Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

I classify G&R sounds as just noise. not music.

[martin II]

Please, provide a link to the claim that there would have been a riot, if MF had not accepted the plea.:) The investigation did not say that MF did nothing wrong, only that they could find nothing. :);) We all know that MF will lie under oath and why not in a book he wrote to gain money, because of his role in the trial. :cool:

On another case against furhman for planting, abuse and racial comments ,the city of LA setteled and paid the plaintiff $100,000 just before the criminal trial started rather than have this in court at the time he would be a witness for the prosecution.:cool:

[martin II]

Some found fault with Jesus Christ, who, IMHO, is our Lord and Savior.:shrug:

Sone, not all, or maby i should say one just hangs around looking for a opening to post vile nasty stuff seeking a ongoing fight.its best just ignore it and keep moving.

[martin II]

I don't know why you're including me in this conversation as I haven't been on the board for a couple of hours -- I don't know what complaints have been made against Guns N Roses. One of my sons listened to them when he was younger but I decided they were inappropriate for someone his age so I didn't buy him another tape or CD after the first one. I don't recall those lyrics I just thought they weren't the kind of guys I wanted my child to look up to as role models. I have a nephew that is a local rapper. The language he uses in his music would burn the ears off of a donkey. Sweet kid, though.

Its good to know some parents take actions to protect their kids.

[William Anthony]

On another case against furhman for planting, abuse and racial comments ,the city of LA setteled and paid the plaintiff $100,000 just before the criminal trial started rather than have this in court at the time he would be a witness for the prosecution.:cool:

It cost them dearly to avoid admitting guilt, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

Sone, not all, or maby i should say one just hangs around looking for a opening to post vile nasty stuff seeking a ongoing fight.its best just ignore it and keep moving.

True dat.

[William Anthony]

Its good to know some parents take actions to protect their kids.

To protect by serving. :)

[tv]

Let's not awaken the sleeping tigress. :)

I'm a light sleeper. ;)

[tv]

Its good to know some parents take actions to protect their kids.

It's hard to protect your kids in today's world with all the outside influences that are out there. Teaching a child respect for himself as well as respect for others makes other things fall into place. Just my opinion.

[William Anthony]

I'm a light sleeper. ;)

I will try to tiptoe. :)

[martin II]

It cost them dearly to avoid admitting guilt, IMHO.

In most large cities the city budget takes the largest financial hit from awards they are forced to pay to plaintiff in legal action taken against the city in police abuse cases.it is hugh and indicates how much police abuse exist against citizens. Another way of looking at this problem is these racist and abusive cops commit illegal acts while on duty and commit these acts against citizens that then have to be responsible to pay for their illegal abusive acts against these same citizens.imo

Everytime a cop does his BREAKING FACES crap there is a good chance citizens pay for it.

[William Anthony]

In most large cities the city budget takes the largest financial hit from awards they are forced to pay to plaintiff in legal action taken against the city in police abuse cases.it is hugh and indicates how much police abuse exist against citizens. Another way of looking at this problem is these racist and abusive cops commit illegal acts while on duty and commit these acts against citizens that then have to be responsible to pay for their illegal abusive acts against these same citizens.imo

I have related some of my negative and positive interactions with LE members. It is sad that, because of the actions of some of them, some Blacks feel they have to be cautious and suspicious of their interactions with any LE that they encounter. I think it will require a strenuous effort to restore the confidence in LE that should be there, because of incidents similar to the ones that MF spoke of on the notorious LHM tapes and those related by the other witnesses in regard to his actions.

[martin II]

It's hard to protect your kids in today's world with all the outside influences that are out there. Teaching a child respect for himself as well as respect for others makes other things fall into place. Just my opinion.

You are right on point.A child that has self respect tends to be more respectfull of his selections be it music or friends.I am sure your son appreciates you good parenting skill by removing trash from his presence or by not allowing trash to enter his space.

[William Anthony]

Everytime a cop does his BREAKING FACES crap there is a good chance citizens pay for it.

Every time a cop engages in this type of behavior, if it is uncalled for, then it does a thousand times more damage than the acts done to restore faith in the force, IMHO.

[weezer]

I have related some of my negative and positive interactions with LE members. It is sad that, because of the actions of some of them, some Blacks feel they have to be cautious and suspicious of their interactions with any LE that they encounter. I think it will require a strenuous effort to restore the confidence in LE that should be there, because of incidents similar to the ones that MF spoke of on the notorious LHM tapes and those related by the other witnesses in regard to his actions.

what's even sadder is that LE feels they have to be cautious and suspicious of their interactions with any Black they encounter. :shrug:

[martin II]

Every time a cop engages in this type of behavior, if it is uncalled for, then it does a thousand times more damage than the acts done to restore faith in the force, IMHO.

Some racist cops are ignorant to the idea that the comminitiues cooperation is necessary for good police work to take place.

[William Anthony]

Police should feel cautious and suspicious with anyone they encounter, irrespective of their race. What is the most sad, IMHO, is a reprehensible attempt to justify reactions by LE based on the race of those with whom they have interactions.

[William Anthony]

Some racist cops are ignorant to the idea that the comminitiues cooperation is necessary for good police work to take place.

True dat.

[William Anthony]

Some racist cops are ignorant to the idea that the comminitiues cooperation is necessary for good police work to take place.

I believe that racists are by definition ignorant, which causes them to make ignorant statements in justification of their support for their racist views or the racist views of others.

[weezer]

I believe that racists are by definition ignorant, which causes them to make ignorant statements in justification of their support for their racist views or the racist views of others.

excellent statement! especially when you add that racists come in all colors. . . .

[martin II]

i believe that racism and racist denial of human rights rights of the oppressed can only be carried out by those that hold power. The powerless have little or no ability to oppress others.imo

[martin II]

I believe that racists are by definition ignorant, which causes them to make ignorant statements in justification of their support for their racist views or the racist views of others.

True dat

[weezer]

i believe that racism and racist denial of human rights rights of the oppressed can only be carried out by those that hold power. The powerless have little or no ability to oppress others.imo

and I believe that anyone can become a victim -- all they have to do is blame their poor choices on someone else not being 'fair' or the color of their own skin. ;)

[tv]

i believe that racism and racist denial of human rights rights of the oppressed can only be carried out by those that hold power. The powerless have little or no ability to oppress others.imo

If you believe those in power are the only ones capable of racism you're giving a lot of people a free pass on bigotry.

[martin II]

I doubt anyone volunteers to be a victim.I think that most desire to make progress in their lives.I know the powerful are the oppressors
of the powerless and that racist have often times directed their oppressive racist activities towards some based only on the color of their skin. There is history to support that.

For some it is easy and maby enjoyable to blame the oppressed for their postion or lack of power.

[martin II]

If you believe those in power are the only ones capable of racism you're giving a lot of people a free pass on bigotry.

i didn't say that as you know.But it is those in power that maintain a system of oppression and racism. The ignorant individuals just follow the system for their own reasons.

[weezer]

i didn't say that as you know.But it is those in power that maintain a system of oppression and racism. The ignorant individuals just follow the system for their own reasons.

on the flip side of that, there are those in power that maintain a system of teaching victimization. The ignorant individuals just follow the system for their own reasons. imo :shrug:

[serpentsfall]

I doubt anyone volunteers to be a victim.I think that most desire to make progress in their lives.I know the powerful are the oppressors
of the powerless and that racist have often times directed their oppressive racist activities towards some based only on the color of their skin. There is history to support that.

For some it is easy and maby enjoyable to blame the oppressed for their postion or lack of power.

Ah, but what about the powerful who, rather than oppessing the powerless, act to empower the powerless? The powerful who enact good and just laws to protect the powerless from oppression? How many years after laws to correct prior wrongs are in place should the powerful wait for the formerly oppressed group to acknowedge their own power - and equality - instead of defining themselves as eternally oppressed?

[GreenIce]

I believe that racists are by definition ignorant, which causes them to make ignorant statements in justification of their support for their racist views or the racist views of others.

William,

IMO, calling racist "ignorant" is providing an excuse for the racist as well as providing the people who call them "ignorant" from dealing with the racism in our country.

Seems to me when you call someone "ignorant" means that the person doesn't know any better or they were dropped a birth or weren't breast fed my their mother.

I was raised not to use ethnic slurs because any one who used them, were ignorant. However, I was also told that when I went to other peoples' homes and were in social setting when the word was used, I was to keep my mouth shut.

IMO, many people who think Simpson is guilty and that they placed race card have based their beliefs one MF's use of the n-word. Using a racial slur does not mean you are racist. A racist is someone who believes the color of their skin makes them superior to anyone who is not the same color they are. A racist, IMO, thinks of minorities that they are a tad shy of being "sub-human".

[GreenIce]

In his book oj talks about nicole telling him that some of her friends were eddging her to make up stuff on him to go back to court to get a larger support payments.She told him she could not do that.But maby she did in the dairies.
i don't think m,any women make a detail diary and lock it away if not for some purpose.

Martin,

IIRC, I thought it was Nicole's divorce lawyer and Susan Forward who advised her to write stuff down. Simpson did believe she wrote it, but would never have testified about it in court, he believes she never would have lied about it under oath. I think that is one of the reasons she did not go to the divorce hearing.

Also, who verified that it was Nicole's hand writing?

[GreenIce]

From the Complaint against Mark Fuhrman filed in court:

""Here there is no evidence that defendant gave any false testimony about his investigative efforts."

Judge Ouderkirk said to Fuhrman "In the investigation by the state attorney general, they found nothing wrong with your criminal investigation on this case."

At the beginning of his book Fuhrman says "I apologize for the pain I caused with my insensitive words. However, one thing I will not apologize for is my policework on the Simpson case. I did a good job; I did nothing wrong. Yet I was blamed when the case fell apart."

I personally think he shouldn't have accepted the plea deal from the attorney and gone to trial and let the riots be what they would from every idiot with the chip on their shoulder that feel the need for everything to be black v white.

The Boys,

Have your read MF's book?

[GreenIce]

From the Complaint against Mark Fuhrman filed in court:

""Here there is no evidence that defendant gave any false testimony about his investigative efforts."

