to video tape the rooms in the house after the evidence had been collected and that is what he said he did ([B]Please, post the testimony where Mr. Ford testified that he videoed the bedroom after the socks were collected, as you claimed, as opposed to his testimony that he was told to video the scene after the evidence was collected?). Ford testified that when he first went to video tape Simpson’s bedroom that Fung was still working in there so Ford video taped the other bedrooms and returned to Simpson’s bedroom when Fung had completed his work in there. The socks had already been collected, that’s why they were not shown in the video tape. (That is one inference and another is that they were not there by the evidence collection record and the timer on the camcorder and the fact that DF attempted to change his testimony on that issue. It doesn't matter, who is right or wrong, only that the evidence supports to reasonable inferences and we know what the sophisticated jury was instructed to do in that circumstance. :))

Your argument that because the trace contamination found in the third test results in both evidence stains and Martz’s own nonpreserved blood is 1000 times more than what would be found in a normal person’s blood is irrelevant since neither the evidence stains or Martz’s blood was contaminated with EDTA when it was in anyone’s body. (I have never said that it was contaminated with DNA while in the body. Only that there is evidence that it was planted, :).)

Dr. Lee gave a reasonable logical explanation for how those three blood samples were contaminated when the third test was conducted.

The crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders that when enlarged showed one of the supposed planted blood drops on the bottom of the rear gate at Bundy was not “allegedly taken the morning after the murders” it was taken the morning after the murders and Simpson’s defense never claimed otherwise. (Just because you did not comprehend it, as you like to say, doesn't mean it did not happen, Smile) All of the crime scene frist generation photographs taken the morning after the murders including that photograph were originally provided to the defense. When the prosecution presented that enlarged photograph in court Simpson’s defense argued that they only had the small version not the blowup version. But because they could see the same stain in their photograph by simply using a magnifying glass Judge Ito overruled the defense objective and the enlarged photograph was entered into evidence. (I have never claimed it was not entered into evidence and, therefore, this portion of your post is superfluous, IMHO.)

bobaugust

Lets us now continue our discussion.:)

[martin II]

He says numerous times that that she's on drugs. I see now where you get a lot of your information -- it's taken right out of the murderer's book. I can't believe he wrote those words knowing his children would read them. No, wait...of course I believe it, he'll do anything to make himself look like a saint for putting up with her. Hey, maybe if he gets thirsty in jail he can turn the water into wine.

Not true
i have never said i get a lot of my information from his book so your claim is not accurate at all.
As can be seen from my post most of my information is from testimony and some media articles and investigative reports.
You have said that he mentions her numerous times concerning drugs and i had asked you to inform us of some of the things he said about her and drugs in his book.Is that possible?

[William Anthony]

Park never testified in the criminal trial that Kaelin stood on the driveway for a minute or more. Park did testify in the criminal trial that there were times he was looking at the dashboard. There is no credible evidence to support the inference that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified he first saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight and no attorney in this case ever inferred, suggested or claimed Park was mistaken about that.

bobaugust

Allow me to post the actual testimony in regard to the dashboard from the criminal trial and correct another of inaccurate post.

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

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

Might have is just a glorified maybe. :)

Now let me correct another inaccurate post with the actual testimony.

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

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

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

***



Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS. WHY DID YOU SIT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS IN YOUR CAR AFTER YOU HUNG UP? (Park testified that he talked to his boss for thirty seconds and waited another thirty seconds, one minute.)

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

***


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

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK. (This means that Kato stood for at least thirty seconds)

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

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

****

Q: OKAY. DID YOU -- AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON YOU GOT BACK IN THE CAR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID MR. KAELIN COME OVER TO THE GATE?

A: TWENTY OR THIRTY SECONDS. (Park testified that the buzzer was answered by Simpson almost immediately, which means that Kato stood for a minute or more)

I don't know how many times I must post this testimony because, as you like to say your fail to comprehend it.

[tv]

Not true
i have never said i get a lot of my information from his book so your claim is not accurate at all.

You have said that he mentions her numerous times concerning drugs and i had asked you to inform us of some of the things he said about her and drugs in his book.Is that possible?

It's possible but if you have the book you could just look. I didn't say you said you got your information from Simpson's book; I said I could see where you get your information. We all post things from books -- I just think his book is mostly a pack of lies. I think he got own name right and that's about it. He even lied about the details of the murders.

[martin II]

It's possible but if you have the book you could just look. I didn't say you said you got your information from Simpson's book; I said I could see where you get your information. We all post things from books -- I just think his book is mostly a pack of lies. I think he got own name right and that's about it. He even lied about the details of the murders.

tv
i said he did not talk about nicole and drugs
you said he did many times
i asked you to inform us of specific things he said on that issue.
instead of backing up your claims with specific examples you tell me to read the book?

[weezer]

It's possible but if you have the book you could just look. I didn't say you said you got your information from Simpson's book; I said I could see where you get your information. We all post things from books -- I just think his book is mostly a pack of lies. I think he got own name right and that's about it. He even lied about the details of the murders.

I'm beginning to think two of the posters enjoy jerking people around --demanding that links be posted, etc., and they refuse to do the same. just a thought.

[tv]

tv
i said he did not talk about nicole and drugs
you said he did many times
i asked you to inform us of specific things he said on that issue.
instead of backing up your claims with specific examples you tell me to read the book?

You said you were going to look to see if your memory is faulty. I thought that meant you were going to look. :shrug:

[tv]

I'm beginning to think two of the posters enjoy jerking people around --demanding that links be posted, etc., and they refuse to do the same. just a thought.

Exactly my thought, too. I'm reluctant to post the remarks he made about Nicole because I don't want to put his vile comments on the board. She's been victimized enough.

[weezer]

Exactly my thought, too. I'm reluctant to post the remarks he made about Nicole because I don't want to put his vile comments on the board. She's been victimized enough.

oh -- I don't think you have to post orenthal's comments -- just refer the poster back to his vile comments about Nicole. ;)

[tv]

oh -- I don't think you have to post orenthal's comments -- just refer the poster back to his vile comments about Nicole. ;)

You mean like 'nicole brought nothing to the marriage'? :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Some poster should not judge so harshly themselves and their friend, IMHO, smile. Lighthearted banter.

[William Anthony]

But they got hoisted by their own petard again because the video has the counter and the number. They will never, ever be able to explain that to you because we've got the testimony in black and white as when they went upstairs and collected them. Those socks from the beginning is going to bring them down. So those are the socks, these socks. No dirt, no soil, no berries, no trace. Nobody sees any blood until August 4th. All these miraculous things start happening, and then--Mr. Scheck will talk more about this. Then we find out it has EDTA in it. Is it planted along with that back gate?

"He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning.

"You cannot trust. I mean, you cannot go back and say, well, maybe they planted evidence on the glove. Maybe on the back gate. Oh, there is blood missing. Big deal. How can that be a big deal? That is--many, many reasonable doubts imbedded in all of that, but you know, there is a fourth C, contaminated, compromised and corrupted, but there is a fourth c that goes along with how these things happened that relates to this testimony, and the fourth c has to do with cover-up,

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As far as the Prosecution motion for preemptive instruction, admonition or warning to the Defense regarding Detective Fuhrman and regarding the McKinny tapes, the court finds that to be premature. I trust that counsel know what the law is regarding appropriate argument by counsel. The evidence code is clear that counsel may not argue or mention the invocation and I'm sure Defense counsel know that the sanction will be swift and severe, and I don't think it's necessary for the court to take any action at this time. As far as the chart regarding burden of proof, reasonable doubt, that is a very familiar chart to the court. I've seen it before. I'm sure I'll see it again. The objection to that is overruled. The objection to the clips of the glove demo is sustained. It is not part of the official record. All right. Anything else? Are we ready? All right. Deputy Trower, let's have the jurors, please.

[weezer]

But they got hoisted by their own petard again because the video has the counter and the number. They will never, ever be able to explain that to you because we've got the testimony in black and white as when they went upstairs and collected them. Those socks from the beginning is going to bring them down. So those are the socks, these socks. No dirt, no soil, no berries, no trace. Nobody sees any blood until August 4th. All these miraculous things start happening, and then--Mr. Scheck will talk more about this. Then we find out it has EDTA in it. Is it planted along with that back gate?

"He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning.

"You cannot trust. I mean, you cannot go back and say, well, maybe they planted evidence on the glove. Maybe on the back gate. Oh, there is blood missing. Big deal. How can that be a big deal? That is--many, many reasonable doubts imbedded in all of that, but you know, there is a fourth C, contaminated, compromised and corrupted, but there is a fourth c that goes along with how these things happened that relates to this testimony, and the fourth c has to do with cover-up,

so then the civil trial happened and showed that not only was cockroach wrong about the gloves, he was wrong about the gate! in the civil trial, Dr. Lee and Dr. Reider both testified that there was no contamination. The civil trial proved that the only cover up in the criminal trial was done by a very expensive defense team -- remember? they got caught with their panties down for suppressing/lying about witness testimony.

[William Anthony]

The socio political production would not allow the evidence of planting as they would not allow the questions to show evidence of planting. The socio political production should have had nothing to do with the murder trial acquittal but thanks for showing that it did in the minds of many. :)

[weezer]

The socio political production would not allow the evidence of planting as they would not allow the questions to show evidence of planting. The socio political production should have had nothing to do with the murder trial acquittal but thanks for showing that it did in the minds of many. :)

anyone that didn't listen to the evidence from BOTH trials was predisposed to their own agenda. The theories/accusations would have been allowed with supporting evidence. There was none. :)

[martin II]

You said you were going to look to see if your memory is faulty. I thought that meant you were going to look. :shrug:

tv
since you told me to read the book, i did for the question of whether oj accused Nicole of drug use.

i skimmed the book and you were correct oj did mention possible drug involvement of nicole. His complaints were based on her new friends that included protitutes that worked for HF 'the hollywood madam" Brent Cantor
the drug dealer that was killed as Ron was killed with knife, Keith Z the drug dealer that managed the Mezzalouna sp resturant and Faye who all knew had a drug problem. Cora, Nicoles friend made the same complaints to Nicole about her changed life style at that time especially her involvement Faye. His other complaint was that he did not want his kids around these people.

However he never said that he had actually seen her do drugs but had been concerned about her changed personality and how, on some of her visits to his house she had glassy eyes and was very erratic.

But you are correct he did mention drugs and Nicole.

[William Anthony]

Anyone, who doesn't understand the difference in a criminal trial and a civil one, should not be judging those, who choose not to follow a trial that Most of America, IMHO, knew the outcome of before one iota of evidence was introduced. It is impossible to show evidence of planting, if questions in regard to planting aren't allowed, IMHO. :)

[martin II]

Ito allowed Bailey to question Furhman about the use of the N word to show racism and he allowed some tapes to show furhmans disposition, in his own words, to plant evidence.

[martin II]

Gloves
The gloves did not fit.
Latex gloves would not change the size of gloves.
Rubin said 3 cc of liquid would not make the gloves shrink.
Rubin said the gloves would not just drop off or be pulled off without pulling each finger one by one.
We don't know what size gloves or what color Nicole purchased and there was no model number on the sales receipt identifying that Aris glove.
Aris was not the only company that used that special loop stich on gloves.
There is no proof that Nicole gave oj any glove she purchased.
There is no reason that oj would have had to keep a glove with a hole in the palm.
There is no evidence to prove that oj was in the walkway to DROP a glove.

[martin II]

Anyone, who doesn't understand the difference in a criminal trial and a civil one, should not be judging those, who choose not to follow a trial that Most of America, IMHO, knew the outcome of before one iota of evidence was introduced. It is impossible to show evidence of planting, if questions in regard to planting aren't allowed, IMHO. :)

One differance is a criminal trial is about taking ones freedom and a civil trial is about taking ones MONEY.

[weezer]

Anyone, who doesn't understand the difference in a criminal trial and a civil one, should not be judging those, who choose not to follow a trial that Most of America, IMHO, knew the outcome of before one iota of evidence was introduced. It is impossible to show evidence of planting, if questions in regard to planting aren't allowed, IMHO. :)

I wasn't judging -- I simply stated that anyone who refused to listen to the evidence from BOTH trials was predisposed to their own agenda. The theories/accusations would have been allowed with supporting evidence. There was none.

[weezer]

One differance is a criminal trial is about taking ones freedom and a civil trial is about taking ones MONEY.

and both were about someone being held responsible/liable for taking another life.

[William Anthony]

Oh, I think there has been some misunderstanding on the issue of planting in the socio political production. The plaintiffs called Dr. Terry Lee and Cotton and the issue of planting was addressed through his testimony. The issue that was not allowed was the issue of planting by MF and the defense was precluded from reading his criminal trial testimony into the record and, if IIRC, a poster said MF took the 5th in the socio political production.

[William Anthony]

A criminal trial involves the crime of homicide in which a defendant can be found guilty of taking the life of another through intent or reckless disregard for the consequences of one's actions, whereas in a civil trial one can be found liable for causing the wrongful death of another, without the intent to take or the reckless disregard necessary in the taking. I found that the word causing was used in the criminal definition for homicide and the phrase because of the wrongful conduct was used in the definition of wrongful death. I think it is just a matter of semantics and I hope my point was clear.