Judge Ouderkirk said to Fuhrman "In the investigation by the state attorney general, they found nothing wrong with your criminal investigation on this case."

At the beginning of his book Fuhrman says "I apologize for the pain I caused with my insensitive words. However, one thing I will not apologize for is my policework on the Simpson case. I did a good job; I did nothing wrong. Yet I was blamed when the case fell apart."

I personally think he shouldn't have accepted the plea deal from the attorney and gone to trial and let the riots be what they would from every idiot with the chip on their shoulder that feel the need for everything to be black v white.

The Boys,

Why didn't MF go to trial? He gave two reasons that I remember, however, there was no way the AG was going to allow this to go to trial. They couldn't because of the defense MF's lawyer would have used. It was ironclad the LAPD and the City of LA knew it.

Why do you think the association that is set up for cops who get into legal trouble dropped Fuhrman and refused to help him?

[William Anthony]

I believe that to add that racist come in all colors, would be redundant, as the definition of racist is to believe that one race is superior to all others, such as Blacks, who believe that Caucasians are superior, because of their race. The idea that someone can justify statements to that effect is what is ignorant to me. However, for the sake of making the obvious clear, I will say that racist come in all colors.

[William Anthony]

i believe that racism and racist denial of human rights rights of the oppressed can only be carried out by those that hold power. The powerless have little or no ability to oppress others.imo

True dat, as I have never heard of a slave denying rights to the slave master, for example.

[William Anthony]

To deny that slavery, Jim Crow laws, financial, judicial and political discrimination have adversely affected Blacks and have and will have negative consequences to Blacks long into the future, due to such oppression is to deny all the research and studies into how Blacks have been so victimized and the effects of such victimizations and the fact that laws were enacted, because of a recognition of those long term adverse effects and the need to eradicate such treatment. It is sort of like saying that the victims were victims not because they were made victims but because they were inherently victims and need guidance, which in some way justifies the victimization they endured. I do believe that was the archaic thought process that was used to justify slavery.

[William Anthony]

If anyone is teaching victimization it would be ignorant to follow that train of thought that the person was meant to be a victim as opposed to a person in America with unalienable rights, among them being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because members of all races were created equal and endowed with the aforementioned rights. However, if there are those, who protest the unequal treatment and highlight the oppression and speak out against such victimization, no matter how harsh the language used, then I think those people should be held in the highest esteem as they have made invaluable contributions to today's America where a man with the name of Obama and Black skin has become President of the United States of America and I would like to thank all those who have fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice to make America a land that all can be proud of, except those that don't see the need to remind others of how America victimized some and still victimizes some of its citizens and failed to fulfill its promises.

[William Anthony]

Ah, but what about the powerful who, rather than oppessing the powerless, act to empower the powerless? The powerful who enact good and just laws to protect the powerless from oppression? How many years after laws to correct prior wrongs are in place should the powerful wait for the formerly oppressed group to acknowedge their own power - and equality - instead of defining themselves as eternally oppressed?

Since Blacks were oppressed for approximately 350 years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the effects of the oppression, which some are still being oppressed, I think equality demands that they be allowed to express their victimization until at least the year, 2314, don't you?

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, calling racist "ignorant" is providing an excuse for the racist as well as providing the people who call them "ignorant" from dealing with the racism in our country.

Seems to me when you call someone "ignorant" means that the person doesn't know any better or they were dropped a birth or weren't breast fed my their mother.

I was raised not to use ethnic slurs because any one who used them, were ignorant. However, I was also told that when I went to other peoples' homes and were in social setting when the word was used, I was to keep my mouth shut.

IMO, many people who think Simpson is guilty and that they placed race card have based their beliefs one MF's use of the n-word. Using a racial slur does not mean you are racist. A racist is someone who believes the color of their skin makes them superior to anyone who is not the same color they are. A racist, IMO, thinks of minorities that they are a tad shy of being "sub-human".

I agree with your definition of a racist and I thought I said that those, who are racist, make ignorant statements due to their racist views and those, who try to justify the ignorant statements, sound equally as ignorant, IMHO, which is what I meant to say.

[William Anthony]

http://www.unctv.org/bif/transcripts/2004/transcript2015.html

[weezer]

Slavery abolished in America December 18, 1865
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Racial quotas
Barack Obama, a 47-year-old first-term senator from Illinois, shattered more than 200 years of history Tuesday night by winning election as the first African-American president of the United States.
:shrug:

now can we get back to the cases?

[serpentsfall]

Since Blacks were oppressed for approximately 350 years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the effects of the oppression, which some are still being oppressed, I think equality demands that they be allowed to express their victimization until at least the year, 2314, don't you?

I agree that people who lived and suffered oppression first-hand before Civil Rights laws were enacted, and the times immediately afterward as change was being implemented, were oppressed and not only can but should express their victimization in order to educate following generations about past wrongs. Those born after those laws were enacted now have the ability to stand up for their rights. To envision future generations holding on, until 2314, to past victimization as an excuse not to move forward and claim their right of equality seems self-defeating. Those first black slaves from Africa were often initially caught with the help of other local blacks. Why 350 years later obviously educated and well-intentioned black men would endorse keeping their black brethern in self-imposed bondage to past resentment instead of celebrating forward movement and opportunity is mystifying. It's hard to keep you eye on the prize if you're more focused on looking back at the past. OJ Simpson is an example of a black man who was treated equally in court. He wasn't found guilty in civil court and in Nevada criminal court because of the color of his skin; he was found guilty because of his extremely poor judgement.

[William Anthony]

As much as some may want to denounce the fact that racism, or shall I say racists views, played any part in the Simpson's trials or that slavery and the treatment of Blacks after slavery was abolished played any part in the case it is untrue to make those statements, as evidenced by the difference in the verdicts of those cases and the racial composition of the juries as well as which evidence was included and excluded in the trials, especially the evidence of MF.

The conversations initiated as a result of reference to MF's use of the N word and posts made by some posters as to the use of the word by Caucasian and Blacks. Those posts show the different feelings that can be held, because of racism and show how racism may have affected the outcomes of the case. It was perfectly acceptable for posters to express their views about Rapp music and Black Reverends in the context of what they said on this forum. I think that we are discussing random issues that are or may have been involved in the case and see no need to now claim that we are not. Of course, those not interested in further discussing these issues, need not.

[weezer]

As much as some may want to denounce the fact that racism, or shall I say racists views, played any part in the Simpson's trials or that slavery and the treatment of Blacks after slavery was abolished played any part in the case it is untrue to make those statements, as evidenced by the difference in the verdicts of those cases and the racial composition of the juries as well as which evidence was included and excluded in the trials, especially the evidence of MF.

The conversations initiated as a result of reference to MF's use of the N word and posts made by some posters as to the use of the word by Caucasian and Blacks. Those posts show the different feelings that can be held, because of racism and show how racism may have affected the outcomes of the case. It was perfectly acceptable for posters to express their views about Rapp music and Black Reverends in the context of what they said on this forum. I think that we are discussing random issues that are or may have been involved in the case and see no need to now claim that we are not. Of course, those not interested in further discussing these issues, need not.

now I see where the confusion is -- I totally believe that racism played a part in the criminal trial. That's why I made the statement that racisim comes in all colors. ;)

[martin II]

Ah, but what about the powerful who, rather than oppessing the powerless, act to empower the powerless? The powerful who enact good and just laws to protect the powerless from oppression? How many years after laws to correct prior wrongs are in place should the powerful wait for the formerly oppressed group to acknowedge their own power - and equality - instead of defining themselves as eternally oppressed?

Lets see, how about until the powerless have reached a equal level of financial stability that the powerful has received as a result of the racial system of oppression they created and maintained againts the powerless.

If you decide to take slavery as a example, lets look at the 400 years of free labor that allowed the powerful to create the industrial revelolution in america which was the building block of the riches the powerful enjoy today.
How would you calculate that "debt" if that is what you call it.

[William Anthony]

I agree that people who lived and suffered oppression first-hand before Civil Rights laws were enacted, and the times immediately afterward as change was being implemented, were oppressed and not only can but should express their victimization in order to educate following generations about past wrongs. Those born after those laws were enacted now have the ability to stand up for their rights. To envision future generations holding on, until 2314, to past victimization as an excuse not to move forward and claim their right of equality seems self-defeating. Those first black slaves from Africa were often initially caught with the help of other local blacks. Why 350 years later obviously educated and well-intentioned black men would endorse keeping their black brethern in self-imposed bondage to past resentment instead of celebrating forward movement and opportunity is mystifying. It's hard to keep you eye on the prize if you're more focused on looking back at the past. OJ Simpson is an example of a black man who was treated equally in court. He wasn't found guilty in civil court and in Nevada criminal court because of the color of his skin; he was found guilty because of his extremely poor judgement.

I am so happy to see that you agree that those Blacks who were born before the Civil Rights Act suffered "first hand oppression" and "should express their views about victimization to educate future generations about past wrongs."
Is education not a thing that is to be passed from generation to generation? Have we not learned of the Magna Carter?

I agree that those Blacks, who were alive when the Civil Rights Act was enacted obtained the opportunity, not the "ability" to stand up for their privileges, "not their rights." My disagreement with your words comes as a result of actualities as opposed to theoretical concepts.

I agree that those initial "Black slaves were caught with the help of other Blacks". However, those "local Blacks", which, if this statement is meant that other Blacks helped capture runaway slaves, it supports my view of the adverse effects of slavery. If it was meant to mean that African Blacks caught other African Blacks that were forced into slavery, then I see where this played no part in the chattel system of slavery into which those captured Blacks were forced after being captured or what they and their offspring would suffer.

I see no "endorsement of self-imposed bondage to past resentment. I see "educated and well-intentioned Black men" endorsing the unequal treatment that Blacks still suffer "350 years later" due to financial, political and social inequality in America's system of institutionalized racism and a determination to fight against such a system and a resentment of past and present treatment that was perpetrated on them by Caucasian and not "self-imposed'. It is "mystifying" to me to consider that one should not speak out against the inequality as well as "celebrating in forward movement".

I can not disagree with the statements that Simpson received a verdict equal to those Caucasians, who murdered Blacks and were acquitted, not meaning that Simpson committed the murders but that, like some Caucasians he was acquitted of the charges. There is one difference, which is the degree to which Simpson has been ostracized after the acquittal, as opposed to the treatment of some Caucasians, like Senator Edward Kennedy, while a poor example is one that comes quickly to mind.

It can never be "self-defeating" to demand equality. It is one thing to move forward and to attempt to demand equality and quite another to actually get that as a "right" and if it was such a "right' there would be no need to "move forward and claim their right". It is because they were foreclosed from those rights for 350 years that equality demands 350 years of remedies and to settle for anything less is "self-defeating", don't you think?

[William Anthony]

I believe that racism played a part in the socio political production, as evidenced by the evidence that was excluded, and the Nevada case, as evidenced by the jurors that were excluded and I have already posted how the evidence about MF was evidence of racism in the criminal trial.:)

[weezer]

I don't know about anyone else but I've read enough of the history of self victimization. :seeya:

[martin II]

I agree that people who lived and suffered oppression first-hand before Civil Rights laws were enacted, and the times immediately afterward as change was being implemented, were oppressed and not only can but should express their victimization in order to educate following generations about past wrongs. Those born after those laws were enacted now have the ability to stand up for their rights. To envision future generations holding on, until 2314, to past victimization as an excuse not to move forward and claim their right of equality seems self-defeating. Those first black slaves from Africa were often initially caught with the help of other local blacks. Why 350 years later obviously educated and well-intentioned black men would endorse keeping their black brethern in self-imposed bondage to past resentment instead of celebrating forward movement and opportunity is mystifying. It's hard to keep you eye on the prize if you're more focused on looking back at the past. OJ Simpson is an example of a black man who was treated equally in court. He wasn't found guilty in civil court and in Nevada criminal court because of the color of his skin; he was found guilty because of his extremely poor judgement.


i am not sure i understamd this.

"black men would endorse keeping their black brethern in self-imposed bondage to past resentment instead of celebrating forward movement "
-------------

From what i understand the practice of black slavery was first practiced in east Africa and was done by Arabs that enslaved black Africans. Some west African black tribal leaders did sell their people to white slave merchants from europe out of ignorance and for profit.

I realize that some whites often times point to these facts as a way to shift blame from european slave merchants back to black Africans. I don't let those
tribal leaders off the hook for this and there has always been dialog between AA and current African leaders , which have made many official opologies for that past activity. I see that past practice as a very small part of how europeans were able to carry out that wholesale stealing of people for their slave business considering the scope and size of the slave industry.

[William Anthony]

Why is it that some on this board seem to have a preoccupation with wondering how other posters feel as opposed to concerning themselves with how they feel?

[martin II]

Some have created the term self victimization to describe the oppressed because of their complaints of injustice.If i have ever seen a lame attack on
the poor that is it.
There are some that for many reasons have not been able to navigate the system to the point that they are able to support themselves. The poor.
Some that have beem able to secure a job,house.car and a few other trinklets
seem to always attack those that have non of this.

Some complain that welfare recepiants receive $150.00 and milk for their children when in fact they live from one paycheck to the next barely making it themselves. There will always be some poor, others that are just getting by and the rich.i see nothing wrong with welfare programs that help the poor.
i think it is through ignorace and hatred that some call welfare people self imposed victim status individuals. Who in the hell agrees to be poor.

[tv]

I don't know about anyone else but I've read enough of the history of self victimization. :seeya:

I'm with you -- it always comes back to this. No way am I getting caught up in this again. :seeya:

[martin II]

I'm with you -- it always comes back to this. No way am I getting caught up in this again. :seeya:

Personally i see no problem with your announcement. Just wondered why it was necessary.:)

[tv]

Personally i see no problem with your announcement. Just wondered why it was necessary.:)

Did someone say it was necessary? :)

[William Anthony]

Did someone say it was necessary? :)

It's okay because I do not believe we have a problem with bandwith. :)

[tv]

It's okay because I do not believe we have a problem with bandwith. :)

I'm sure TruTv and Deepwater appreciate your concern for their bandwidth. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm sure TruTv and Deepwater appreciate your concern for their bandwidth. :)

I try to respect DW and Trutv. Thanks for the recognition.:)

[GreenIce]

I agree with your definition of a racist and I thought I said that those, who are racist, make ignorant statements due to their racist views and those, who try to justify the ignorant statements, sound equally as ignorant, IMHO, which is what I meant to say.

William,

IMO, racists do not make ignorant statements. They know what they are saying and they know the pain it causes and IMO, they know it is not true. IMO, I think racists love it when ignorant is associated with they views and statements---it lets them thrive and carry on. Using the term ignorant silences people, it is crutch, IMO.

I feel the same about the word "tolerance" when it is comes to this subject. IMO, "tolerance" means you have to "put up" with something or you can only take your fill of something for so long and then you have a right to say when you have reached tolerance level and no longer have to remember the principal behind the word.

[GreenIce]

I'm with you -- it always comes back to this. No way am I getting caught up in this again. :seeya:

TV,

Why did a majority of blacks and minorities see the Simpson case differently from the majority of white people? How could so many see the same thing yet come up with different opinons on the case? Doesn't the fact that there was such a difference, indicate that the past is play a huge role even in today's world?

I know you believe Simpson is guilty, but did you want him to be guilty? How many pieces of evidence did it take to convince you he was guilty? What was it that made you believe he was guilty?

[tv]

TV,

Why did a majority of blacks and minorities see the Simpson case differently from the majority of white people? How could so many see the same thing yet come up with different opinons on the case? Doesn't the fact that there was such a difference, indicate that the past is play a huge role even in today's world?

I know you believe Simpson is guilty, but did you want him to be guilty? How many pieces of evidence did it take to convince you he was guilty? What was it that made you believe he was guilty?

Why in the world would I want him to be guilty? I didn't have a preference regarding who was or wasn't guilty. I wanted the person responsible to be found and punished no matter who it was. I certainly didn't want to think that a beloved American sports hero was capable of killing his ex-wife and her friend in such a brutal way with his two young children sleeping close by.

If you want to know what I consider credible and incriminating evidence against him you only need to look at any of my posts that discusses evidence. I'm sure I've told you directly what evidence there was that convinced me he is guilty.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, racists do not make ignorant statements. They know what they are saying and they know the pain it causes and IMO, they know it is not true. IMO, I think racists love it when ignorant is associated with they views and statements---it lets them thrive and carry on. Using the term ignorant silences people, it is crutch, IMO.

I feel the same about the word "tolerance" when it is comes to this subject. IMO, "tolerance" means you have to "put up" with something or you can only take your fill of something for so long and then you have a right to say when you have reached tolerance level and no longer have to remember the principal behind the word.

We may be having a disagreement over semantics. :) I did not mean to imply that the statements racists make were not intentional and not meant to cause harm. The notion that someone would make such statements knowing the effect those statements will have upon another race and is done intentionally or unintentionally is what I mean by ignorant. I do agree that someone with a lack of knowledge that the words are offensive is less damaging than one who knows that the words cause anger. I believe that the person with the knowledge that the words cause harm is more ignorant than the other person, because the Bible tells us and I believe most people know that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves and when those words come from the mouths of racists they are due to a feeling of inferiority a lack of self-respect, and a lack of self-esteem.

I understand what you say about the word tolerance and agree with it but unfortunately that is only what the law requires, IMHO. The law does not say that one has to believe another is equal, only that the treat another with opportunities that are equal to those they afford to members of all races, ages, genders, religious beliefs, and disabilities the opportunities they afford others not of the same classes or in other words that they tolerate and enforce demands for equality, not that they like or agree with such demands.

[William Anthony]

Why in the world would I want him to be guilty? I didn't have a preference regarding who was or wasn't guilty. I wanted the person responsible to be found and punished no matter who it was. I certainly didn't want to think that a beloved American sports hero was capable of killing his ex-wife and her friend in such a brutal way with his two young children sleeping close by.

If you want to know what I consider credible and incriminating evidence against him you only need to look at any of my posts that discusses evidence. I'm sure I've told you directly what evidence there was that convinced me he is guilty.

Was any evidence presented that made you think he was not guilty?

[William Anthony]

Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now, we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.

I hope that I have remembered those words correctly. I think it is with great dedication that the struggle to sustain the proposition must be forever vigilant and foremost in our minds and it is exactly that proposition that makes America the great nation that it has become and it is the successful struggle to maintain the concept that will ensure America's long endurance.

I feel the need to ask how can any war be civil and are these not the goal on this message board.:)

[martin II]

Did someone say it was necessary? :)

You may have missed my point. sorry if i was not clear. usually if one does not like the discussion one ignores it or one post a subject that they have interest in.i think that is what the moderator has suggested.:cool:

[martin II]

We may be having a disagreement over semantics. :) I did not mean to imply that the statements racists make were not intentional and not meant to cause harm. The notion that someone would make such statements knowing the effect those statements will have upon another race and is done intentionally or unintentionally is what I mean by ignorant. I do agree that someone with a lack of knowledge that the words are offensive is less damaging than one who knows that the words cause anger. I believe that the person with the knowledge that the words cause harm is more ignorant than the other person, because the Bible tells us and I believe most people know that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves and when those words come from the mouths of racists they are due to a feeling of inferiority a lack of self-respect, and a lack of self-esteem.

I understand what you say about the word tolerance and agree with it but unfortunately that is only what the law requires, IMHO. The law does not say that one has to believe another is equal, only that the treat another with opportunities that are equal to those they afford to members of all races, ages, genders, religious beliefs, and disabilities the opportunities they afford others not of the same classes or in other words that they tolerate and enforce demands for equality, not that they like or agree with such demands.

i agree with your post especially these words as it causes haters to feel they have to have someone to hate


"it is due to a feeling of inferiority a lack of self-respect, and a lack of self-esteem."

[William Anthony]

i agree with your post especially these words as it causes haters to feel they have to have someone to hate


"it is due to a feeling of inferiority a lack of self-respect, and a lack of self-esteem."

Yes, unfortunately, some feel that they must put others down so that they can build themselves up.

[tv]

You may have missed my point. sorry if i was not clear. usually if one does not like the discussion one ignores it or one post a subject that they have interest in.i think that is what the moderator has suggested.:cool:

Thanks for clarifying what you were really saying. If you feel that I've done something that is against the moderator's wishes please inform her.