[tv]

tv
since you told me to read the book, i did for the question of whether oj accused Nicole of drug use.

i skimmed the book and you were correct oj did mention possible drug involvement of nicole. His complaints were based on her new friends that included protitutes that worked for HF 'the hollywood madam" Brent Cantor
the drug dealer that was killed as Ron was killed with knife, Keith Z the drug dealer that managed the Mezzalouna sp resturant and Faye who all knew had a drug problem. Cora, Nicoles friend made the same complaints to Nicole about her changed life style at that time especially her involvement Faye. His other complaint was that he did not want his kids around these people.

However he never said that he had actually seen her do drugs but had been concerned about her changed personality and how, on some of her visits to his house she had glassy eyes and was very erratic.

But you are correct he did mention drugs and Nicole.

It was more than a few mentions and his references to her supposed heavy drug use were very unflattering. Most of what he said can't be substantiated so I give it little credibility.

[William Anthony]

It was more than a few mentions and his references to her supposed heavy drug use were very unflattering. Most of what he said can't be substantiated so I give it little credibility.

Do you feel the same about the domestic violence and the pictures?

[martin II]

It was more than a few mentions and his references to her supposed heavy drug use were very unflattering. Most of what he said can't be substantiated so I give it little credibility.

i did not read him saying she had HEAVY drug use.

[martin II]

It was more than a few mentions and his references to her supposed heavy drug use were very unflattering. Most of what he said can't be substantiated so I give it little credibility.

Cora her best friend had the same concernes and made them clear to nicole and in her testimony. As i understand it so did Ron Shipp.

[martin II]

Cook
A loosing deal.

Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg ordered Gilbert to keep the suit safe pending the lawsuit's outcome. Goldman lawyer David Cook conceded the effort involved in pursuing the suit might exceed the reward "The prices for these [memorabilia] items are bargain-basement, Kmart prices now," Cook said

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/06/16/2009-06-16_lucky_suit_ends_in_suit_for_oj_atty.html#ixzz0I dW0jtTX&D

[William Anthony]

I do love posting portions of T. Lee's testimony.

"Q. (BY MR. BAKER) "If detectable levels of EDTA are found in the
stains, but significantly lower than the levels from blood in the
tube, then interpretation becomes problematic." What you meant by
that, sir, it becomes a problem to determine the EDT
A. Isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go down to the next one. You say, if not
planted -- can you read that for us -- convincing argument must be
found why EDTA is present at that level.
A. Yes. You want me to read it?
Q. Yes, because I have trouble reading your writing.
A. So do I.
Q. I can understand that.
A. "If not planted, convincing argument must be found for why the
EDTA is present at these levels.
Q. Now, read the next one.
A. I can't even finish that one.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. I think it's -- I don't know that word.
Q. You were attempting to find convincing argument as to why the
EDTA --
A. Oh, I think I can do it now. One would be direct contamination
from either the environment or contamination from the lab during the
sample analysis.
Q. So you were attempting to find convincing argument to explain
away the EDTA found by Rodger Martz, and you understood that to be
your -- your -- your goal; correct, sir?
A. No, that wasn't my goal. My goal was to understand why the trace
levels that were observed in that particular analysis were there.
Q. Well, now, so you came up with this ghosting or carry-over effect
from the equipment, correct? That's your theory of why these levels
of EDTA were found by Rodger Martz?
A. Another most reasonable explanation, yes.
Q. You have no information whatsoever about how Rodger Martz runs
his lab, correct?
A. Direct information, no."

****

"Q. And you don't know whether or not Roger Martz designed the
experiments and was very, very careful about his blank, was done
exactly the same way as the samples were done, using exactly the
same matrix, exactly the same volume, and exactly the same
procedure, do you?
A. I know what his blanks are. I don't know about his procedures,
yes."

****

"Q. And you're aware that Roger Martz threw away all the computer
data relative to the test on his own blood, correct?
A. That's my understanding. He threw away all the computer data as
to any of the test.
Q. No one could ever go back and see, but we know -- you are aware
that the tests that Roger Martz ran on his own blood is icorrect,
correct?
A. Incorrect in what sense?
Q. That's a poor question. I apologize. The levels that he found in
his blood is inconsistent with life, correct?
A. If you're saying that it would be impossible for him to have
found EDTA levels at those levels in his own blood, that is true,
but he didn't know that at the time.
Q. He was alive; he knew that, didn't he?
A. Yes. But he didn't know it was impossible for him to have EDTA
levels that high in his own blood; he did not know that.
Q. You talked to him about that?
A. No. There's no way I could have known. Nobody knew it at that
point.
Q. Now, it is common knowledge in the scientific industry that there
are no detectable levels of EDTA in a normal human being's blood,
correct?
A. In the past year there have been two labs that have designed
tests to prove that point, and they have determined that there's no
detectable levels of EDTA in anybody's blood.
Q. And so if, for example, Richard Fox were on the stand yesterday
and testified that there can be EDTA levels in human blood, that's
incorrect?
A. That's incorrect."

I think this is a perfect example of making an adverse party's witness your own and supports the inference of planting.

[weezer]

really? I guess this is a case of 'it's all in the eyes of the beholder' since I found his testimony substantiated and proved that there could not have been planting.

[William Anthony]

A. "If not planted, convincing argument must be found for why the
EDTA is present at these levels.
Q. Now, read the next one.
A. I can't even finish that one.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. I think it's -- I don't know that word.
Q. You were attempting to find convincing argument as to why the
EDTA --
A. Oh, I think I can do it now. One would be direct contamination
from either the environment or contamination from the lab during the
sample analysis.
Q. So you were attempting to find convincing argument to explain
away the EDTA found by Rodger Martz, and you understood that to be
your -- your -- your goal; correct, sir?
A. No, that wasn't my goal. My goal was to understand why the trace
levels that were observed in that particular analysis were there.
Q. Well, now, so you came up with this ghosting or carry-over effect
from the equipment, correct? That's your theory of why these levels
of EDTA were found by Rodger Martz?
A. Another most reasonable explanation, yes.
Q. You have no information whatsoever about how Rodger Martz runs
his lab, correct?
A. Direct information, no."

****

"Q. And you don't know whether or not Roger Martz designed the
experiments and was very, very careful about his blank, was done
exactly the same way as the samples were done, using exactly the
same matrix, exactly the same volume, and exactly the same
procedure, do you?
A. I know what his blanks are. I don't know about his procedures,
yes."

****

A. "Yes. But he didn't know it was impossible for him to have EDTA
levels that high in his own blood; he did not know that.
Q. You talked to him about that?
A. No. There's no way I could have known. Nobody knew it at that
point.
Q. Now, it is common knowledge in the scientific industry that there
are no detectable levels of EDTA in a normal human being's blood,
correct?
A. In the past year there have been two labs that have designed
tests to prove that point, and they have determined that there's no
detectable levels of EDTA in anybody's blood.
Q. And so if, for example, Richard Fox were on the stand yesterday
and testified that there can be EDTA levels in human blood, that's
incorrect?
A. That's incorrect."

I truly believe that there is one way to behold this testimony.

[William Anthony]

"MR. MARTZ: For this particular case, I think that it is, because EDTA in preserved blood is at least a thousand parts per million. If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established, that is a thousand-fold difference and I don't believe that any technique that I could have used could have been off by a thousand percent. "

Martz thought he had beheld an establishment, which T. Lee and the rest of the scientific community recognized as an impossibility. :) Behold, Martz provided evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence on the sock and gate stain was planted.:)

[weezer]

"MR. MARTZ: For this particular case, I think that it is, because EDTA in preserved blood is at least a thousand parts per million. If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established, that is a thousand-fold difference and I don't believe that any technique that I could have used could have been off by a thousand percent. "

Martz thought he had beheld an establishment, which T. Lee and the rest of the scientific community recognized as an impossibility. :) Behold, Martz provided evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence on the sock and gate stain was planted.:)

Not only did Dr. Cotton testify that the blood on the socks was 1000 times less than preserved blood, she testified that Nicole's blood was fresh (she was able to establish that fact by the amount of DNA). The blood drop was on the back gate the night of the murders -- are you now fantasizing that LE substituted preserved blood for the test? Even though there is no evidence that any of this happened? LOL

[William Anthony]

http://csmres.jmu.edu/biology/Bio480/Fall2006/Rubisco/group7/methods.html

"Q. And you're aware that Roger Martz threw away all the computer
data relative to the test on his own blood, correct?
A. That's my understanding. He threw away all the computer data as
to any of the test.
Q. No one could ever go back and see, but we know -- you are aware
that the tests that Roger Martz ran on his own blood is icorrect,
correct?
A. Incorrect in what sense?
Q. That's a poor question. I apologize. The levels that he found in
his blood is inconsistent with life, correct?
A. If you're saying that it would be impossible for him to have
found EDTA levels at those levels in his own blood, that is true,
but he didn't know that at the time."

Cotton

"Q. Isn't it true, that when you were -- you ran Nicole Brown Simpson's
reference sample, this is supposedly blood from her autopsy, in the GC system
you found evidence of a B allele? The B lit up, didn't it?

A. Just faintly.

Q. Thank you, Doctor?

A. I'm looking puzzled 'cause I don't -- I don't understand why you're pointing
to the chart. It doesn't --

Q. Actually, I'm only pointing to this.

As far as you're concerned, you found a faint B in her reference sample, did
you not?

A. Yes, a GC. She's a type AC and there is a very faint B.

Q. She doesn't have a B, does she?

A. No, that's --

Q. O.J. Simpson has a B, doesn't he?

A. Yes. But that's not . . .

Q. Thank you, Doctor.

MR. LAMBERT: Could she complete her answer?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Your reference sample should be the complete answer --

THE COURT: You can get her on redirect.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) -- Shouldn't it?

A. Yes."

****

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Of course, not.

Q. Okay.

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled. Hypothetical.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Correct?

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

Q. Yes.

A. Sure.

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

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

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

A. Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Thank you.

A. That had been made from sock.

Q. It's very clean?

A. It's very clean.

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

A. This one is not in terms of degradation.

I hate to explain the obvious. However, it seems to be needed. Since, if the belief is the blood could not have come from the reference sample, which the testimony was that the reference sample was not clean in terms of degradation, the obvious inference is that it came from a wound. One was able to take some blood from a wound collect it in a tube and then place some of it on a swatch and no one could tell where the blood came from, by the testimony, and Cotton could not tell how the blood got on the nylon, by the testimony. :)

[weezer]

the poster seems to be better versed in law than in what happens to blood when the heart stops pumping, the body dies, or once blood is collected. Please tell me you don't really believe the part about a 'wound'..........

Sorry, but I have to giggle at the thought that the poster believes there is something sinister in the doctor's answer that she didn't know how the blood got on the socks. Geez -- did you think she was there when orenthal was murdering Ron and Nicole? :confused:

[William Anthony]

The poster is aware that there was a large pool of blood by Ms. NBS, which allegedly was fresh, and that it would take very little to collect some in a tube, which would also explain the appearance of the B allele that should not have been there. There is nothing sinister in the fact that she didn't know, either the source or the method of how the blood got on the sock, which was the point, smile.

[GreenIce]

Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony when he said he thought Kaelin remained standing on the pathway near the driveway after seeing him come from behind the house and down the pathway until he saw him go to the gate control box. We know Park was mistaken because Kaelin testified that after he came from behind the house down the pathway too the driveway he saw the limo parked there and then he continued on to behind the garage. Kaelin testified when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there and that is when he went to the gate control box.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

What was Park's pre-criminal trial testimony a "mistake" on this issue? Did he explain why he did change his testimony?

Why can't Kato be the one who is mistaken and not Park?

Both men made mistakes in their testimony that night, why can't they be mistaken on this issue?

[GreenIce]

Ford testified that his job was to video tape the rooms in the house after the evidence had been collected and that is what he said he did. Ford testified that when he first went to video tape Simpson’s bedroom that Fung was still working in there so Ford video taped the other bedrooms and returned to Simpson’s bedroom when Fung had completed his work in there. The socks had already been collected, that’s why they were not shown in the video tape.

Your argument that because the trace contamination found in the third test results in both evidence stains and Martz’s own nonpreserved blood is 1000 times more than what would be found in a normal person’s blood is irrelevant since neither the evidence stains or Martz’s blood was contaminated with EDTA when it was in anyone’s body.

Dr. Lee gave a reasonable logical explanation for how those three blood samples were contaminated when the third test was conducted.

The crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders that when enlarged showed one of the supposed planted blood drops on the bottom of the rear gate at Bundy was not “allegedly taken the morning after the murders” it was taken the morning after the murders and Simpson’s defense never claimed otherwise. All of the crime scene frist generation photographs taken the morning after the murders including that photograph were originally provided to the defense. When the prosecution presented that enlarged photograph in court Simpson’s defense argued that they only had the small version not the blowup version. But because they could see the same stain in their photograph by simply using a magnifying glass Judge Ito overruled the defense objective and the enlarged photograph was entered into evidence.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

This is another problem in this case. Why weren't "close ups" of all the blood on the back gate? Why did it take so long to "find" this picture and it only showed up after the picture was enlarged?