[tv]

Was any evidence presented that made you think he was not guilty?

There was some things that I felt didn't go either way but nothing that pointed his being not guilty.

[William Anthony]

There was some things that I felt didn't go either way but nothing that pointed his being not guilty.

So, I see that you do agree that there was reasonable doubt, as the jury was instructed that if there were two reasonable inferences that could be drawn, one toward guilt and another toward innocence, they were required to choose the one that pointed toward innocence. This is what I mean by the jury's level of sophistication, Unlike the posters, they did not have the option of weighing whether the evidence could prove guilt or pointed toward guilt were two reasonable inferences could be drawn from the evidence and were required to maintain the presumption of innocence. The fact that you, who believe that Simpson is guilty but see that evidence could go either way is exactly why I do not feel that the jury deserved being called ignorant, uneducated and racially biased, despite any of the actions attributed to them, because they were mandated to do what they did. Thank you.

[tv]

So, I see that you do agree that there was reasonable doubt, as the jury was instructed that if there were two reasonable inferences that could be drawn, one toward guilt and another toward innocence, they were required to choose the one that pointed toward innocence. This is what I mean by the jury's level of sophistication, Unlike the posters, they did not have the option of weighing whether the evidence could prove guilt or pointed toward guilt were two reasonable inferences could be drawn from the evidence and were required to maintain the presumption of innocence. The fact that you, who believe that Simpson is guilty but see that evidence could go either way is exactly why I do not feel that the jury deserved being called ignorant, uneducated and racially biased, despite any of the actions attributed to them, because they were mandated to do what they did. Thank you.

I didn't say either way -- I said neither way. If there is testimony that I feel doesn't go either way that's not reasonable doubt. Example: GreenIce thinks the jacuzzi jets were left on by a third party to lure Simpson out there or some such thing. I feel Kato forgot and left them on and it aggravated Simpson. Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

[martin II]

I didn't say either way -- I said neither way. If there is testimony that I feel doesn't go either way that's not reasonable doubt. Example: GreenIce thinks the jacuzzi jets were left on by a third party to lure Simpson out there or some such thing. I feel Kato forgot and left them on and it aggravated Simpson. Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

Ithink if it went neither way, it did not go the prosecutions way and the judge would tell the jury that the defence gets the benefit of that doubt.Is that correct?

The tie goes to the defence.

[tv]

Ithink if it went neither way, it did not go the prosecutions way and the judge would tell the jury that the defence gets the benefit of that doubt.Is that correct?

If the testimony doesn't go either way for me it doesn't mean I have to give it to the defense. It means it doesn't go either way for me.

[martin II]

If the testimony doesn't go either way for me it doesn't mean I have to give it to the defense. It means it doesn't go either way for me.

i am talking about the law and the judges instruction. That is what we have to use right?

[tv]

i am talking about the law and the judges instruction. That is what we have to use right?

It sounds to me like you're telling me I have to decide for the defense if a piece of evidence doesn't have any meaning to me. If I don't think it matters either way I'll discard it not give a freebie to either side.

[weezer]

It sounds to me like you're telling me I have to decide for the defense if a piece of evidence doesn't have any meaning to me. If I don't think it matters either way I'll discard it not give a freebie to either side.

this is a hard concept for some. For some reason, the weight of the evidence in total is not weighed. They leave their common sense at the door.

[tv]

this is a hard concept for some. For some reason, the weight of the evidence in total is not weighed. They leave their common sense at the door.

Apparently so. I'm glad this isn't the way the law really works or the prisons would just be big empty buildings.

[martin II]

It sounds to me like you're telling me I have to decide for the defense if a piece of evidence doesn't have any meaning to me. If I don't think it matters either way I'll discard it not give a freebie to either side.

ok

i was thinking from the position of a juror.

[William Anthony]

I didn't say either way -- I said neither way. If there is testimony that I feel doesn't go either way that's not reasonable doubt. Example: GreenIce thinks the jacuzzi jets were left on by a third party to lure Simpson out there or some such thing. I feel Kato forgot and left them on and it aggravated Simpson. Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

Here is what you actually said.

There was some things that I felt didn't go either way but nothing that pointed his being not guilty.

You will see that you fact said "either way". We are not discussing what any poster said about the evidence but, in fact, what the evidence was and your feelings about the evidence. Here is my post.

Was any evidence presented that made you think he was not guilty?

Here is the problem, beginning with the legal requirement that a defendant has the presumption of innocence, meaning that the defendant does not have to provide any evidence to prove his innocence but the prosecution must provide evidence that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if a piece of evidence does not go either way, then the evidence must automatically go to the presumption of innocence as explained by the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. So, you see you have shown that there was reasonable doubt and that the criminal jury demonstrated a sophisticated level of comprehension by their verdict and in line with your feelings on some of the evidence. When the prosecution fails to provide evidence that goes their way and not either way or evidence is produced by the defense that can go either way , then there is reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

It sounds to me like you're telling me I have to decide for the defense if a piece of evidence doesn't have any meaning to me. If I don't think it matters either way I'll discard it not give a freebie to either side.

You see, you have that privilege because you were not a juror. However, the jurors understood that they did not have that privilege and, because they upheld their oath, as evidenced by your admission that you saw evidence that did not go either way, which it is highly probable that the jury did, the jury has been severely criticized by doing by law what the were obligated to do.

[William Anthony]

Some may not understand the the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused defendant committed each and every element of the charged offense. If there is reasonable doubt on any element of the charge, the jury is required to say not guilty, or more appropriately not guilty as charged. If that means that the prisons go empty, so be it.

[weezer]

I too believe that some may not understand reasonable doubt and in my opinion, the criminal jury certainly didn't. The criminal jury and the NG's argue that there is reasonable doubt if there is a flaw in any part of the case. I believe that reasonable doubt is better explained as -- once you look at all the evidence, is there some reasonable doubt in totality of the case/evidence/testimony? Not is there a single/tiny speck of this case that is not right. In the case of the criminal jury, it is obvious from their interviews that they didn't understand the evidence so I have a real hard time giving them credit for being 'sophisticated.' As one of the defense lawyers said, they voted their hearts. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

There is nothing wrong with having a belief, but, when one is a wannabe and takes some steps toward training in a specific profession, then I would think it behooves those those of the elk of neverdids to pay proper deference to the wannabe.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/e8a3c7fddebd5d44852572fe005041fe?OpenDocument


"U.S. Constitution

The federal Constitution requires the prosecution to prove every element. Any person accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless and until the jury finds that every essential fact necessary to prove the charged crime and every element of the crime have been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.3

California Case Law

The California courts have consistently expressed the prosecution’s burden in terms proving each or every element of the charge. In People v. Cole4 (main charge), the court stated: “The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the charged offense.” Also, in People v. Rodriguez5 (special allegation), the court said: “The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of a prior conviction used to enhance a defendant’s sentence.”

Ah, the level of sophistication shown by the jury was marvelous. Was the defense lawyer in the jury room or was he stating his opinion and was he the one that was not chosen over the magnificent one?

[fgump2]

Some may not understand the the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused defendant committed each and every element of the charged offense. If there is reasonable doubt on any element of the charge, the jury is required to say not guilty, or more appropriately not guilty as charged. If that means that the prisons go empty, so be it.

There is a lot I don't understand about criminal law, and some parts probably differ in different states.

I don't think the jury has to be convinced of every aspect of the prosecution's case to vote guilty. For example in the 1995 SImpson trial the prosecution at one point seemed to be saying that the murders were done before 10:30. I don't recall if the prosecution explicitly said that, but that was the way some commentators interpreted it. I think that if the prosecution had committed themselves to this point, a jury could still convict if they felt the murders occurred after 10:30.

I know that I have read about cases in which the prosecutors charged a diffendent with several crimes (felonies) and the juries convicted on some of the offenses, but not others.

I think there have been cases in which the prosecution charged a person with both first and second degree murder, and tried to show it was first degree murder with second degree as a fall back. In cases like this, the if the jury returned a conviction of second degree murder, they were accepting some of the prosecution's case, but rejecting other parts. Juries have also been asked to decide between, first and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

In the SImpson case the jury could have rejected the sock evidence, but convicted anyway.

This raises a question, if a jury thought there was reason to believe that one piece of evidence had been tampered with, in which cases should the jury allow evidence to taint the entire case? I would guess that if the odds seemed much less than certiain (for example just more than 50% chance the sock or whatever was tampered with), then the rest of the evidence should not be tainted with doubt.

I think that different juries will make different decisons. The Simpson jury was looking for reasons to acquit. At least one of the jurors said the didn't consider the Orenthal Simpson blood at the crime scene because that wasn't one of their reasonable doubts. They violated the judges instructions to consider all the evidence. I don't think that Simpson's blood at BUndy is enough to convict him, but the prosecution shouldn't need much more to convict.

I think the jury also didn't discuss the fact that the killer used unusual gloves, and Mr. Simpson had been photographed wearing gloves that were identical with a possible exception of color.

[fgump2]

There is nothing wrong with having a belief, but, when one is a wannabe and takes some steps toward training in a specific profession, then I would think it behooves those those of the elk of neverdids to pay proper deference to the wannabe.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/e8a3c7fddebd5d44852572fe005041fe?OpenDocument


"U.S. Constitution

Ah, the level of sophistication shown by the jury was marvelous. Was the defense lawyer in the jury room or was he stating his opinion and was he the one that was not chosen over the magnificent one?

The word sophistication means different things to diferent people.
Could you explain any juror statements after the trial that indicated any degree of sophistication?

One of the jurors openly admitted she didn't understand anything about the DNA evidence, another thought she did, but showed she didn't. The second juror thought that Bundy blood that the Bundy blood that the prosecution thought was from Orenthal might have come from Mazzola because Mazzola had the same blood type. In other words, she didn't understand the DNA part.
Also one of the jurors (probably the same one) thought that the blood thought to be from Orenthal could have come from Justin or Sydney, which wasn't possible.

[William Anthony]

there is a lot i don't understand about criminal law, and some parts probably differ in different states.

I don't think the jury has to be convinced of every aspect of the prosecution's case to vote guilty.(if not there is a constitutional violation of the defendant's rights) for example in the 1995 simpson trial the prosecution at one point seemed to be saying that the murders were done before 10:30. I don't recall if the prosecution explicitly said that, but that was the way some commentators interpreted it. I think that if the prosecution had committed themselves to this point, a jury could still convict if they felt the murders occurred after 10:30. (that evidence was disputed by the defense's time line, allowing an inference that simpson could not have done the murders. REMEMBER THE JURY INSTRUCTION ON REASONABLE DOUBT.

i know that i have read about cases in which the prosecutors charged a diffendent with several crimes (felonies) and the juries convicted on some of the offenses, but not others. (i will answer this with the my next statement.

i think there have been cases in which the prosecution charged a person with both first and second degree murder, and tried to show it was first degree murder with second degree as a fall back. In cases like this, the if the jury returned a conviction of second degree murder, they were accepting some of the prosecution's case, but rejecting other parts. Juries have also been asked to decide between, first and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. (yes, that is know as a lesser included offense, which means that the prosecution may have failed to prove each and every element of the first degree murder charge but did prove each and every element of the second degree charge, which would apply to convictions on some charges and not others.)

in the simpson case the jury could have rejected the sock evidence, but convicted anyway. (i take it to mean by this that the jury could have believed that the sock was planted and still convicted simpson, correct? I don't see how the jury could have done an honorable job thinking that evidence was planted and still have convicted a defendant

this raises a question, if a jury thought there was reason to believe that one piece of evidence had been tampered with, in which cases should the jury allow evidence to taint the entire case? I would guess that if the odds seemed much less than certiain (for example just more than 50% chance the sock or whatever was tampered with), then the rest of the evidence should not be tainted with doubt. ((i would say that was a jury's decisio to make but i believe most reasonable thinking people would believe that the prosecution lost all credibility and the other evidence should not be trusted, which, imho, shows the proper amount of juror sophistication.

i think that different juries will make different decisons. The simpson jury was looking for reasons to acquit. At least one of the jurors said the didn't consider the orenthal simpson blood at the crime scene because that wasn't one of their reasonable doubts. (let me see if i get this right? You think that the jury could reject the sock evidence but not the blood evidence, correct?)they violated the judges instructions to consider all the evidence. (it is my understanding that they did not understand it and therefore did not consider it, which is the prosecution's failure, imho.) i don't think that simpson's blood at bundy is enough to convict him, but the prosecution shouldn't need much more to convict. (i think it was the jury's role to give weight and credibility to the evidence, or it theoretically was their function and not that of the judge, as was done in the socio political production.)

i think the jury also didn't discuss the fact that the killer used unusual gloves, and mr. Simpson had been photographed wearing gloves that were identical with a possible exception of color. (i am glad you said you think as to what the jury did or did not discuss. I did not see anything unusual about the gloves, except they did not fit simpson's hands. They could not have been identical if the color was different, which is what the jury may have discussed.

[William Anthony]

The word sophistication means different things to diferent people.
Could you explain any juror statements after the trial that indicated any degree of sophistication?

One of the jurors openly admitted she didn't understand anything about the DNA evidence, another thought she did, but showed she didn't. The second juror thought that Bundy blood that the Bundy blood that the prosecution thought was from Orenthal might have come from Mazzola because Mazzola had the same blood type. In other words, she didn't understand the DNA part.
Also one of the jurors (probably the same one) thought that the blood thought to be from Orenthal could have come from Justin or Sydney, which wasn't possible.

I don't need to explain any statement they made after the trial, as their sophistication illuminated the courtroom with the unanimous jury verdict of not guilty.

Your second paragraph demonstrates the prosecution's failure. There is a concept in examining a witness and getting your point to the jury called primacy and recentcy. Their have been studies on attention span and a good lawyer knows at what point to make his best points so that the jury will remember and knows how to make those points clear to the jury, which the prosecution obviously failed to do.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .There is nothing wrong with having a belief, but, when one is a wannabe and takes some steps toward training in a specific profession, then I would think it behooves those those of the elk of neverdids to pay proper deference to the wannabe. . . .

Ah, the level of sophistication shown by the jury was marvelous. Was the defense lawyer in the jury room or was he stating his opinion and was he the one that was not chosen over the magnificent one?

lol -- surely the poster isn't insinuating that because he (alledgely) is a wannabe that that unsubstantiated claim raises him to the a higher level than any other poster on this board? uh - no.

"So they could vote their hearts with Cochran and their minds with Scheck?

Allen Dershowitz: ". . .I think for some of the jurors, Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to. . ."

[martin II]

There is a lot I don't understand about criminal law, and some parts probably differ in different states.

I don't think the jury has to be convinced of every aspect of the prosecution's case to vote guilty. For example in the 1995 SImpson trial the prosecution at one point seemed to be saying that the murders were done before 10:30. I don't recall if the prosecution explicitly said that, but that was the way some commentators interpreted it. I think that if the prosecution had committed themselves to this point, a jury could still convict if they felt the murders occurred after 10:30.

I know that I have read about cases in which the prosecutors charged a diffendent with several crimes (felonies) and the juries convicted on some of the offenses, but not others.

I think there have been cases in which the prosecution charged a person with both first and second degree murder, and tried to show it was first degree murder with second degree as a fall back. In cases like this, the if the jury returned a conviction of second degree murder, they were accepting some of the prosecution's case, but rejecting other parts. Juries have also been asked to decide between, first and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

In the SImpson case the jury could have rejected the sock evidence, but convicted anyway.

This raises a question, if a jury thought there was reason to believe that one piece of evidence had been tampered with, in which cases should the jury allow evidence to taint the entire case? I would guess that if the odds seemed much less than certiain (for example just more than 50% chance the sock or whatever was tampered with), then the rest of the evidence should not be tainted with doubt.

I think that different juries will make different decisons. The Simpson jury was looking for reasons to acquit. At least one of the jurors said the didn't consider the Orenthal Simpson blood at the crime scene because that wasn't one of their reasonable doubts. They violated the judges instructions to consider all the evidence. I don't think that Simpson's blood at BUndy is enough to convict him, but the prosecution shouldn't need much more to convict.

I think the jury also didn't discuss the fact that the killer used unusual gloves, and Mr. Simpson had been photographed wearing gloves that were identical with a possible exception of color.

A jury is never required to discuss all of each piece of evidence. They did discuss all of the evidence that there was questions on by each juror.in deliberations there is no need or requiremtnt by law that they go over all the trial testimony in this case or any other case.They all agreed that the prosecution did not prove their claims as required by law.

If the jury believed that oj was in the house when park arrived then they knew that he could not have been at bundy. So all of the other blood evidence gloves etc must have been planted by someone.They did not have to know by who.

[William Anthony]

Some have the ability to let their knowledge and training show through just of some others substantiate their lack of knowledge through their post. So, AD expressed his opinions in his work of fiction.

[weezer]

:no: don't be hatin' william.

[William Anthony]

I haven't found anything or anyone to hate so far, although their are things that come close.:)

[William Anthony]

A jury is never required to discuss all of each piece of evidence. They did discuss all of the evidence that there was questions on by each juror.in deliberations there is no need or requiremtnt by law that they go over all the trial testimony in this case or any other case.They all agreed that the prosecution did not prove their claims as required by law.

If the jury believed that oj was in the house when park arrived then they knew that he could not have been at bundy. So all of the other blood evidence gloves etc must have been planted by someone.They did not have to know by who.

Ah, another very astute post on your part. They are only required to listen to all the evidence.

[tv]

Here is what you actually said.



You will see that you fact said "either way". We are not discussing what any poster said about the evidence but, in fact, what the evidence was and your feelings about the evidence. Here is my post.



Here is the problem, beginning with the legal requirement that a defendant has the presumption of innocence, meaning that the defendant does not have to provide any evidence to prove his innocence but the prosecution must provide evidence that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if a piece of evidence does not go either way, then the evidence must automatically go to the presumption of innocence as explained by the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. So, you see you have shown that there was reasonable doubt and that the criminal jury demonstrated a sophisticated level of comprehension by their verdict and in line with your feelings on some of the evidence. When the prosecution fails to provide evidence that goes their way and not either way or evidence is produced by the defense that can go either way , then there is reasonable doubt.

I said 'didn't go either way' which means neither way. I'll clarify my answer to you so there will be no misunderstanding -- I didn't see any evidence that made me think OJ Simpson was not guilty.

[tv]

Ah, another very astute post on your part. They are only required to listen to all the evidence.

At least a few of them didn't have their listening ears on because they didn't know Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove -- in three places. They also thought Mazzola and Simpson's blood matched.

[tv]

There is nothing wrong with having a belief, but, when one is a wannabe and takes some steps toward training in a specific profession, then I would think it behooves those those of the elk of neverdids to pay proper deference to the wannabe.
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/e8a3c7fddebd5d44852572fe005041fe?OpenDocument


"U.S. Constitution

The federal Constitution requires the prosecution to prove every element. Any person accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless and until the jury finds that every essential fact necessary to prove the charged crime and every element of the crime have been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.3

California Case Law

The California courts have consistently expressed the prosecution’s burden in terms proving each or every element of the charge. In People v. Cole4 (main charge), the court stated: “The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the charged offense.” Also, in People v. Rodriguez5 (special allegation), the court said: “The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of a prior conviction used to enhance a defendant’s sentence.”

Ah, the level of sophistication shown by the jury was marvelous. Was the defense lawyer in the jury room or was he stating his opinion and was he the one that was not chosen over the magnificent one?

Let me get this straight -- you want posters on this board that you don't feel have your level of legal knowledge to give you deferential treatment? Sorry, I guess because I'm one of the 'elk' of neverdids I just don't get that.

[William Anthony]

I said 'didn't go either way' which means neither way. I'll clarify my answer to you so there will be no misunderstanding -- I didn't see any evidence that made me think OJ Simpson was not guilty.