The photographer only takes pictures of what he is told to take to take pictures of. Rokhar asked MF to point to the glove--why? If he asked MF to point to the glove because it was difficult to see, then why not the blood drops on the back gate?

How do you know when this picture was taken? Was it labeled?

[William Anthony]

"MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can find the exhibit number for counsel.

MR. SCHECK: While we are looking for it, let me just ask you some questions.

MR. SCHECK: Do you remember seeing that photograph?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I did not see it.

MR. SCHECK: MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?

MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no."

[GreenIce]

It was more than a few mentions and his references to her supposed heavy drug use were very unflattering. Most of what he said can't be substantiated so I give it little credibility.

TV,

Most of Faye's drug claims can't be substantiated either, yet she is believed. Isn't that kind of a double standard?

The changes in Nicole were so severe and happened so quickly, isn't it a fair question to ask about drugs? Simpson also said that Nicole thought she was having a nervous break down. Her close friends knew she was acting way, way out of character and they were concerned for her.

Nicole, Ron and Faye all were in Dr. Ameli's group sessions. So what "group" were they in? Dr. Ameli specialized in addiction and personal relationships. Why was Nicole seeing Dr. Ameli? When did Nicole see Dr. Ameli?

IMO, the truth can be unflattering. However, didn't he say that he did not know if was drugs or drinking that were causing these changes?

[fgump2]

The poster is aware that there was a large pool of blood by Ms. NBS, which allegedly was fresh, and that it would take very little to collect some in a tube, which would also explain the appearance of the B allele that should not have been there. There is nothing sinister in the fact that she didn't know, which was the point, smile.

I don't think the blood on the sock could have come from the pool of blood. The pool of blood would have had a lot of very active bacteria in it. The blood was obviously wet, and it was a fairly warm night in June. The blood itself would have been warm when it left Nicole's body. Ths would cause a break down of the DNA. I think the police didn't get there till about 2 or three hours after the killings, and probably didn't find out that Nicole was related to Orenthal till some time later. I think a lot of bacteria decay would have taken place by then. This translates into a breakdown of DNA.

In Rantala's book, OJ Unmasked, she wrote that the DNA from the blood pools around Nicole was much more decayed, harder to identify, than the blood in isolated drops that dried fairly quickly. Rantala's book said the DNA from the large pool(s) of blood was barely identifiable as Nicole's DNA.

I suppose it would be an interesting experiment to think of all the ways blood could have gotten onto the sock (including various plainting theories) and then try to reproduce these scenarios in terms of measuring the breaddown level of DNA they would produce. Obviously any scenario in which the blood has been taken from a dead body that has been outside for several hours would be hard to reproduce.

I think another defense theory is that a detective took a blood sample from the corpse with a blood sampler kit similar to what a nurse would use (for example the police nurse). I don't know if detectives would normally have these blood sampler kits with them.

[martin II]

TV,

Most of Faye's drug claims can't be substantiated either, yet she is believed. Isn't that kind of a double standard?

The changes in Nicole were so severe and happened so quickly, isn't it a fair question to ask about drugs? Simpson also said that Nicole thought she was having a nervous break down. Her close friends knew she was acting way, way out of character and they were concerned for her.

Nicole, Ron and Faye all were in Dr. Ameli's group sessions. So what "group" were they in? Dr. Ameli specialized in addiction and personal relationships. Why was Nicole seeing Dr. Ameli? When did Nicole see Dr. Ameli?

IMO, the truth can be unflattering. However, didn't he say that he did not know if was drugs or drinking that were causing these changes?GI

All of your post is true ans correct. Feeling sorry that a person was killed should not cause one to ignore the facts of that persons actions.imo

[martin II]

TV,

Most of Faye's drug claims can't be substantiated either, yet she is believed. Isn't that kind of a double standard?

The changes in Nicole were so severe and happened so quickly, isn't it a fair question to ask about drugs? Simpson also said that Nicole thought she was having a nervous break down. Her close friends knew she was acting way, way out of character and they were concerned for her.

Nicole, Ron and Faye all were in Dr. Ameli's group sessions. So what "group" were they in? Dr. Ameli specialized in addiction and personal relationships. Why was Nicole seeing Dr. Ameli? When did Nicole see Dr. Ameli?

IMO, the truth can be unflattering. However, didn't he say that he did not know if was drugs or drinking that were causing these changes?

everything that faye says about oj beating nicole and him doing drugs is believed, but what she said about the lesbian relationship and nicole freebassing with her is not.

[fgump2]

TV,

Most of Faye's drug claims can't be substantiated either, yet she is believed. Isn't that kind of a double standard?

The changes in Nicole were so severe and happened so quickly, isn't it a fair question to ask about drugs? Simpson also said that Nicole thought she was having a nervous break down. Her close friends knew she was acting way, way out of character and they were concerned for her.

Nicole, Ron and Faye all were in Dr. Ameli's group sessions. So what "group" were they in? Dr. Ameli specialized in addiction and personal relationships. Why was Nicole seeing Dr. Ameli? When did Nicole see Dr. Ameli?

IMO, the truth can be unflattering. However, didn't he say that he did not know if was drugs or drinking that were causing these changes?

If we are going to consider the fact that Nicole's personality changes were caused by drug addiction, then we should also consider that they might have been caused by her fear of Orenthal. I believe that she wrote in her diary and told friends that she dumped Orenthal in the first half of May and that she thought he would kill her because of this. She made her will out shortly after she dumped him, which supports the idea that she thought he would kill her.

The fact that Nicole was seriously into physical fitness in the last months of her life indicates to me that she wasn't deeply into illegal drug use at the time. I think that physical fitness is more likely to be combined with heavy drinking than with illegal drug use; although I don't claim she was drinking heavily at the time. If she was drinking at the time I think her fear of Orenthal probably was a contributing cause. I suppose a liver examination might have shown something about any substance abuse problem.

I don't take Dr. Ameli seriously because I don't think it is proven that either Nicole or Ron ever consulted with her. There is no paper evidence connecting her to either Ron or Nicole.

[fgump2]

everything that faye says about oj beating nicole and him doing drugs is believed, but what she said about the lesbian relationship and nicole freebassing with her is not.

The possible lesbian relationship has no relevance for either trial (1995, or 1996) Oj beating Niole does have relevance. THe drug use of either has some relevance.

[GreenIce]

I don't think the blood on the sock could have come from the pool of blood. The pool of blood would have had a lot of very active bacteria in it. The blood was obviously wet, and it was a fairly warm night in June. The blood itself would have been warm when it left Nicole's body. Ths would cause a break down of the DNA. I think the police didn't get there till about 2 or three hours after the killings, and probably didn't find out that Nicole was related to Orenthal till some time later. I think a lot of bacteria decay would have taken place by then. This translates into a breakdown of DNA.

In Rantala's book, OJ Unmasked, she wrote that the DNA from the blood pools around Nicole was much more decayed, harder to identify, than the blood in isolated drops that dried fairly quickly. Rantala's book said the DNA from the large pool(s) of blood was barely identifiable as Nicole's DNA.

I suppose it would be an interesting experiment to think of all the ways blood could have gotten onto the sock (including various plainting theories) and then try to reproduce these scenarios in terms of measuring the breaddown level of DNA they would produce. Obviously any scenario in which the blood has been taken from a dead body that has been outside for several hours would be hard to reproduce.

I think another defense theory is that a detective took a blood sample from the corpse with a blood sampler kit similar to what a nurse would use (for example the police nurse). I don't know if detectives would normally have these blood sampler kits with them.

fgump2,

The major problems with the socks:

4 State experts did not see blood on them and 3 defense experts did not see blood on the socks.

The glove at Rockingham was examined right away because they were believed to be worn by the killer of Nicole and Ron.

The knit cap was also examined right away because it was believed to have been worn by the killer.

The socks, the most important piece of evidence at Rockingham, also believed to worn by the killer were not tested for blood right away.

Also, another problem--which I just thought of, blood was not the only evidence that could have been gotten from the socks. Fibers, dirt, berry juice, whatever.

Dennis Fung was not the first person who entered the bedroom. Who were the first people to have seen socks and who has claimed that he was the first person who saw the socks? I'll give you a quarter if you get the answer right:)

LAPD detectives are trained in blood collection and do have access to the lab. If I am reading Lange and VA's book correctly on this, the only blood they are not allowed to collect is any blood found on a victim.

Also in there book, VA and Lange claim they did help the Dr. Golden during the autopsy as well as seeing a contusion on Nicole's scalp--yet Dr. Golden missed this?

Lange also helped Claudine Ratcliff take measurements of the bodies at the crime scene.

Their explaination of why some of the evidence was moved was because Claudine Ratcliff is not a "small" woman. Because of her size, it made manuvering around the crimse scene difficult.

Another major problem if Ron and Nicole were killed quickly, there would have been no pools of blood for the killer to step or any chance the blood would have been spattered on the socks.

Another major problem if Nicole was knocked out first and she was killed on the killer's way out by grabbing her hair and lifting her head back and slitting her throat, Nicole could hot have been able to grab his ankle at all let alone be able to reach under the pants and make this grab.

It makes no sense that only Nicole's blood would have been found on the socks and not Ron's who put up struggle. Who was able to kick out and punch his attackers.

[martin II]

If we are going to consider the fact that Nicole's personality changes were caused by drug addiction, then we should also consider that they might have been caused by her fear of Orenthal. I believe that she wrote in her diary and told friends that she dumped Orenthal in the first half of May and that she thought he would kill her because of this. She made her will out shortly after she dumped him, which supports the idea that she thought he would kill her.

The fact that Nicole was seriously into physical fitness in the last months of her life indicates to me that she wasn't deeply into illegal drug use at the time. I think that physical fitness is more likely to be combined with heavy drinking than with illegal drug use; although I don't claim she was drinking heavily at the time. If she was drinking at the time I think her fear of Orenthal probably was a contributing cause. I suppose a liver examination might have shown something about any substance abuse problem.

I don't take Dr. Ameli seriously because I don't think it is proven that either Nicole or Ron ever consulted with her. There is no paper evidence connecting her to either Ron or Nicole.


Faye was doing drugs at nicoles some days before the murders. Why do you believe she told Cora that nicole had freebased cocain with her if nicole was not doing drugs as you suggest.

[martin II]

The possible lesbian relationship has no relevance for either trial (1995, or 1996) Oj beating Niole does have relevance. THe drug use of either has some relevance.

your post did not respond to the purpose of my post.

[martin II]

fgump2,

The major problems with the socks:

4 State experts did not see blood on them and 3 defense experts did not see blood on the socks.

The glove at Rockingham was examined right away because they were believed to be worn by the killer of Nicole and Ron.

The knit cap was also examined right away because it was believed to have been worn by the killer.

The socks, the most important piece of evidence at Rockingham, also believed to worn by the killer were not tested for blood right away.

Also, another problem--which I just thought of, blood was not the only evidence that could have been gotten from the socks. Fibers, dirt, berry juice, whatever.

Dennis Fung was not the first person who entered the bedroom. Who were the first people to have seen socks and who has claimed that he was the first person who saw the socks? I'll give you a quarter if you get the answer right:)

LAPD detectives are trained in blood collection and do have access to the lab. If I am reading Lange and VA's book correctly on this, the only blood they are not allowed to collect is any blood found on a victim.

Also in there book, VA and Lange claim they did help the Dr. Golden during the autopsy as well as seeing a contusion on Nicole's scalp--yet Dr. Golden missed this?

Lange also helped Claudine Ratcliff take measurements of the bodies at the crime scene.

Their explaination of why some of the evidence was moved was because Claudine Ratcliff is not a "small" woman. Because of her size, it made manuvering around the crimse scene difficult.

Another major problem if Ron and Nicole were killed quickly, there would have been no pools of blood for the killer to step or any chance the blood would have been spattered on the socks.

Another major problem if Nicole was knocked out first and she was killed on the killer's way out by grabbing her hair and lifting her head back and slitting her throat, Nicole could hot have been able to grab his ankle at all let alone be able to reach under the pants and make this grab.

It makes no sense that only Nicole's blood would have been found on the socks and not Ron's who put up struggle. Who was able to kick out and punch his attackers.

Great point about nicole being knocked out when the killer grabbed her hair and cut her neck.No chance for her to do anything.

[martin II]

If we are going to consider the fact that Nicole's personality changes were caused by drug addiction, then we should also consider that they might have been caused by her fear of Orenthal. I believe that she wrote in her diary and told friends that she dumped Orenthal in the first half of May and that she thought he would kill her because of this. She made her will out shortly after she dumped him, which supports the idea that she thought he would kill her.

The fact that Nicole was seriously into physical fitness in the last months of her life indicates to me that she wasn't deeply into illegal drug use at the time. I think that physical fitness is more likely to be combined with heavy drinking than with illegal drug use; although I don't claim she was drinking heavily at the time. If she was drinking at the time I think her fear of Orenthal probably was a contributing cause. I suppose a liver examination might have shown something about any substance abuse problem.

I don't take Dr. Ameli seriously because I don't think it is proven that either Nicole or Ron ever consulted with her. There is no paper evidence connecting her to either Ron or Nicole.