You see, there would be no need to clarify your answer, if my questioned had been answered directly. Saying you saw evidence that did not go either way, means that the evidence you saw could have gone either way. Saying you saw evidence that went neither way is saying you saw evidence that didn't favor either side. When you take this into context with what the sophisticated jury was instructed to do they could have only arrived at reasonable doubt, as I have previously stated, because the prosecution had the burden of providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which means they failed and you agree by your posts that there was reasonable doubt and the sophisticated jury reached the correct verdict of not guilty, although you believe that Simpson is guilty. It seems you may have criticized the jury, because they understood and fulfilled their legal duty but you wished they had not.:)

[tv]

You see, you have that privilege because you were not a juror. However, the jurors understood that they did not have that privilege and, because they upheld their oath, as evidenced by your admission that you saw evidence that did not go either way, which it is highly probable that the jury did, the jury has been severely criticized by doing by law what the were obligated to do.

If I'm a juror and I see a piece of evidence that I don't think holds any importance for either side I can discard it. The criminal jurors didn't consider Mark Fuhrman's in their deliberations. Are you saying they were wrong or not following the instructions given them by the court?

[GreenIce]

Why in the world would I want him to be guilty? I didn't have a preference regarding who was or wasn't guilty. I wanted the person responsible to be found and punished no matter who it was. I certainly didn't want to think that a beloved American sports hero was capable of killing his ex-wife and her friend in such a brutal way with his two young children sleeping close by.

If you want to know what I consider credible and incriminating evidence against him you only need to look at any of my posts that discusses evidence. I'm sure I've told you directly what evidence there was that convinced me he is guilty.

TV,

Exactly, you did not want to believe a beloved American sports hero would have done this---now you know how I feel about the police---I did not want to believe what I was forced to believe about the police and the evidence in this case.

If you did tell me what what was the evidence that cinched it for you, I do not remember, truly. I remember Dominick Dunne saying that when he saw Simpson handcuffed and that when Simpson did not get upset and demand they take the handcuffs off of him and yell at the police to find the real killers, he "knew" right then and there he was guilty. IMO, many people make these types of calls, I think they go with their gut feelings and few the evidence with their gut---no problem with that. Just asking what was it for you?

[tv]

TV,

Exactly, you did not want to believe a beloved American sports hero would have done this---now you know how I feel about the police---I did not want to believe what I was forced to believe about the police and the evidence in this case.

If you did tell me what what was the evidence that cinched it for you, I do not remember, truly. I remember Dominick Dunne saying that when he saw Simpson handcuffed and that when Simpson did not get upset and demand they take the handcuffs off of him and yell at the police to find the real killers, he "knew" right then and there he was guilty. IMO, many people make these types of calls, I think they go with their gut feelings and few the evidence with their gut---no problem with that. Just asking what was it for you?

His blood at the scene, his blood mixed with the victim's blood in the Bronco and his home, the Rockingham glove found on his property, his changing alibi, the missing bag that he had when he left for the airport, the timeline provided by Kato and Park, the cut on the middle finger of his left hand, his history of violence and control toward Nicole, the Bronco chase...I'm sure there's more that I can't think of right now.

[William Anthony]

Let me get this straight -- you want posters on this board that you don't feel have your level of legal knowledge to give you deferential treatment? Sorry, I guess because I'm one of the 'elk' of neverdids I just don't get that.

Ah, you see, because you are one of those of the ilk, who for some reason feel they must criticize the legal training and experience I have attained and have functioned as a lawyer, who refer to me as a wannabe, and, in recognition that you have not I refer to you as a neverdid, and part of the legal training, experience and functioning as a lawyer has enabled me to not only have knowledge as to what the law is, as opposed to what I believe it is, but also taught me to read carefully and listen to what people actually say as opposed to what I think they said. For example, I will post again what I actually said to which you provided this response.

There is nothing wrong with having a belief, but, when one is a wannabe and takes some steps toward training in a specific profession, then I would think it behooves those those of the elk of neverdids to pay proper deference to the wannabe.

I ask you to note that I did not say I wanted posters on this board, who have not had my legal training to give me deference. However, I said I think it behooves.... The object of behooves, in my post, is those of the elk (typo) of neverdids.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behooves

–verb (used with object)
1. to be necessary or proper for, as for moral or ethical considerations; be incumbent on: It behooves the court to weigh evidence impartially.

So, you see that I did not say I want neverdids to pay deference to wannabes, only that I think it is necessary and proper and incumbent on them to so do. :) As a wannabe, this is what I have learned when using words and reading them to understand what is actually said.:)

[tv]

You see, there would be no need to clarify your answer, if my questioned had been answered directly. Saying you saw evidence that did not go either way, means that the evidence you saw could have gone either way. Saying you saw evidence that went neither way is saying you saw evidence that didn't favor either side. When you take this into context with what the sophisticated jury was instructed to do they could have only arrived at reasonable doubt, as I have previously stated, because the prosecution had the burden of providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which means they failed and you agree by your posts that there was reasonable doubt and the sophisticated jury reached the correct verdict of not guilty, although you believe that Simpson is guilty. It seems you may have criticized the jury, because they understood and fulfilled their legal duty but you wished they had not.:)

William, stop twisting what I say in my posts. If you're not going to accept the answer I give you I'll just stop answering you. I did not see reasonable doubt and I did see some evidence that held no meaning for me so I discarded it. For you to say that I said the jury fulfilled their duty but I wished they hadn't is a complete falsehood. Please stop it.

[tv]

Ah, you see, because you are one of those of the ilk, who for some reason feel they must criticize the legal training and experience I have attained and have functioned as a lawyer, who refer to me as a wannabe, and, in recognition that you have not I refer to you as a neverdid, and part of the legal training, experience and functioning as a lawyer has enabled me to not only have knowledge as to what the law is, as opposed to what I believe it is, but also taught me to read carefully and listen to what people actually say as opposed to what I think they said. For example, I will post again what I actually said to which you provided this response.



I ask you to note that I did not say I wanted posters on this board, who have not had my legal training to give me deference. However, I said I think it behooves.... The object of behooves, in my post, is those of the elk (typo) of neverdids.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behooves

–verb (used with object)
1. to be necessary or proper for, as for moral or ethical considerations; be incumbent on: It behooves the court to weigh evidence impartially.

So, you see that I did not say I want neverdids to pay deference to wannabes, only that I think it is necessary and proper and incumbent on them to so do. :) As a wannabe, this is what I have learned when using words and reading them to understand what is actually said.:)

This post doesn't sound any better than the first time you asked to be given deference. Please show me the post where I called you a wannabe.

[William Anthony]

If I'm a juror and I see a piece of evidence that I don't think holds any importance for either side I can discard it. The criminal jurors didn't consider Mark Fuhrman's in their deliberations. Are you saying they were wrong or not following the instructions given them by the court?

I am saying that they are not required to consider any evidence but required to listen to it all. Your statement, on the other hand, requires a consideration, as to whether or not you determined the evidence favored one side or the other. When you considered that and made your determination that it did not, that evidence automatically went to the benefit of the defendant by the presumption of innocence. By the same token, the sophisticated jury did not consider MF, meaning his testimony, which showed another level of sophistication as you know that MF was subsequently convicted of perjury. The fact that the sophisticated jury did not consider him provides evidence that they understood the concept of falsus in onus, falsus in ominbus. Therefore, the evidence against MF was considered, unless you have a statement saying they did not and they were left with a racist cop, who hated and harassed interracial couples, finding a glove that did not fit the defendant's hand, inter alia.

[William Anthony]

William, stop twisting what I say in my posts. If you're not going to accept the answer I give you I'll just stop answering you. I did not see reasonable doubt and I did see some evidence that held no meaning for me so I discarded it. For you to say that I said the jury fulfilled their duty but I wished they hadn't is a complete falsehood. Please stop it.

If you are not of the ilk that calls me a wannabe, why would you think that I was referring to you as a neverdid?

[William Anthony]

This post doesn't sound any better than the first time you asked to be given deference. Please show me the post where I called you a wannabe.

I did not post it for it to sound better, only for accuracy. :)

[GreenIce]

There is a lot I don't understand about criminal law, and some parts probably differ in different states.

I don't think the jury has to be convinced of every aspect of the prosecution's case to vote guilty. For example in the 1995 SImpson trial the prosecution at one point seemed to be saying that the murders were done before 10:30. I don't recall if the prosecution explicitly said that, but that was the way some commentators interpreted it. I think that if the prosecution had committed themselves to this point, a jury could still convict if they felt the murders occurred after 10:30.

I know that I have read about cases in which the prosecutors charged a diffendent with several crimes (felonies) and the juries convicted on some of the offenses, but not others.

I think there have been cases in which the prosecution charged a person with both first and second degree murder, and tried to show it was first degree murder with second degree as a fall back. In cases like this, the if the jury returned a conviction of second degree murder, they were accepting some of the prosecution's case, but rejecting other parts. Juries have also been asked to decide between, first and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

In the SImpson case the jury could have rejected the sock evidence, but convicted anyway.

This raises a question, if a jury thought there was reason to believe that one piece of evidence had been tampered with, in which cases should the jury allow evidence to taint the entire case? I would guess that if the odds seemed much less than certiain (for example just more than 50% chance the sock or whatever was tampered with), then the rest of the evidence should not be tainted with doubt.

I think that different juries will make different decisons. The Simpson jury was looking for reasons to acquit. At least one of the jurors said the didn't consider the Orenthal Simpson blood at the crime scene because that wasn't one of their reasonable doubts. They violated the judges instructions to consider all the evidence. I don't think that Simpson's blood at BUndy is enough to convict him, but the prosecution shouldn't need much more to convict.

I think the jury also didn't discuss the fact that the killer used unusual gloves, and Mr. Simpson had been photographed wearing gloves that were identical with a possible exception of color.

Fgump2,

The DA's said the murders happened between 10:10 and 10:20, they based their "murder time" on the barking of the dog.

You have to remember, the DA's put their witnesses which they thought proved their timeline. However, you forget that the DA's not only put these witnesses on, but they also put on evidence that was so sinister, it proved what Simpson's plans were to do with the body. Remember MF and the shovel and the big plastic bag that was found in the Bronco? It was clear the DA's were suggesting that Simpson was going to tag, bag and bury Nicole. How foolish did they look when they had to admit in front of the jury, that the bag was standard issue in a Bronco and the shovel was used to pick up dog waste? They killed their own timeline with stuff like this. Not to mention Robert H. The DA's used a dog for their witness, the Defense used real people.

IMO, you are asking juries to make decisons that that they should never be asked to make--to convict on evidence they think they can trust and discount the evidence they do not trust. Believe certain parts of a witnesses testimony but discount the parts where you think are bald face lying.

DNA is simple. It tells you who's blood it is or isn't. However, it does not tell you how and when it got there.

Every jury should be looking for reasons to aquit. Mr. Simpson was fortunate enough to have the resources to challenge every piece of evidence and they did so.

The jury did follow the judge's instructions and came back with the only legal verdict they could have. No jury in the world, regardless of race or gender was going to convict Simpson on the evidence presented by the DA's. It was beyond rehabilitation. The only defense the DA's had for the evidence was "please believe me because I wouldn't lie to you--it doesn't matter if my witnesses lied to you, I am not lying to you".

You forget the DA's never ever proved what type of Gloves Mrs. Simpson bought or what type of gloves were found. How many other sportscasters or news reporters wear the exact same type of glove? The DA's had proof of two pairs of glvoes that Mrs. Simpson bought and gave to Tom McCollum, they were extra large Isotoner Gloves, one brown pair and one black pair. There is no evidence that Mrs. Simpson ever bought a pair of gloves for Simpson, let alone give him two pairs of these gloves.

Remember, not one representative of the company took the stand, no DA or one of their investigators attempted to cross reference the model numbers with the gloves found.

There is no proof how old the gloves were or where they were bought. They were not rare gloves.

In all honestly, I wondered what took the jury so long. The problems of evidence and the obvious subpar performance of the LAPD and the SID team as well as experts witnesses did not leave much debate regarding credibility, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William, stop twisting what I say in my posts. If you're not going to accept the answer I give you I'll just stop answering you. I did not see reasonable doubt and I did see some evidence that held no meaning for me so I discarded it. For you to say that I said the jury fulfilled their duty but I wished they hadn't is a complete falsehood. Please stop it.

I think that you are the one that wants to twist what I said and to try to start and argument, as this is what I actually said.

It seems you may have criticized the jury, because they understood and fulfilled their legal duty but you wished they had not

I do stand corrected on the other post about wannabe and neverdids. It is just that you sounded so much like another poster, I did not even look to see who made the post. I have accepted the answer you gave me and pointed out that the jury was not privileged to do as you did, because they understood and fulfilled their duty as instructed, that's all. :)

[William Anthony]

At least a few of them didn't have their listening ears on because they didn't know Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove -- in three places. They also thought Mazzola and Simpson's blood matched.

I have already addressed, whose fault this was and the concepts of primacy and recentcy and attention span. The prosecution should have made their points clearer, either in evidence presentation or in opening statement of closing argument. When you consider the aforementioned concepts, a good lawyer knows where and when to insert his most important points.

[GreenIce]

If I'm a juror and I see a piece of evidence that I don't think holds any importance for either side I can discard it. The criminal jurors didn't consider Mark Fuhrman's in their deliberations. Are you saying they were wrong or not following the instructions given them by the court?

TV,

Now, I am asking nicely and keeping in our spirt of not trying to piss each off to the point were you say not nice things about my planet and my people, the aliens and then I childishly return the favor and say not nice things about your people and friends.:)

Was there any evidence that you did seriously question? I don't think I understand about what evidence you felt was not important to either side.
Do you have a couple of examples?

I do know that is common practice that the DA's and the defense will call certain evidence a "wash" so both sides agree not to bring it in. I know some times they play the "deal" game--if you don't use this, we won't use that.

But I am assuming anything they introduce into the actual trial, they feel goes to their case or is a decent attempt to blunt the impact of a piece of evidence. Example, the hair found in the hat. The DA's said it was Simpson's the defense produced a witness that said sometimes Simpson had dandruff and the hair inside the hat did not have dandruff. Did the defense prove that he had dandruff that night, not exactly, but the DA's could not prove that he didn't have dandruff. See what I mean?

[tv]

If you are not of the ilk that calls me a wannabe, why would you think that I was referring to you as a neverdid?

Because I 'never did' pursue a career in the legal field I must fall into your definition of neverdids. It doesn't bother me to be referred to as that because I 'never did' want to be a lawyer anyway. I know you 'wannabe' a lawyer so if you want to think of me as one of those elks it's okay with me. I draw the line at the deference thing though.

[William Anthony]

TV,

Now, I am asking nicely and keeping in our spirt of not trying to piss each off to the point were you say not nice things about my planet and my people, the aliens and then I childishly return the favor and say not nice things about your people and friends.:)

Was there any evidence that you did seriously question? I don't think I understand about what evidence you felt was not important to either side.
Do you have a couple of examples?

I do know that is common practice that the DA's and the defense will call certain evidence a "wash" so both sides agree not to bring it in. I know some times they play the "deal" game--if you don't use this, we won't use that.

But I am assuming anything they introduce into the actual trial, they feel goes to their case or is a decent attempt to blunt the impact of a piece of evidence. Example, the hair found in the hat. The DA's said it was Simpson's the defense produced a witness that said sometimes Simpson had dandruff and the hair inside the hat did not have dandruff. Did the defense prove that he had dandruff that night, not exactly, but the DA's could not prove that he didn't have dandruff. See what I mean?

In that case by the jury instructions the jury had no choice but to accept the inference that pointed toward innocence, i.e. that Simpson did not wear that cap on that night.

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

I know you have issues with Dr. Lee and what he wrote in a book regarding hair. In Jeff Toobin's book, he goes into this and explains it. He believe that only one hair is needed for DNA testing. That other hairs are taken from different parts of the head and they are used for comparisons and some other tests. That is as far as I got so far. I hope this might clear it up for you.

However, in her first ruling Judge Kennedy-Powell only ordered that 10 hairs could be taken until she reviewed the matter further. The fact that the DA's did not take hair samples from Simpson right away was either a brialliant move on their part or another long list of incompetent mistakes made by the SID team, IMO.

I have never read Dr. Lee's book so I don't know how accurate Toobin's book is on this.

[tv]

TV,

Now, I am asking nicely and keeping in our spirt of not trying to piss each off to the point were you say not nice things about my planet and my people, the aliens and then I childishly return the favor and say not nice things about your people and friends.:)

Was there any evidence that you did seriously question? I don't think I understand about what evidence you felt was not important to either side.
Do you have a couple of examples?

I do know that is common practice that the DA's and the defense will call certain evidence a "wash" so both sides agree not to bring it in. I know some times they play the "deal" game--if you don't use this, we won't use that.

But I am assuming anything they introduce into the actual trial, they feel goes to their case or is a decent attempt to blunt the impact of a piece of evidence. Example, the hair found in the hat. The DA's said it was Simpson's the defense produced a witness that said sometimes Simpson had dandruff and the hair inside the hat did not have dandruff. Did the defense prove that he had dandruff that night, not exactly, but the DA's could not prove that he didn't have dandruff. See what I mean?

I really didn't see any evidence that I felt had been manipulated by either LE or the lab. One thing that I find to be a waste of time (even though I've discussed it) is whether or not Nicole purchased the gloves. I don't think it matters. The dandruff is pretty much the same for me. By the way, I appreciate you not putting me in the position of having to bring your home planet into the discussion. :)

[William Anthony]

Because I 'never did' pursue a career in the legal field I must fall into your definition of neverdids. It doesn't bother me to be referred to as that because I 'never did' want to be a lawyer anyway. I know you 'wannabe' a lawyer so if you want to think of me as one of those elks it's okay with me. I draw the line at the deference thing though.

If you were someone, who had studied biology and worked in the field, and I was not, I would not criticize your view, because I believed something different without having any basis to state my beliefs and I really would keep my mouth shut for fear of what I would look like. I am not saying you did this but only stating what I would do and I am not trying to stop anyone from looking the way they choose to look. I did not limit the calling of neverdids to those that called me a wannabe but extended it to those who criticize my training and posts I make because of my training and I explained to you that it was my fault due to the fact that your post was so similar to the sound of another poster that I did not look to see who posted it.

[tv]

I have already addressed, whose fault this was and the concepts of primacy and recentcy and attention span. The prosecution should have made their points clearer, either in evidence presentation or in opening statement of closing argument. When you consider the aforementioned concepts, a good lawyer knows where and when to insert his most important points.

The prosecution made the fact that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove very clear. How do you explain why they thought Mazzola and Simpson had a blood match or that they thought the blood at the scene could have belonged to the children? They got those facts wrong.

[GreenIce]

I didn't say either way -- I said neither way. If there is testimony that I feel doesn't go either way that's not reasonable doubt. Example: GreenIce thinks the jacuzzi jets were left on by a third party to lure Simpson out there or some such thing. I feel Kato forgot and left them on and it aggravated Simpson. Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

TV,

Just to be clear on this, Kato may very well been wrong, but when he says he is sure he did something, you have to look for another possible explaination.

However, in all fairness to my G friends, I think is also fair to suggest that Kato did turn off the jets and perhaps Simpson was setting up his alibi--in other words, he was lying about the jets. Or turned them on himself and then went to Kato to say he did it.

I also take into consider the timing of some of the evidence in this case into consideration. I have always said that if the noise Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them and they were meant to draw him out, IMO.

[fgump2]

I have already addressed, whose fault this was and the concepts of primacy and recentcy and attention span. The prosecution should have made their points clearer, either in evidence presentation or in opening statement of closing argument. When you consider the aforementioned concepts, a good lawyer knows where and when to insert his most important points.
I get the impression that you think the jury was sophisticated because you like to the conclusion they came to.

To blame all the jury's illogical thinking on the prosecution is unfair. Under this type of thinking, the jury can do no wrong. Any mistake they make is because of mistakes by the prosecution, or at least the other people in the courtroom.

According to Rantala's book, on page 178, Ito seemed to believe that an unbiased juror is an ignorant juror. It said that Ito discharged people because they visited bookstores, or read a newspaper during the selection process.
It is possible that Rantala's book misrepresents Ito's position, but I think other people the same criticism of Ito.