What nicole may have thought oj may do to her is not proof that he did any of it.

[GreenIce]

If we are going to consider the fact that Nicole's personality changes were caused by drug addiction, then we should also consider that they might have been caused by her fear of Orenthal. I believe that she wrote in her diary and told friends that she dumped Orenthal in the first half of May and that she thought he would kill her because of this. She made her will out shortly after she dumped him, which supports the idea that she thought he would kill her.

The fact that Nicole was seriously into physical fitness in the last months of her life indicates to me that she wasn't deeply into illegal drug use at the time. I think that physical fitness is more likely to be combined with heavy drinking than with illegal drug use; although I don't claim she was drinking heavily at the time. If she was drinking at the time I think her fear of Orenthal probably was a contributing cause. I suppose a liver examination might have shown something about any substance abuse problem.

I don't take Dr. Ameli seriously because I don't think it is proven that either Nicole or Ron ever consulted with her. There is no paper evidence connecting her to either Ron or Nicole.

fgump2,

Here is the problem with Dr. Ameli, she is the only one who has Nicole afraid of Simpson that night. She is the only one who knew that Nicole was planning to confront Simpson and the recital and tell him he was no longer a member of her family. She is the only who has Nicole expecting Simpson that night to make sure he paid her back for her behavior toward him that night.

Because she was one of the people to call the police and tell them what she knew of that night, she was the only person to offer a reason why Ron was at Nicole's that night before it was known about Ron returning the glasses.

There is no evidence that Nicole was afraid of Simpson. There is plenty of evidence that she was pissed at him but not afraid of him. If Nicole was afraid that Simpson was going to hurt if she stood up to him and tell him off, she would not have done so.

Also there is no witness to Nicole's telling off---only Dr. Ameli.

Her diary, according to Clark's book, they broke up in April and they were going back to every other weekend. The decided to try it again for year in April of 1993. In April 1994, they both agreed it wasn't working.

If Nicole dumped him in the first part of May, then explain why he took care of her while she was so ill she couldn't get out of bed?

Nicole was into fitness, she job how many miles every day? Simpson knew how fit and strong Nicole was--which makes no sense why he would use a knife to kill her. Paula said something very interesting before the criminal trial, it was well known how you could take Simpson down in heartbeat, go for his knees. If Paula knew this, I am sure Nicole knew this. Again, why a knife? Why risk being taken out by Nicole or Ron?

It has been assumed that any drugs Nicole was using or abusing have been illegal drugs, such as cocaine. But isn't it possible that Nicole could have been using and/or abusing prescription drugs? Do we know if he was prescribed any drugs for her illness or for mental health reasons--such as depression?

Dr. Ameli went the police early, she asked for protective custody, why would they throw away the one witness who could testify to the "trigger" of the murders? Her office was broken into, Ron and Nicole's files were stolen. She was approached and told not to talk about Ron and/or Nicole. If Nicole was the main target, then why would anyone care about Ron's records? If he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, then why would they take Ron's?

For that matter, why would anyone steal Ron and Nicole's files? What was in those files that were so important?

If the transactions were in cash, there would be no money paper trail. However, that does not mean that only Nicole and Ron and Faye were in these sessions.

Why would both families say they didn't believe Dr. Ameli? What was the shame of either of them going to her to work on issues they had? Are the families saying that Ron and Nicole would not seek out help to deal with their own personal issues or "demons"?

In regards to the civil trial, why wasn't Dr. Ameli used? If "every one knows that Simpson did it", what did it matter to the families that they were seeing her?

If Simpson was the sole killer and in jail, then who would steal these items? What did Simpson have to gain from the files.

Robert Shapiro's office was broken into--again, does this mean Simpson arranged to have his own lawyer's office broken into?

I can't remember exactly when but before the files were stolen from Dr. Ameli's office, she reported to the board that she received an offer to buy Ron and Nicole's files--when she declined---they were stolen.

Dr. Ameli also was crucial to the timeline--maybe that is why she wasn't used. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The possible lesbian relationship has no relevance for either trial (1995, or 1996) Oj beating Niole does have relevance. THe drug use of either has some relevance.

fgump2,

Yes this does have relevance--it is one example of Nicole's extreme behavior. Just like her asking Kato to line up guys for three somes. None of these make Nicole a bad person, but they are examples of extreme behavior for Nicole and does support what Simpson and her other friends said about her.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9197976]If we are going to consider the fact that Nicolconsider that they might have been caused by her fear of Orenthal.

fgump2,

Nicole's fear of OJ has always been associated with him doing physical harm to her.

However, isn't also fair to consider that Nicole was afraid of OJ not being her life? That she has been with him almost 20 years and now she wants to make it on her own but at times got frightened but the very goal she was trying to achieve?

Didn't Nicole make a down payment on a home a fair distance away from Simpson? This distance would make it much more difficult for Nicole to just drop the kids off and have Simpson or Arnelle watch the kids. There are several reasons why Nicole may have been afraid of Simpson, but that does mean she was physically afraid of him.

Wasn't Nicole trying to get a larger settlement because she had not real work experience? For Nicole to enter the working force at 35 or 36 having never had to really support herself, let alone two young children is very daunting. Yeah, I can see where Nicole was afraid--but not of Simpson killing her, IMO.

Faye expresses that Nicole had a "real" fear about Simpson, that was that a white man could not satisfy her as Simpson had and the only one who came close was Marcus Allen. However, there is a problem with Faye's story on this, all of Nicole's boyfriends since parting with Simpson were white.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

The major problems with the socks:

4 State experts did not see blood on them and 3 defense experts did not see blood on the socks. There was only a small amount of blood on dark socks. To me any mystery is why the waited so long to examine it with the correct procedures, not why the blood wasn't noticed earlier.

The glove at Rockingham was examined right away because they were believed to be worn by the killer of Nicole and Ron.

The knit cap was also examined right away because it was believed to have been worn by the killer.

The socks, the most important piece of evidence at Rockingham, also believed to worn by the killer were not tested for blood right away.
The right hand glove was more important than the socks, as was the Bronco, and probbly the drops of blood outside, and some inside.

Also, another problem--which I just thought of, blood was not the only evidence that could have been gotten from the socks. Fibers, dirt, berry juice, whatever. I don't see what relevance that has.

Dennis Fung was not the first person who entered the bedroom. Who were the first people to have seen socks and who has claimed that he was the first person who saw the socks? I'll give you a quarter if you get the answer right:)

LAPD detectives are trained in blood collection and do have access to the lab. If I am reading Lange and VA's book correctly on this, the only blood they are not allowed to collect is any blood found on a victim.

Also in there book, VA and Lange claim they did help the Dr. Golden during the autopsy as well as seeing a contusion on Nicole's scalp--yet Dr. Golden missed this?

Lange also helped Claudine Ratcliff take measurements of the bodies at the crime scene.

Their explaination of why some of the evidence was moved was because Claudine Ratcliff is not a "small" woman. Because of her size, it made manuvering around the crimse scene difficult.

Another major problem if Ron and Nicole were killed quickly, there would have been no pools of blood for the killer to step or any chance the blood would have been spattered on the socks. Quickly is a matter of degree. I don't think it takes much time for a slashed throat to produce a pool of blood. In any case the killer left bloody foot prints.

Another major problem if Nicole was knocked out first and she was killed on the killer's way out by grabbing her hair and lifting her head back and slitting her throat, Nicole could hot have been able to grab his ankle at all let alone be able to reach under the pants and make this grab. She could have been partially consciousness. I think her finger wasn't the only way to get blood on the sock. I think it is more likely that Orenthal got blood on one shoe, and brushed that shoe on the sock of the other foot. It is possible that Orenthal had blood on a finger and touched his sock, although this seems unlikely. He might have brushed his knife hand against the sock just after he cut her throat. The throat cutting scene was complicated; the victim not fully conscious but extremelyl frightened if she was conscious, the killer whould have been frantic with fear and anger. We can only guess about what might have happened. The prosecution is not required to tell exactly what happend.

It makes no sense that only Nicole's blood would have been found on the socks and not Ron's who put up struggle. Who was able to kick out and punch his attackers. Ron's blood was less likely to get on the sock because he had much less external bleeding.
I don't claim to understand everything here. The pro defense people often complain that blood work wasn't done until long after it was collected for both the bronco and the sock. I don't know what to say here, but employees of either LAPD or other PD's would probably have more thoughts on it than I do.

[tv]

TV,

Most of Faye's drug claims can't be substantiated either, yet she is believed. Isn't that kind of a double standard?

The changes in Nicole were so severe and happened so quickly, isn't it a fair question to ask about drugs? Simpson also said that Nicole thought she was having a nervous break down. Her close friends knew she was acting way, way out of character and they were concerned for her.

Nicole, Ron and Faye all were in Dr. Ameli's group sessions. So what "group" were they in? Dr. Ameli specialized in addiction and personal relationships. Why was Nicole seeing Dr. Ameli? When did Nicole see Dr. Ameli?

IMO, the truth can be unflattering. However, didn't he say that he did not know if was drugs or drinking that were causing these changes?
Which drug claims are you referring to? Claims made by her or claims made about her?

Nicole was under a lot of stress because her ex-husband was a violent psycho who followed her around and peeked in her windows. Simpson saying that he thought Nicole was having a nervous breakdown doesn't mean anything to me because he's a liar. In his book, he says many times that the thought she was heavily using drugs but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Her system was free of illegal drugs the night she was murdered.

I've never really gotten into the Dr. Ameli situation so I can't give you an answer to those questions.

[tv]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9197976]If we are going to consider the fact that Nicolconsider that they might have been caused by her fear of Orenthal.

fgump2,

Nicole's fear of OJ has always been associated with him doing physical harm to her.

However, isn't also fair to consider that Nicole was afraid of OJ not being her life? That she has been with him almost 20 years and now she wants to make it on her own but at times got frightened but the very goal she was trying to achieve?

Didn't Nicole make a down payment on a home a fair distance away from Simpson? This distance would make it much more difficult for Nicole to just drop the kids off and have Simpson or Arnelle watch the kids. There are several reasons why Nicole may have been afraid of Simpson, but that does mean she was physically afraid of him.

Wasn't Nicole trying to get a larger settlement because she had not real work experience? For Nicole to enter the working force at 35 or 36 having never had to really support herself, let alone two young children is very daunting. Yeah, I can see where Nicole was afraid--but not of Simpson killing her, IMO.

Faye expresses that Nicole had a "real" fear about Simpson, that was that a white man could not satisfy her as Simpson had and the only one who came close was Marcus Allen. However, there is a problem with Faye's story on this, all of Nicole's boyfriends since parting with Simpson were white.

Simpson didn't watch the kids that much. OJ Simpson was pretty much an absent father.

How can you say that Nicole wasn't afraid of Simpson killing her? She told that to Faye and Kato among others. She told that to the police when they responded to a 911 call. I find the testimony of the woman from the women's shelter to be very interesting and I believe she spoke to Nicole on June 7 and that Nicole told her she was very frightened. Nicole also told the police that when Simpson got that animalistic look she was very frightened. These are just a few examples of Nicole expressing her fear of physical harm form Simpson.

[bobaugust]

I have posted what you request several times.

No you haven’t posted any testimony to support your claim because there is no testimony by any witness that Simpson was in his house during the fifteen minutes that Park rang the intercom buzzer four different times without getting any response.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It does matter when Park testified to Kato standing on the sidewalk.He testified to that.

Park never testified in the criminal trial that he saw Kaelin standing on the pathway for a minute to two minutes.

[bobaugust]

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/chain_of_custody.htm

There was no unidentified hair ever found inside the Rockingham glove and the article you posted a link to never said there was.

[bobaugust]

So, you arbitrarily decided that Park was mistaken when he testified that he saw Kato standing but was correct when he said before he saw Kato standing that he saw Kato walk down the Ahsford pathway, even though Kato said he was running, because that supports your conclusion and you ignore that testimony which does not, correct? :)

Kaelin’s testimony makes it clear that Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony when he said that he thought Kaelin remained standing on the pathway near the driveway after seeing him come from behind the house and down the pathway until he saw him go to the gate control box. The fact that at different times Kaelin said he was running, walking, and walking briskly does not change where or when Park said he first saw him.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why is it that you choose to ignore this testimony of Park on direct,

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

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

Can you not see the trap with this testimony on cross

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

A. Don't really care.

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

A. Don't know.

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

A. True."

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

A. Yes."

Park testified that he saw Kato walk up to the gate control box in approximately a minute but then contradicted that testimony by saying he did not see Kato walk in any direction but saw him at the gate control box, or is it that you can't admit it, because your conclusion maybe wrong?.

Baker never asked Park everything he did, he only asked him about some of the things he did.

Park said he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished his telephone call, when he waited to be let in, when he went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson, and when he waited some more until he again saw Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

Baker didn’t asked Park about any of those details all he asked him was during the time that Park said he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin he didn’t observe him walking in any direction and Park agreed because he didn’t see what Kaelin did when he wasn’t paying any attention to him.

Baker didn’t ask Park about seeing Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box, all he said was “you looked away, and approximately a minute later you saw Mr. Kaelin AT the gate control box, right?” and Park agreed because he did see Kaelin at the gate control box after he saw him go to the gate control box.

Park only answered what Baker asked.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Lets us now continue our discussion.:)

Ford testified that he was instructed to video tape a room after it had been searched and he said that is what he did. Ford testified that when he first went to video tape Simpson’s bedroom Fung told him he wasn’t finished yet. So Ford said he video taped the other bedrooms and then returned to Simpson’s bedroom after Fung had completed his work and then he video taped it. When asked if that was reason that the socks were not shown in the video Ford answered yes.

The small trace amount of EDTA that showed up in the third test results on the two evidence stains (as well as Martz’s own non preserved blood) is not evidence that those stains were planted from preserved blood reference samples as the defense claimed, it is evidence of contamination.

It seems you are the only one who can’t comprehend the reality that a crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders clearly showed one of the blood stains on the rear gate that was found to be Simpson’s blood at Bundy hours before Simpson returned from Chicago and gave his blood sample. That fact conclusively proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

I didn’t say you claimed that photograph was not entered into evidence I said that Simpson’s defense unsuccessfully argued that since they were never given a copy of the enlarged photo that it should not be entered into evidence. What you did say William is that the photograph was “allegedly taken the morning after the murders” when in fact the defense never argued that it wasn’t taken the morning after the murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Allow me to post the actual testimony in regard to the dashboard from the criminal trial and correct another of inaccurate post.

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

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

Might have is just a glorified maybe. :)

Now let me correct another inaccurate post with the actual testimony.

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

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

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

***



Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS. WHY DID YOU SIT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS IN YOUR CAR AFTER YOU HUNG UP? (Park testified that he talked to his boss for thirty seconds and waited another thirty seconds, one minute.)

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

***


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

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK. (This means that Kato stood for at least thirty seconds)

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

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

****

Q: OKAY. DID YOU -- AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON YOU GOT BACK IN THE CAR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID MR. KAELIN COME OVER TO THE GATE?

A: TWENTY OR THIRTY SECONDS. (Park testified that the buzzer was answered by Simpson almost immediately, which means that Kato stood for a minute or more)

I don't know how many times I must post this testimony because, as you like to say your fail to comprehend it.

I agree that in the criminal trial Park said that after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on, he talked to his boss and ended the call about 30 seconds later. Park then sat and waited another thirty seconds before he got out of the limo, rang the intercom and spoke with Simpson. Park went back to the limo and waited about another thirty seconds before he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box.

In the criminal trial Park never said Kaelin stood for thirty seconds. Park said that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway and stop when he got to the driveway. He said almost simultaneously he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. When Clark asked Park if he noticed where Kaelin was after Simpson entered the house Park said he was still standing on the sidewalk referring back to the same time and place where and when he thought Kaelin had stopped. These events happened almost simultaneously, a matter of a few seconds, not thirty seconds, and not a minute or two minutes.

In the civil trial Park made it clear that after he saw Simpson enter his house he wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin did and he never saw him continued on to the garage area.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I don't think the blood on the sock could have come from the pool of blood. The pool of blood would have had a lot of very active bacteria in it. The blood was obviously wet, and it was a fairly warm night in June. The blood itself would have been warm when it left Nicole's body. Ths would cause a break down of the DNA. I think the police didn't get there till about 2 or three hours after the killings, and probably didn't find out that Nicole was related to Orenthal till some time later. I think a lot of bacteria decay would have taken place by then. This translates into a breakdown of DNA.

In Rantala's book, OJ Unmasked, she wrote that the DNA from the blood pools around Nicole was much more decayed, harder to identify, than the blood in isolated drops that dried fairly quickly. Rantala's book said the DNA from the large pool(s) of blood was barely identifiable as Nicole's DNA.

I suppose it would be an interesting experiment to think of all the ways blood could have gotten onto the sock (including various plainting theories) and then try to reproduce these scenarios in terms of measuring the breaddown level of DNA they would produce. Obviously any scenario in which the blood has been taken from a dead body that has been outside for several hours would be hard to reproduce.

I think another defense theory is that a detective took a blood sample from the corpse with a blood sampler kit similar to what a nurse would use (for example the police nurse). I don't know if detectives would normally have these blood sampler kits with them.

I was going by the testimony and Cotton said the blood on the nylon was clean and it was her opinion that the blood on the sock could not have come from the reference sample but she never said it could not have come from a wound. Let's remember the blood that was left on the gate, exposed to the elements and collected weeks later that was higher in DNA content than the other stains.

As I said, since claims have been made about Cotton's testimony, which was in the socio political production, I have posted portions of that testimony and draw my inferences therefrom.

[William Anthony]

There was no unidentified hair ever found inside the Rockingham glove and the article you posted a link to never said there was.

You might want to read the article again but so that you will not miss it, if you do, I will post it.

"One Negroid head hair was also found on the Rockingham glove and one Negroid head hair on Ron Goldman’s shirt. One Negroid limb hair and one Causation limb hair was found inside the Rockingham glove."

Again, I am compelled to correct an inaccurate statement you made.

[William Anthony]

Kaelin’s testimony makes it clear that Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony when he said that he thought Kaelin remained standing on the pathway near the driveway after seeing him come from behind the house and down the pathway until he saw him go to the gate control box. The fact that at different times Kaelin said he was running, walking, and walking briskly does not change where or when Park said he first saw him.

bobaugust

You seem to determine what is fact by what fits your conclusion as to what happened. You nor I were there and neither of us knows for sure what happen, when or how it happened. However, you see I do not have to say who was mistaken or say that your conclusions are wrong, as that is not necessary when I consider all the evidence. The fact that Park's testimony was molded tells me that others considered all the evidence and discrepancies therein as I have done. That tells me that a reasonable inference could be drawn from all the evidence that Park did not see Kato until he had finished his first cursory search and the jury was right to conclude reasonable doubt based on the jury instruction.:)

[William Anthony]

Baker never asked Park everything he did, he only asked him about some of the things he did.

Park said he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished his telephone call, when he waited to be let in, when he went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson, and when he waited some more until he again saw Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box.

Baker didn’t asked Park about any of those details all he asked him was during the time that Park said he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin he didn’t observe him walking in any direction and Park agreed because he didn’t see what Kaelin did when he wasn’t paying any attention to him.

Baker didn’t ask Park about seeing Kaelin come “up” the driveway and go to the gate control box, all he said was “you looked away, and approximately a minute later you saw Mr. Kaelin AT the gate control box, right?” and Park agreed because he did see Kaelin at the gate control box after he saw him go to the gate control box.

Park only answered what Baker asked.

bobaugust

WTH?:) I said Kato was not asked did he stop at the Asford walkway after completing his first cursory search ("Baker never asked Park everything he did, he only asked him about some of the things he did".) to show that my inference could be supported. You criticized my statement but now have done the same thing twice. :)

WTH? Of course, Park said that and I showed how he was trapped on cross.

WTH? If Park did not see Kato walk in any direction, how could he have said he saw Kato " Come up the driveway in this direction"?:)

WTH, I see that you do not understand the beauty of the trap. Mr. Baker got Park to admit that a minute later he saw Kato at the gate control box and he had not seen Kato walk in any direction as Park had previously testified. The simplicity of the trap helps to draw the inference that Park's testimony was molded. Park agreed to what he saw when he looked and knew how to answer certain question and surely could have answered in response to Mr. Baker's question that is not correct as he saw Kato walk up the driveway and over to the gate control box. However, he was trapped as the devil is often in the details. :)

[William Anthony]

Ford testified that he was instructed to video tape a room after it had been searched and he said that is what he did. (I have asked you to post the testimony that Mr. Ford testified that is what he did when it came to videotaping the bedroom and I repeat the request.Ford testified that when he first went to video tape Simpson’s bedroom Fung told him he wasn’t finished yet. So Ford said he video taped the other bedrooms and then returned to Simpson’s bedroom after Fung had completed his work and then he video taped it. When asked if that was reason that the socks were not shown in the video Ford answered yes. (Which was objected to)

The small trace amount of EDTA that showed up in the third test results on the two evidence stains (as well as Martz’s own non preserved blood) is not evidence that those stains were planted from preserved blood reference samples as the defense claimed, it is evidence of contamination. (There is no need to rehash the article that showed that Martz's results indicated evidence of manipulation/planting. The sophisticated jury understood their duty when two reasonable inferences could be drawn)

It seems you are the only one who can’t comprehend the reality that a crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders clearly showed one of the blood stains on the rear gate that was found to be Simpson’s blood at Bundy hours before Simpson returned from Chicago and gave his blood sample. That fact conclusively proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

I didn’t say you claimed that photograph was not entered into evidence I said that Simpson’s defense unsuccessfully argued that since they were never given a copy of the enlarged photo that it should not be entered into evidence. What you did say William is that the photograph was “allegedly taken the morning after the murders” when in fact the defense never argued that it wasn’t taken the morning after the murders.

bobaugust

I have posted DF's testimony on the issue of the photo and when he saw the blood. If as you like to say you failed to comprehend the point, doesn't mean it did not happen.:)

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9197998]

Simpson didn't watch the kids that much. OJ Simpson was pretty much an absent father.

How can you say that Nicole wasn't afraid of Simpson killing her? She told that to Faye and Kato among others. She told that to the police when they responded to a 911 call. I find the testimony of the woman from the women's shelter to be very interesting and I believe she spoke to Nicole on June 7 and that Nicole told her she was very frightened. Nicole also told the police that when Simpson got that animalistic look she was very frightened. These are just a few examples of Nicole expressing her fear of physical harm form Simpson.
what nicole thought nicole thought. that had nothing to do to prove that oj did any of what may have been oin her mind.

[GreenIce]

Which drug claims are you referring to? Claims made by her or claims made about her?

Nicole was under a lot of stress because her ex-husband was a violent psycho who followed her around and peeked in her windows. Simpson saying that he thought Nicole was having a nervous breakdown doesn't mean anything to me because he's a liar. In his book, he says many times that the thought she was heavily using drugs but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Her system was free of illegal drugs the night she was murdered.

I've never really gotten into the Dr. Ameli situation so I can't give you an answer to those questions.

TV,

Both claims. The only way to prove claims about Faye's drug issue is to talk to her dealer. She gives a name, she gives a profession and the LAPD or the DA's do nothing about verifying her claims?

There has been no evidence of Simpson peeking in windows and stalking Nicole. If there was the DA's would have brought in all these people to testify about it.

We do know that Nicole was being followed and there is documentation of that, however, we do not know why she was followed or who paid this man to follow her. His fear of being killed if he told the cops about who hired him makes no sense since Simpson was in jail himself. If this was a simple domestic violence homicide then the man had nothing to fear from Simpson.

If Simpson has the power to organize a "hit" while sitting behind bars, it further goes to even more evidence that Simpson wanted Nicole dead, he had the ablility to make this happen without him having to be the actual one to have done it.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that other friends of Nicole's have supported what Simpson has said about Nicole's behavior. I am pretty sure most of them would rather have had to cut off a limb then admit that Simpson was telling the truth on anything but her extreme behavior was been supported by other accounts.

Another interesting point is that prescription drugs are legal to found in your system to treat various issues, for pain, depression, whatever else. Now the question becomes if Nicole had a legal drug in her system, what were the levels and what was she being treated for? What about a combination of legal drugs in her system?

And Nicole may have been involved with drugs but she did not know that she was being involved. Guilt by association, remember? Since Faye even went to great lengths to hire a lawyer to protect the phone records from the rehab clinic, it makes you wonder why she would do this unless she something to hide, as to what time she last spoke to Nicole. As to who else did she call while in rehab.

Because of the extreme piss poor job done by the lab even on testing Simpson for drugs, the results for Ron and Nicole can't be considered to be as accurate.

If Lange didn't order a "rape kit" because he didn't see this as a sexual assault case, why would he order drug toxicology test, searching for illegal drugs in Ron's or Nicole's body?

[William Anthony]

I agree that in the criminal trial Park said that after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on, he talked to his boss and ended the call about 30 seconds later. Park then sat and waited another thirty seconds before he got out of the limo, rang the intercom and spoke with Simpson. Park went back to the limo and waited about another thirty seconds before he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box.

In the criminal trial Park never said Kaelin stood for thirty seconds. Park said that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway and stop when he got to the driveway. He said almost simultaneously he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. When Clark asked Park if he noticed where Kaelin was after Simpson entered the house Park said he was still standing on the sidewalk referring back to the same time and place where and when he thought Kaelin had stopped. These events happened almost simultaneously, a matter of a few seconds, not thirty seconds, and not a minute or two minutes.

In the civil trial Park made it clear that after he saw Simpson enter his house he wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin did and he never saw him continued on to the garage area.

bobaugust

In the socio political production, Park changed his testimony. What is it that you don't understand about this portion of Park's testimony?

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

Q: AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON -- STRIKE THAT. HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THAT. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: IT HAD --

THE COURT: DIFFERENT QUESTION ON LIGHTS.

THE WITNESS: IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN ANYWHERE BETWEEN THIRTY SECONDS TO A MINUTE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND WAITED ANOTHER TWENTY, THIRTY SECONDS AND BEFORE MR. KAELIN CAME OVER AND OPENED THE GATE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU -- AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON YOU GOT BACK IN THE CAR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID MR. KAELIN COME OVER TO THE GATE?

A: TWENTY OR THIRTY SECONDS.

Q: OKAY. AND DID HE OPEN THE GATE FOR YOU?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, YES. "

****

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

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

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

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

Q: AND THAT WAS AFTER THE SIX-FOOT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE, YES. "

IMHO, your refusal to accept and acknowledge this testimony is making you appear irrationally obstinate, which I don't think you are.

[martin II]

No you haven’t posted any testimony to support your claim because there is no testimony by any witness that Simpson was in his house during the fifteen minutes that Park rang the intercom buzzer four different times without getting any response.

bobaugust

The problem for you is when testimony is posted that is in conflict with your views you just say the person giving the testimony was mistaken.:shrug:

[GreenIce]

I have posted DF's testimony on the issue of the photo and when he saw the blood. If as you like to say you failed to comprehend the point, doesn't mean it did not happen.:)

William,

Did I miss the part where Mr. August "proved" when that picture was taken?

Did I miss the part where he explains who directed him to the back gate to take pictures of the back gate?

Did I miss the part where he says why there were never any close up shots of this blood taken and why it could only be find in an enlargement?

Did I miss the part why he was directed to the bloody fingerprint on the back gate?

[martin II]

TV,

Both claims. The only way to prove claims about Faye's drug issue is to talk to her dealer. She gives a name, she gives a profession and the LAPD or the DA's do nothing about verifying her claims?

There has been no evidence of Simpson peeking in windows and stalking Nicole. If there was the DA's would have brought in all these people to testify about it.

We do know that Nicole was being followed and there is documentation of that, however, we do not know why she was followed or who paid this man to follow her. His fear of being killed if he told the cops about who hired him makes no sense since Simpson was in jail himself. If this was a simple domestic violence homicide then the man had nothing to fear from Simpson.

If Simpson has the power to organize a "hit" while sitting behind bars, it further goes to even more evidence that Simpson wanted Nicole dead, he had the ablility to make this happen without him having to be the actual one to have done it.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that other friends of Nicole's have supported what Simpson has said about Nicole's behavior. I am pretty sure most of them would rather have had to cut off a limb then admit that Simpson was telling the truth on anything but her extreme behavior was been supported by other accounts.

Another interesting point is that prescription drugs are legal to found in your system to treat various issues, for pain, depression, whatever else. Now the question becomes if Nicole had a legal drug in her system, what were the levels and what was she being treated for? What about a combination of legal drugs in her system?

And Nicole may have been involved with drugs but she did not know that she was being involved. Guilt by association, remember? Since Faye even went to great lengths to hire a lawyer to protect the phone records from the rehab clinic, it makes you wonder why she would do this unless she something to hide, as to what time she last spoke to Nicole. As to who else did she call while in rehab.

Because of the extreme piss poor job done by the lab even on testing Simpson for drugs, the results for Ron and Nicole can't be considered to be as accurate.

If Lange didn't order a "rape kit" because he didn't see this as a sexual assault case, why would he order drug toxicology test, searching for illegal drugs in Ron's or Nicole's body?

if nicole had done cocain it would be out of her system in about 48 hours,
Why do you think faye said nicole had done coke with her?

No person is responsible for another person doing drugs.oj could not make nicole take drugs unless she wanted to.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9197998]

Simpson didn't watch the kids that much. OJ Simpson was pretty much an absent father.

How can you say that Nicole wasn't afraid of Simpson killing her? She told that to Faye and Kato among others. She told that to the police when they responded to a 911 call. I find the testimony of the woman from the women's shelter to be very interesting and I believe she spoke to Nicole on June 7 and that Nicole told her she was very frightened. Nicole also told the police that when Simpson got that animalistic look she was very frightened. These are just a few examples of Nicole expressing her fear of physical harm form Simpson.

OJ had no choice but to work on a regulasr basis to support that high end life style he and nicole were living.If he didn't who would pay the bills.Nicole never worked for the 17 years.

His work required him to be out of towm before he met Nicole and i never read anything about Nicole complaining about his work to support the family.

[martin II]

fgump2,

Yes this does have relevance--it is one example of Nicole's extreme behavior. Just like her asking Kato to line up guys for three somes. None of these make Nicole a bad person, but they are examples of extreme behavior for Nicole and does support what Simpson and her other friends said about her.

There was also a friend that pulled Cora to the side in that resturant and told her about Nicole asking him about a three some. he was shocked as that was not the nicole that he knew and he wondered what was wrong with her.
Cora testified that nicole was drinking too much and that she did not approve of nicole bar hopping with Faye. All of this behavior was not what most had come to expect from nicole.
If Nicole was not that close to Ron how is it that they were in threaphy togeather. That seems strange.imo

[William Anthony]

William,

Did I miss the part where Mr. August "proved" when that picture was taken?

Did I miss the part where he explains who directed him to the back gate to take pictures of the back gate?

Did I miss the part where he says why there were never any close up shots of this blood taken and why it could only be find in an enlargement?

Did I miss the part why he was directed to the bloody fingerprint on the back gate?

Nope. :)

[William Anthony]

The problem for you is when testimony is posted that is in conflict with your views you just say the person giving the testimony was mistaken.:shrug:

True dat.

[martin II]

True dat.

Having a 10,000,000 GB Hard drive to save all the court recoirds does not mean that the info posted from that memory is aqccurate especially when one selects only that that supports his claims. like prosecution direct and not defence cross.imo

[martin II]

Which drug claims are you referring to? Claims made by her or claims made about her?

Nicole was under a lot of stress because her ex-husband was a violent psycho who followed her around and peeked in her windows. Simpson saying that he thought Nicole was having a nervous breakdown doesn't mean anything to me because he's a liar. In his book, he says many times that the thought she was heavily using drugs but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Her system was free of illegal drugs the night she was murdered.

I've never really gotten into the Dr. Ameli situation so I can't give you an answer to those questions.

If nicole was under a lot of stress it was because of her own decisions. She created her own tax problems. she was seeing 7 different boyfriends one which oj claimed she was pregnant by.She had tried several ways to get back to rockingham without success. She had a active drug addict living in her house with her and her kids and oj seemed to be involved with Paula she had spent most of her money buying the Bundy condo. So things were not exactly in order for her.

[The Boys]

There was also a friend that pulled Cora to the side in that resturant and told her about Nicole asking him about a three some. he was shocked as that was not the nicole that he knew and he wondered what was wrong with her.
Cora testified that nicole was drinking too much and that she did not approve of nicole bar hopping with Faye. All of this behavior was not what most had come to expect from nicole.
If Nicole was not that close to Ron how is it that they were in threaphy togeather. That seems strange.imo

Oh yeah Cora's the frumpy Asian little chick that sold her dead friend down the river by going on TV and trashing the hell out of her. I'm really glad she didn't approve of Nicole's lifestyle:rolleyes: Never mind the fact that she had her own arguments with Nicole because NICOLE did not approve of CORA's affair. Looks like they were both disapproving of things in each other's lives.

Please.

[The Boys]

GI

All of your post is true ans correct. Feeling sorry that a person was killed should not cause one to ignore the facts of that persons actions.imo

Feeling sorry for the guy accused of killing the dead person should not cause one to ignore the facts of that persons actions either. But when color gets in the way I guess that's what happens. :eek:

[The Boys]

everything that faye says about oj beating nicole and him doing drugs is believed, but what she said about the lesbian relationship and nicole freebassing with her is not.

Probably the lesbian act did happen but I don't remember her ever saying that Nicole freebased with her. I've heard her say that Nicole loved her tequila shots.

[The Boys]

And Fuhrman didn't plant anything. Or at least nothing proves that he did. And I don't care if he's racist or not.

[martin II]

Feeling sorry for the guy accused of killing the dead person should not cause one to ignore the facts of that persons actions either. But when color gets in the way I guess that's what happens. :eek:

i watched the trial and agreed with the jury that the prosecution did not prove their case as required.

[martin II]

Probably the lesbian act did happen but I don't remember her ever saying that Nicole freebased with her. I've heard her say that Nicole loved her tequila shots.

See CF testimony.

[martin II]

Oh yeah Cora's the frumpy Asian little chick that sold her dead friend down the river by going on TV and trashing the hell out of her. I'm really glad she didn't approve of Nicole's lifestyle:rolleyes: Never mind the fact that she had her own arguments with Nicole because NICOLE did not approve of CORA's affair. Looks like they were both disapproving of things in each other's lives.

Please.

I did not consider that she may be asian when reading her testimony and would not care. I don't think Nicole or anyone else did either.

[The Boys]

I did not consider that she may be asian when reading her testimony and would not care. I don't think Nicole or anyone else did either.

You sure seem to care enough that O.J.'s black and Fuhrman's white.

[martin II]

You sure seem to care enough that O.J.'s black and Fuhrman's white.

neither had anything to do with their color. furhmans actions would be just as bad if he had been black but we know he was not.
In all the post about the case i have read none have rejected coras testimony because she may have been asian. what did asian have to do with her testimony.

[martin II]

And Fuhrman didn't plant anything. Or at least nothing proves that he did. And I don't care if he's racist or not.

There is nothing wrong with you stating you opinion on furhman being a racist. That is for sure.:cool:

[The Boys]

neither had anything to do with their color. furhmans actions would be just as bad if he had been black but we know he was not.
In all the post about the case i have read none have rejected coras testimony because she may have been asian. what did asian have to do with her testimony.

Point out where I posted that Cora being Asian had anything to do with her testimony. Simply recalling her as the frumpy little Asian. She is little, she is Asian and IMO frumpy.

So point it out.

[tv]

TV,

Both claims. The only way to prove claims about Faye's drug issue is to talk to her dealer. She gives a name, she gives a profession and the LAPD or the DA's do nothing about verifying her claims?

There has been no evidence of Simpson peeking in windows and stalking Nicole. If there was the DA's would have brought in all these people to testify about it.

We do know that Nicole was being followed and there is documentation of that, however, we do not know why she was followed or who paid this man to follow her. His fear of being killed if he told the cops about who hired him makes no sense since Simpson was in jail himself. If this was a simple domestic violence homicide then the man had nothing to fear from Simpson.

If Simpson has the power to organize a "hit" while sitting behind bars, it further goes to even more evidence that Simpson wanted Nicole dead, he had the ablility to make this happen without him having to be the actual one to have done it.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that other friends of Nicole's have supported what Simpson has said about Nicole's behavior. I am pretty sure most of them would rather have had to cut off a limb then admit that Simpson was telling the truth on anything but her extreme behavior was been supported by other accounts.

Another interesting point is that prescription drugs are legal to found in your system to treat various issues, for pain, depression, whatever else. Now the question becomes if Nicole had a legal drug in her system, what were the levels and what was she being treated for? What about a combination of legal drugs in her system?

And Nicole may have been involved with drugs but she did not know that she was being involved. Guilt by association, remember? Since Faye even went to great lengths to hire a lawyer to protect the phone records from the rehab clinic, it makes you wonder why she would do this unless she something to hide, as to what time she last spoke to Nicole. As to who else did she call while in rehab.

Because of the extreme piss poor job done by the lab even on testing Simpson for drugs, the results for Ron and Nicole can't be considered to be as accurate.

If Lange didn't order a "rape kit" because he didn't see this as a sexual assault case, why would he order drug toxicology test, searching for illegal drugs in Ron's or Nicole's body?

Simpson looked in her windows by his own admission. You are going way out on a limb to start talking about Simpson organizing a hit from jail or anywhere else. Friends do not support what Simpson said about Nicole's drug use. Some of them said that she used drugs once in a while but most of them said they'd never seen her use drugs. The evidence is that Simpson was a much heavier drug user than Nicole. He had illegal drugs in his system the day after the murders -- Nicole did not. Nicole was acting differently because she was finally freeing herself of the man who had controlled her life for 17 years.

Saying that Nicole was involved with drugs but didn't know it makes no sense. I thought you were of the opinion that she and Ron were planning on opening a restaurant with their proceeds from selling cocaine?

[tv]

Faye was doing drugs at nicoles some days before the murders. Why do you believe she told Cora that nicole had freebased cocain with her if nicole was not doing drugs as you suggest.

Faye's testimony at the civil trial --

Q. Do you know whether Nicole was abusing drugs in the period January through June of 1994?

MR. LEONARD: Objection.

A. Yes, I do know. She was not.

Q. And what is the answer?

A. She was not.

Q. Do you know whether she was taking illegal drugs during that period of time, January to June of '94?

A. January to June of 1994?

Q. Yes.

A. Nicole was - took drugs once in a blue moon. I don't - I think I have only seen her, at the most, twice, in the entire two years I have known her

[The Boys]

Faye's testimony at the civil trial --

Q. Do you know whether Nicole was abusing drugs in the period January through June of 1994?

MR. LEONARD: Objection.

A. Yes, I do know. She was not.

Q. And what is the answer?

A. She was not.

Q. Do you know whether she was taking illegal drugs during that period of time, January to June of '94?

A. January to June of 1994?

Q. Yes.

A. Nicole was - took drugs once in a blue moon. I don't - I think I have only seen her, at the most, twice, in the entire two years I have known her

:beer:

[The Boys]

Simpson looked in her windows by his own admission. You are going way out on a limb to start talking about Simpson organizing a hit from jail or anywhere else. Friends do not support what Simpson said about Nicole's drug use. Some of them said that she used drugs once in a while but most of them said they'd never seen her use drugs. The evidence is that Simpson was a much heavier drug user than Nicole. He had illegal drugs in his system the day after the murders -- Nicole did not. Nicole was acting differently because she was finally freeing herself of the man who had controlled her life for 17 years.

Saying that Nicole was involved with drugs but didn't know it makes no sense. I thought you were of the opinion that she and Ron were planning on opening a restaurant with their proceeds from selling cocaine?

Didn't Keith Z. also testify to Simpson looking in the window and then shaking his hand the next day?

[The Boys]

There is nothing wrong with you stating you opinion on furhman being a racist. That is for sure.:cool:

I know there's nothing wrong with it, I don't need you to tell me that.

[martin II]

Point out where I posted that Cora being Asian had anything to do with her testimony. Simply recalling her as the frumpy little Asian. She is little, she is Asian and IMO frumpy.

So point it out.

You are correct. you did not connect the two i did as i found it odd that you found reason to mention her race as you indicated that you may not have believed her testimony. but then again for all i know you may believe her testimony.

[The Boys]

You are correct. you did not connect the two i did as i found it odd that you found reason to mention her race.

You might think that you connected the two but it seems to me that you're making a much bigger deal out of Cora's being Asian than I did. But whatever, it doesn't matter to me if you want to turn it into that. Have a field day.

[tv]

Didn't Keith Z. also testify to Simpson looking in the window and then shaking his hand the next day?

I'm not sure about the handshake but I know that if Simpson hadn't been peeking in her window he wouldn't have seen what he saw. It's called stalking.

[weezer]

I'm not sure about the handshake but I know that if Simpson hadn't been peeking in her window he wouldn't have seen what he saw. It's called stalking.

there was also statements from neighbors about orenthal creeping around her house in the dark.

[martin II]

Didn't Keith Z. also testify to Simpson looking in the window and then shaking his hand the next day?

Handshake.
Which goes to show that oj was not up set at all with what had happened other than he was not pleased that Nicole had not considered the kids could have walked in from their room and seen her.imo
maby the hand shake was saying congratulations .or Its all good Keith.

[weezer]

Handshake.
Which goes to show that oj was not up set at all with what had happened other than he was not pleased that Nicole had not considered the kids could have walked in from their room and seen her.imo
maby the hand shake was saying congratulations.

most bullies/abusers are cowards -- orenthal certainly falls into both categories. he was afraid to face a man -- he like to beat on girls. :flamemad:

[The Boys]

Handshake.
Which goes to show that oj was not up set at all with what had happened other than he was not pleased that Nicole had not considered the kids could have walked in from their room and seen her.imo
maby the hand shake was saying congratulations .or Its all good Keith.

I see it as a classic case of putting all the blame on the woman and none of it on the man.

Love it that the kids are only a concern when Nicole's behavior is in question. He didn't care that the kids were in the house when he was breaking her door in or when he was sticking a knife into her.

[martin II]

Didn't Keith Z. also testify to Simpson looking in the window and then shaking his hand the next day?

i don't think keith knew anyone looked in the window that night until oj told nicole the mext day or two.

[weezer]

I'm not sure about the handshake but I know that if Simpson hadn't been peeking in her window he wouldn't have seen what he saw. It's called stalking.

have you read/seen/heard anything about orenthal buying paula a car that matched his?

also, I noticed in the list of items turned over for the judgment over the years was the bentley! ha I would still love to know which lawyer thought they were going to get that for payment.

[martin II]

I see it as a classic case of putting all the blame on the woman and none of it on the man.

Love it that the kids are only a concern when Nicole's behavior is in question. He didn't care that the kids were in the house when he was breaking her door in or when he was sticking a knife into her.

I think there was enough blame by both to go around twice in their personal lives.

[weezer]

I see it as a classic case of putting all the blame on the woman and none of it on the man.

Love it that the kids are only a concern when Nicole's behavior is in question. He didn't care that the kids were in the house when he was breaking her door in or when he was sticking a knife into her.

or beating her, or wanting her to lose any monies she had so that she and the kids would not have a home. yep, good ole caring pop that he was is pretty much summed up in Sydney's 911 call:

SYDNEY SIMPSON: My dad is an (DELETED)!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the policeman. How may I help you?

SYDNEY SIMPSON: (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m sorry. I`m not understanding what you`re saying.

SYDNEY SIMPSON: He doesn`t (DELETED) love me or any of his kids!

[tv]

there was also statements from neighbors about orenthal creeping around her house in the dark.

Yes, there was. Very creepy behavior.

[weezer]

i don't think keith knew anyone looked in the window that night until oj told nicole the mext day or two.

LOL -- riiiight -- I bet he did tell her. In fact, doesn't she say on the tape that he kept bringing it up over and over?

you have to admit, he had to have looked pretty stupid hiding in the bushes, peeking in the window, and then like a little school girl, he runs up and rings the doorbell. Wow -- that's the act of the dad who all he cared about was the children walking in on it -- just to make sure, I'll ring the doorbell to wake them up. tee-hee. what a loser.

[tv]

have you read/seen/heard anything about orenthal buying paula a car that matched his?

also, I noticed in the list of items turned over for the judgment over the years was the bentley! ha I would still love to know which lawyer thought they were going to get that for payment.

I haven't heard or read that except for the ng theory that her car was stolen or broken into because someone thought it was Simpson's. I might have the theory wrong, not sure. Where did you see that?

Speaking of the Bentley -- I hope the Goldman's sold it for lots of money.

[The Boys]

I think there was enough blame by both to go around twice in their personal lives.

Look, here's the deal --- Nicole was no angel but the one thing we know that even Simpson said is that she was the best mom to those kids.

[tv]

LOL -- riiiight -- I bet he did tell her. In fact, doesn't she say on the tape that he kept bringing it up over and over?

you have to admit, he had to have looked pretty stupid hiding in the bushes, peeking in the window, and then like a little school girl, he runs up and rings the doorbell. Wow -- that's the act of the dad who all he cared about was the children walking in on it -- just to make sure, I'll ring the doorbell to wake them up. tee-hee. what a loser.

Too bad there wasn't someone watching him when he was doing his dirty deeds at Bundy...basically, he's a little school girl when it comes to one on one with a man.

[weezer]

Too bad there wasn't someone watching him when he was doing his dirty deeds at Bundy...basically, he's a little school girl when it comes to one on one with a man.

well -- all of that may have changed now that he's at Lovelock -- or maybe the little school girl thing works there! ;)

[tv]

well -- all of that may have changed now that he's at Lovelock -- or maybe the little school girl thing works there! ;)

You can't help but love the name of that facility!

[weezer]

Boe, Catherine
Nicole's neighbor in 1992 and 1993. Observed O.J. and Nicole arguing in a park when Simpson believed Nicole was sleeping with another man during the 1992 months in which they were going through divorce procedures. Boe's son was a playmate of Justin Simpson. The man was later identified as "Keith." That would be Keith Zlomsowitch.

Colby, Carl
Former neighbor to Nicole Brown Simpson. Alerted police in April 1992 to man who was seen outside Nicole's residence. Later determined the man was Simpson and told police he did not consider O.J. a threat to anyone in the neighborhood. The husband of Catherine Boe.

[weezer]

You can't help but love the name of that facility!

what I really love is that the loser is locked up and hopefully having to watch his backside!

[tv]

what I really love is that the loser is locked up and hopefully having to watch his backside!

I bet he's wearing some 'ugly-ass' shoes now for sure! :D

[weezer]

I bet he's wearing some 'ugly-ass' shoes now for sure! :D

yeah but he must not be there since we all know what a dapper dresser he is -- :beer::beer:

[tv]

yeah but he must not be there since we all know what a dapper dresser he is -- :beer::beer:

Yeah, don't worry about accusing him of murder -- just don't accuse him of not being a snappy dresser!

[martin II]

Look, here's the deal --- Nicole was no angel but the one thing we know that even Simpson said is that she was the best mom to those kids.

i posted a few days ago that oj thought she was a good mom. he said that more than once.They both loved and cared for their kids.

[martin II]

OJS children could always live at Rockingham.just not Nicole.

When she lived at GG she decided to buy the Bundy condo.OJ advised her to rent the bundy cond for income and stay at GG. Against his advice she moved into the bundy condo. when she ran short of money she decided to sell the bundy condo but realized she would have a IRS capital gains problem problem.She then ran to oj for a solution and on advice from his lawyer he refused to be involved in her TAX fraud sceme.

[tv]

OJS children could always live at Rockingham.just not Nicole.

When she lived at GG she decided to buy the Bundy condo.OJ advised her to rent the bundy cond for income and stay at GG. Against his advice she moved into the bundy condo. when she ran short of money she decided to sell the bundy condo but realized she would have a IRS capital gains problem problem.She then ran to oj for a solution and on advice from his lawyer he refused to be involved in her TAX fraud sceme.

If the children had lived at Rockingham without Nicole then they would have been cared for by the housekeeper most of the time. OJ Simpson was an absent father -- he was out of town a good part of the time and he didn't make a special effort to attend their functions. People that knew him well expressed surprised that he showed up at Sydney's recital. I think he did it to be near Nicole.

[The Boys]

OJS children could always live at Rockingham.just not Nicole.

When she lived at GG she decided to buy the Bundy condo.OJ advised her to rent the bundy cond for income and stay at GG. Against his advice she moved into the bundy condo. when she ran short of money she decided to sell the bundy condo but realized she would have a IRS capital gains problem problem.She then ran to oj for a solution and on advice from his lawyer he refused to be involved in her TAX fraud sceme.

Bull****. He was involved until she dumped him and then he decided not to be part of it any longer because he wanted another way to screw her and their kids so that she'd always remember who's in control.

I'm pretty sure it's clear BY NOW that Simpson has never had a problem participating in illegal schemes.

[martin II]

Bull****. He was involved until she dumped him and then he decided not to be part of it any longer because he wanted another way to screw her and their kids so that she'd always remember who's in control.

I'm pretty sure it's clear BY NOW that Simpson has never had a problem participating in illegal schemes.

I have posted the facts of the issue. You can creat your opinion of those facts as often as you like without any complaint on my part. :cool:

[serpentsfall]

OJS children could always live at Rockingham.just not Nicole.

When she lived at GG she decided to buy the Bundy condo.OJ advised her to rent the bundy cond for income and stay at GG. Against his advice she moved into the bundy condo. when she ran short of money she decided to sell the bundy condo but realized she would have a IRS capital gains problem problem.She then ran to oj for a solution and on advice from his lawyer he refused to be involved in her TAX fraud sceme.

And you know this how, Martin? You make a lot of assumptions based on what you've seen and read; yet you jump on anybody else who dares to offer personal interpretions of what is known. OJ sued for custody of his kids from the Browns, but I've never seen anything to indicate he sought to be the main custodial parent while divorced from Nicole. You use language such as "she ran to oj for a solution". You're basing your opinions based on OJ's self-serving attempt to explain a letter that Nicole perceived as threatening. They were divorced. OJ wasn't filing joint tax returns with Nicole; he was not at risk because he had no control over what Nicole put on her tax returns for an address! If the IRS had come to OJ and asked as part of an audit, I could understand OJ contacting an attorney and writing that letter. Short of that, Nicole's taxes were none of his business.

[martin II]

If the children had lived at Rockingham without Nicole then they would have been cared for by the housekeeper most of the time. OJ Simpson was an absent father -- he was out of town a good part of the time and he didn't make a special effort to attend their functions. People that knew him well expressed surprised that he showed up at Sydney's recital. I think he did it to be near Nicole.

Nicole had decided that she needed to be on her own without oj.She had frequently asked and received his advice on certain financial and other issues.
On the issue of the condo she ignored his advice and created the problem of the condo tax issue all on her own.maby she did not realize that being on her own meant having a solution to problems she created. many children are cared for by full time nannies when the parent has to work.I don't think oj would have had a problem caring for his kids.He just did not want nicole living in his house again.

[serpentsfall]

Nicole had decided that she needed to be on her own without oj.She had frequently asked and received his advice on certain financial and other issues.
On the issue of the condo she ignored his advice and created the problem of the condo tax issue all on her own.maby she did not realize that being on her own meant having a solution to problems she created. many children are cared for by full time nannies when the parent has to work.I don't think oj would have had a problem caring for his kids.He just did not want nicole living in his house again.

Nicole was an adult, Martin! She was allowed to ignore OJ and make a financial mistake - you don't even know that it was a "mistake". You usually don't pay capital gains tax unless you realize some financial gain! You have only OJ's testimony that she relied on his input. If she held his financial prowess in such high esteem it seems she'd have listened to him! After all, in the end she lost her life but not her home; he lost Rockingham.

[martin II]

And you know this how, Martin? You make a lot of assumptions based on what you've seen and read; yet you jump on anybody else who dares to offer personal interpretions of what is known. OJ sued for custody of his kids from the Browns, but I've never seen anything to indicate he sought to be the main custodial parent while divorced from Nicole. You use language such as "she ran to oj for a solution". You're basing your opinions based on OJ's self-serving attempt to explain a letter that Nicole perceived as threatening. They were divorced. OJ wasn't filing joint tax returns with Nicole; he was not at risk because he had no control over what Nicole put on her tax returns for an address! If the IRS had come to OJ and asked as part of an audit, I could understand OJ contacting an attorney and writing that letter. Short of that, Nicole's taxes were none of his business.

i have not jumped on anyone about their opinions.just i am not jumping on you for your opinion posted above.It is my opinion that most people hire lawyers to give advice on issues they may be considering in advance. not after the fact.

I have not seen any comments by oj that he was concerned with her taxes. I think it was Nicole that explained her potential tax problem to him.
OJS lawyer advised him not to give approval for Nicole to use his address and wrote the letter informing her of the decision. i think it was good legal advice
as oj did not seem to have the desire to be involved in what she was trying to do in any way.imo:cool:

[martin II]

Nicole was an adult, Martin! She was allowed to ignore OJ and make a financial mistake - you don't even know that it was a "mistake". You usually don't pay capital gains tax unless you realize some financial gain! You have only OJ's testimony that she relied on his input. If she held his financial prowess in such high esteem it seems she'd have listened to him! After all, in the end she lost her life but not her home; he lost Rockingham.

Nicole felt that she would have a capital gains situation if she sold her Bundy condo.Maby you know that she wouldn't.imo

[weezer]

OJS children could always live at Rockingham.just not Nicole.

When she lived at GG she decided to buy the Bundy condo.OJ advised her to rent the bundy cond for income and stay at GG. Against his advice she moved into the bundy condo. when she ran short of money she decided to sell the bundy condo but realized she would have a IRS capital gains problem problem.She then ran to oj for a solution and on advice from his lawyer he refused to be involved in her TAX fraud sceme.

martin, why would someone pay rent when they had the funds to purchase and secure a home for themselves and their children? orenthal used the tax thing to torment Nicole -- it backfired -- she had already looked at someplace else to live -- far, far away from orenthal and his craziness.

[weezer]

i have not jumped on anyone about their opinions.just i am not jumping on you for your opinion posted above.It is my opinion that most people hire lawyers to give advice on issues they may be considering in advance. not after the fact.

I have not seen any comments by oj that he was concerned with her taxes. I think it was Nicole that explained her potential tax problem to him.
OJS lawyer advised him not to give approval for Nicole to use his address and wrote the letter informing her of the decision. i think it was good legal advice
as oj did not seem to have the desire to be involved in what she was trying to do in any way.imo:cool:

you think wrong -- orenthal has bragged long and often about how he 'forced' Nicole to put money aside for taxes in case they didn't get back together. When she dumped him, he wrote a hateful letter (which his lawyer told him needed to be toned down) and sent it to her. orenthal was more than happy to be involved right up until she told him she couldn't even 'pretend' she wanted to be with him any longer. imo :shrug:

[serpentsfall]

i have not jumped on anyone about their opinions.just i am not jumping on you for your opinion posted above.It is my opinion that most people hire lawyers to give advice on issues they may be considering in advance. not after the fact.

I have not seen any comments by oj that he was concerned with her taxes. I think it was Nicole that explained her potential tax problem to him.
OJS lawyer advised him not to give approval for Nicole to use his address and wrote the letter informing her of the decision. i think it was good legal advice
as oj did not seem to have the desire to be involved in what she was trying to do in any way.imo:cool:

I agree, Martin. People contact their attorneys in advance, not after the fact. OJ was "threatening" a future act about something that had nothing to do with him. He did this only AFTER they called their reconcilliation quits. She had moved from GG to Bundy while they were still working on a reconciliation and had lived at Bundy for some time. The whole point is that OJ wasn't involved in what she was doing in any way...he was inserting himself into her business.

[weezer]

Nicole had decided that she needed to be on her own without oj.She had frequently asked and received his advice on certain financial and other issues.
On the issue of the condo she ignored his advice and created the problem of the condo tax issue all on her own.maby she did not realize that being on her own meant having a solution to problems she created. many children are cared for by full time nannies when the parent has to work.I don't think oj would have had a problem caring for his kids.He just did not want nicole living in his house again.

you are basing your statement on something orenthal said. there is no proof that Nicole frequently or even infrequently asked and/or received advice from orenthal. I think this was all part of the fantasy world he made up after he murdered her.

orenthal was an absentee dad -- everyone, including orenthal, will tell you he did not participate in his children's lives.

[The Boys]

I have posted the facts of the issue. You can creat your opinion of those facts as often as you like without any complaint on my part. :cool:

Martin that's not true. His letter said "I can no longer ..." What do you think that means? By saying I can "NO LONGER" means that he was ALREADY aware that she was doing it and he hadn't said anything about it before. If he was so against it why didn't he just tell her right off the bat that she couldn't do it?

[The Boys]

It is obvious that some don't understand as the only burden of proof, which is placed on a defense, is when they allege an affirmative defense, which has been stated abundantly and confirmed by a G, who is held in high esteem as to her legal knowledge by other Gs.

Here's my problem ... I watched the trial and recall distinctly Cochran taking up tons of time demanding that Ito give the defense some of the blood evidence so that they could do their own testing with their own experts. Why argue so vehemently and waste so much time on something you didn't feel the need to do or produce?

Or maybe they did do the testing ----- and just found out that the prosecution had it right.

[weezer]

Here's my problem ... I watched the trial and recall distinctly Cochran taking up tons of time demanding that Ito give the defense some of the blood evidence so that they could do their own testing with their own experts. Why argue so vehemently and waste so much time on something you didn't feel the need to do or produce?

Or maybe they did do the testing ----- and just found out that the prosecution had it right.

exactly! and then some of the evidence was actually used up by the defense testing and yet they never even hinted at the test results pointing to someone else or being any different than what LE reported. Nope -- ole cockroach knew his audience and knew he didn't need evidence of anything except 'us' against 'them' -- ;)

[martin II]

Martin that's not true. His letter said "I can no longer ..." What do you think that means? By saying I can "NO LONGER" means that he was ALREADY aware that she was doing it and he hadn't said anything about it before. If he was so against it why didn't he just tell her right off the bat that she couldn't do it?


Since you asked i don't think it means anything.just words.
just four words from what you posted.There is always the chance that they mean something to you and that is ok with me.

What NICOLE told him and her friends is she asked oj to allow her to tell the IRS that she lived at his house because she felt she would have a IRS tax problem that was much too large for her to pay and would deplete her money.
He told his lawyer of the request. the lawyer advised that he not give approval. His lawyer wrote a legal rejection letter of her request and sent it to her.

Since she had not decided to sell her house until her request to him there would not have been any need for him to have allowed her to use his address
prior to her decision to sell. she lived at Bundy without any IRS problem she didn't need his adress prior to her sell decision. imo It was her decision to sell that caused her to need to use his address. not anything before that.

Look at it another way. if oj had agreed and there was a IRS audit of her,he would have been forced to tell the IRS that she did not live there which would have proved to them that she lied on her tax form to evade the taxes.


If she had sold the condo and then reinvested the financial gain if any. she would not have had a capital gains tax problem. From my understanding of the law.It seems that she wanted to sell the condo and keep all the funds without paying taxes.That is my opinion.
imo

[William Anthony]

i watched the trial and agreed with the jury that the prosecution did not prove their case as required.

True dat.

[William Anthony]

And Fuhrman didn't plant anything. Or at least nothing proves that he did. And I don't care if he's racist or not.

No one cares more than they care for a box or rocks that MF was/is a racist, IMHO. They do care that he violated his oath to serve and protect all citizens, :). How have you been?

[William Anthony]

I did not consider that she may be asian when reading her testimony and would not care. I don't think Nicole or anyone else did either.

Someone seems to. :)

[William Anthony]

You sure seem to care enough that O.J.'s black and Fuhrman's white.

It was MF that cared and cared about who Simpson dated, according to the evidence.:)

[William Anthony]

I see it as a classic case of putting all the blame on the woman and none of it on the man.

Love it that the kids are only a concern when Nicole's behavior is in question. He didn't care that the kids were in the house when he was breaking her door in or when he was sticking a knife into her.

Link to Simpson sticking Ms. NBS with a knife, Please?:cool:

[weezer]

Since you asked i don't think it means anything.just words.
just four words from what you posted.There is always the chance that they mean something to you and that is ok with me.

What NICOLE told him and her friends is she asked oj to allow her to tell the IRS that she lived at his house because she felt she would have a IRS tax problem that was much too large for her to pay and would deplete her money.
He told his lawyer of the request. the lawyer advised that he not give approval. His lawyer wrote a legal rejection letter of her request and sent it to her.

Since she had not decided to sell her house until her request to him there would not have been any need for him to have allowed her to use his address
prior to her decision to sell. she lived at Bundy without any IRS problem she didn't need his adress prior to her sell decision. imo It was her decision to sell that caused her to need to use his address. not anything before that.

Look at it another way. if oj had agreed and there was a IRS audit of her,he would have been forced to tell the IRS that she did not live there which would have proved to them that she lied on her tax form to evade the taxes.


If she had sold the condo and then reinvested the financial gain if any. she would not have had a capital gains tax problem. From my understanding of the law.It seems that she wanted to sell the condo and keep all the funds without paying taxes.That is my opinion.
imo

why do you continue to post untruths -- even after you've been corrected? orenthal dictated the hateful/vengeful letter to randa and then it was shown to taft who 'toned' the letter down.

according to the simpsons, the Bundy condo was not listed as nNicole's address for the IRS while she and orenthal contemplated getting back together -- according to orenthal, he was completely agreeable to that arrangement -- right up until she dumped him. those are the fact.s.

[William Anthony]

Too bad there wasn't someone watching him when he was doing his dirty deeds at Bundy...basically, he's a little school girl when it comes to one on one with a man.

If that is true, then there is no way you could think he killed Mr. RG.:cool:

[weezer]

It was MF that cared and cared about who Simpson dated, according to the evidence.:)

but it was orenthal sneaking around peeking in windows and stalking her in the car -- guess you were just looking at the wrong evidence.

[William Anthony]

Bull****. He was involved until she dumped him and then he decided not to be part of it any longer because he wanted another way to screw her and their kids so that she'd always remember who's in control.

I'm pretty sure it's clear BY NOW that Simpson has never had a problem participating in illegal schemes.

It's not over til it's over.

[William Anthony]

Here's my problem ... I watched the trial and recall distinctly Cochran taking up tons of time demanding that Ito give the defense some of the blood evidence so that they could do their own testing with their own experts. Why argue so vehemently and waste so much time on something you didn't feel the need to do or produce?

Or maybe they did do the testing ----- and just found out that the prosecution had it right.

It is called strategy. :):cool:

[William Anthony]

I agree, Martin. People contact their attorneys in advance, not after the fact. OJ was "threatening" a future act about something that had nothing to do with him. He did this only AFTER they called their reconcilliation quits. She had moved from GG to Bundy while they were still working on a reconciliation and had lived at Bundy for some time. The whole point is that OJ wasn't involved in what she was doing in any way...he was inserting himself into her business.

I see her use of his address was none of his business and only hers. :)

[martin II]

I agree, Martin. People contact their attorneys in advance, not after the fact. OJ was "threatening" a future act about something that had nothing to do with him. He did this only AFTER they called their reconcilliation quits. She had moved from GG to Bundy while they were still working on a reconciliation and had lived at Bundy for some time. The whole point is that OJ wasn't involved in what she was doing in any way...he was inserting himself into her business.

It was nicole that decided to sell her condo. it was nicole that explaimned her plans and informed oj that she needed his approval to use his address so as to evade a high IRS tax which she felt would leave her if financial trouble.
Wipe her out is the words she used i believe.
OJ had no imput into her decisions and maby would not have known about her plans until SHE told him.
I don't see this as him inserting himself into her business.I see Nicole trying to insert him into it by her request.

She could have used her parents address if she in fact wanted to live without his involvement.I doubt they would have refused her. or one of her friends. It did not have to be oj. right?

[William Anthony]

Unless Simpson was on trial for stalking, then someone is definitely looking at the wrong evidence, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

If us and them is meant to mean citizens against evidence of corrupt law enforcement, then I agree. ;):cool:

[tv]

If that is true, then there is no way you could think he killed Mr. RG.:cool:He stabbed Ron Goldman to death -- I have no doubt of that. He would never have considered confronting Ron if he'd known he would be there. It's my firm belief that Ron came upon Simpson attacking Nicole or tried to help Nicole while Simpson hid in the shadows and then attacked him from behind. I lean toward the second scenario.

[William Anthony]

He stabbed Ron Goldman to death -- I have no doubt of that. He would never have considered confronting Ron if he'd known he would be there. It's my firm belief that Ron came upon Simpson attacking Nicole or tried to help Nicole while Simpson hid in the shadows and then attacked him from behind. I lean toward the second scenario.

Either scenario contradicts your statement that he was a little school girl when it came to confronting a man man on man, IMHO.