In other words the theory is that unfair bias comes from knowledge. In this case I thnk any unfair biases came from prospective jurors opinions about race, celebrities, and problems between men and women.

[GreenIce]

I really didn't see any evidence that I felt had been manipulated by either LE or the lab. One thing that I find to be a waste of time (even though I've discussed it) is whether or not Nicole purchased the gloves. I don't think it matters. The dandruff is pretty much the same for me. By the way, I appreciate you not putting me in the position of having to bring your home planet into the discussion. :)

TV,

I agree with you about Nicole actually purchasing the gloves. However, if the receipt had all the information on it as it would today and the model and size tags were still left in the gloves that were found, then IMO, Nicole buy the gloves would have been more powerful--if they matched up.

My people send greetings to your people!

[fgump2]

TV,

Just to be clear on this, Kato may very well been wrong, but when he says he is sure he did something, you have to look for another possible explaination.

However, in all fairness to my G friends, I think is also fair to suggest that Kato did turn off the jets and perhaps Simpson was setting up his alibi--in other words, he was lying about the jets. Or turned them on himself and then went to Kato to say he did it.

I also take into consider the timing of some of the evidence in this case into consideration. I have always said that if the noise Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them and they were meant to draw him out, IMO.

Greenice, people have criticized you for writing as though you can read minds. I think this criticism is justified. I think you have gone way to far when you write that "if the noise Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them and they were meant to draw him out". Analyzing the motives in this situation makes no sense to me.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution made the fact that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove very clear. How do you explain why they thought Mazzola and Simpson had a blood match or that they thought the blood at the scene could have belonged to the children? They got those facts wrong.

I suppose you interviewed the jurors and they told you that they made the evidence very clear.:) You are saying what was made clear to you but you were not on the jury. Here's a story for you and I am very good at math and it comes easy to me. When first taking Algebra and we were working with exponents, such as two to the second over two to the third or two to the negative one or 1/2, I wrote my answers as a number to the negative power, because it was easier for me than stating them in fractions, because we were working with exponents. The rest of the class laughed until the teacher told them I was right and he would rather have it done my way than fractions. The teacher had failed to make clear to them that two to the negative one was the same as 1/2. When someone doesn't understand something and do not have the opportunity to ask questions, then it is the duty of the instructor to make it clear.

[tv]

If you were someone, who had studied biology and worked in the field, and I was not, I would not criticize your view, because I believed something different without having any basis to state my beliefs and I really would keep my mouth shut for fear of what I would look like. I am not saying you did this but only stating what I would do and I am not trying to stop anyone from looking the way they choose to look. I did not limit the calling of neverdids to those that called me a wannabe but extended it to those who criticize my training and posts I make because of my training and I explained to you that it was my fault due to the fact that your post was so similar to the sound of another poster that I did not look to see who posted it.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't think anyone is going to keep their mouths shut out of fear of what they will look like or in deference to you. You'll just have to put up with those of us that you feel don't have your education or intelligence. Face it -- you're stuck with us elks and our big mouths. :D

[GreenIce]

At least a few of them didn't have their listening ears on because they didn't know Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove -- in three places. They also thought Mazzola and Simpson's blood matched.

TV,

According to Goldberg's book, Simpson's blood was only found on one spot on the Rockingham glove and that was the drop on the inside wrist area. I have not been able to find any information that his blood was found in a mixture on that glove. Matheson said he could confirm that Ron and Nicole's blood was found in a mixture but he could not rule out that a 3rd's person blood was not in that mixture.

To the best of my knowledge, only one juror, Carrie Bess was wrong about the Rockingham glove, however, I don't remember any other jurors giving an interview that they didn't know know that Simpson's blood was not found on the glove.

However, since the DA's never even attempted to explain how the glove got back there until Clark's closing speaks volumes. If the DA's can't explain how it got there, that hurts the glove evidence. When Collin Y testified that he did spill blood but he was sure he cleaned it up, does not mean that he cleaned all of it up and could not prove that none of that spillage did not land where it was found. As you know, Mozzola and Fung were nailed on the mistakes they made, why should Collin Y be given the benefit of the doubt that he knew no blood got on the glove--especially when you consider what a bone headed move it was on his part to even put himself in this position in the first place. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I get the impression that you think the jury was sophisticated because you like to the conclusion they came to.

To blame all the jury's illogical thinking on the prosecution is unfair. Under this type of thinking, the jury can do no wrong. Any mistake they make is because of mistakes by the prosecution, or at least the other people in the courtroom.

According to Rantala's book, on page 178, Ito seemed to believe that an unbiased juror is an ignorant juror. It said that Ito discharged people because they visited bookstores, or read a newspaper during the selection process.
It is possible that Rantala's book misrepresents Ito's position, but I think other people the same criticism of Ito.

In other words the theory is that unfair bias comes from knowledge. In this case I thnk any unfair biases came from prospective jurors opinions about race, celebrities, and problems between men and women.

fgump2,

The jury's job is to evaluate the case put on both sides and render a verdict based on the evidence presented by both sides. Instead of just focusing on the Simpson jury, why not cast your net wider? Have you ever seen a juror or a jury inteviewed after the person they sent to death row was later freed to due to DNA evidence or police and/or DA misconduct? Did this jury do wrong by not only convicting an innocent person but also making the decision to take their life?

[William Anthony]

I get the impression that you think the jury was sophisticated because you like to the conclusion they came to.

To blame all the jury's illogical thinking on the prosecution is unfair. Under this type of thinking, the jury can do no wrong. Any mistake they make is because of mistakes by the prosecution, or at least the other people in the courtroom.

According to Rantala's book, on page 178, Ito seemed to believe that an unbiased juror is an ignorant juror. It said that Ito discharged people because they visited bookstores, or read a newspaper during the selection process.
It is possible that Rantala's book misrepresents Ito's position, but I think other people the same criticism of Ito.

In other words the theory is that unfair bias comes from knowledge. In this case I thnk any unfair biases came from prospective jurors opinions about race, celebrities, and problems between men and women.

I think the jury was sophisticated because they understood legal concepts and the instructions and their duty.

To blame the prosecution's failures, because the prosecution had the burden of proof, on the jury by calling them uneducated, ignorant and racially biased, without realizing that there was reasonable doubt and the jury had no choice comes from a misapplication of legal principles and an undeserved feeling of superiority, IMHO.

I would think that during the selection process no one would want to have a juror on the jury, whose views may have been influenced by what they read about the case while in the selection process and it would be hard to weed out when they formulated their conclusions or were those conclusions based solely on their view of the evidence as opposed to what they may read in works of fiction or the media.

I do not know where unfair biases comes from. I know that much of the knowledge I learned in grade, junior high and high school from reading was propaganda. Luckily, I had some teachers, who taught me to think for myself and just not accept upon blind faith what is written in a book.

As I have said, I don't know where unfair biases come from but, after watching the trial, I saw reasonable doubt and admittedly I became biased by the end of the trial as I watched the dream team destroy the evidence that the prosecution put on. I wondered why the prosecution brought the charges in the first place but wondered if the jury would understand that there was reasonable doubt. The verdict showed their sophistication whether or not they were biased. The prosecution and the defense selected them, a trial was held, evidence presented and a verdict rendered.

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't think anyone is going to keep their mouths shut out of fear of what they will look like or in deference to you. You'll just have to put up with those of us that you feel don't have your education or intelligence. Face it -- you're stuck with us elks and our big mouths. :D

See all you have to do is get rid of the attitude and read what I actually said or not respond to my posts. I said what I would do out of fear of how I would look.
I then said,

only stating what I would do and I am not trying to stop anyone from looking the way they choose to look.

I applaud the fearless who rush head long into a situation not caring one iota how they appear. Such impulsiveness and not caring of how others think of them is to be admired. I have not asked anyone to keep their mouths shut in deference to me but to give deference to the fact that I had such training and my posts are more than my beliefs and are based on actual study and training as I would respect your statements if you had trained and studied to be a biologist. The only other thing that I would take umbrage with is your statement that I have to put up with anything. Well, I guess I disagree with your entire post.:)

[tv]

TV,

According to Goldberg's book, Simpson's blood was only found on one spot on the Rockingham glove and that was the drop on the inside wrist area. I have not been able to find any information that his blood was found in a mixture on that glove. Matheson said he could confirm that Ron and Nicole's blood was found in a mixture but he could not rule out that a 3rd's person blood was not in that mixture.

To the best of my knowledge, only one juror, Carrie Bess was wrong about the Rockingham glove, however, I don't remember any other jurors giving an interview that they didn't know know that Simpson's blood was not found on the glove.

However, since the DA's never even attempted to explain how the glove got back there until Clark's closing speaks volumes. If the DA's can't explain how it got there, that hurts the glove evidence. When Collin Y testified that he did spill blood but he was sure he cleaned it up, does not mean that he cleaned all of it up and could not prove that none of that spillage did not land where it was found. As you know, Mozzola and Fung were nailed on the mistakes they made, why should Collin Y be given the benefit of the doubt that he knew no blood got on the glove--especially when you consider what a bone headed move it was on his part to even put himself in this position in the first place. IMO.

GreenIce, the book is wrong. The blood was found on three places on the Rockingham glove. The inside wrist notch had the blood of Simpson and Ron, outside - near wrist notch had the blood of Ron, Nicole and Simpson and the wrist notch stitching had the blood of Ron, Nicole and Simpson. Colin Yamauchi didn't open the vial of blood anywhere near the other evidence.

The prosecution did give an explanation for why the glove was behind Kato's room -- OJ Simpson dropped it when he returned to his property after the killings.

Carrie Bess made that statement in Armanda Cooley's book. Maybe the contributing jurors didn't care what untrue statements were made. I don't know.

By the way, my people send greetings to your people. We'd wave but there's no way you can see us from way up there. :)

[tv]

See all you have to do is get rid of the attitude and read what I actually said or not respond to my posts. I said what I would do out of fear of how I would look.
I then said,



I applaud the fearless who rush head long into a situation not caring one iota how they appear. Such impulsiveness and not caring of how others think of them is to be admired. I have not asked anyone to keep their mouths shut in deference to me but to give deference to the fact that I had such training and my posts are more than my beliefs and are based on actual study and training as I would respect your statements if you had trained and studied to be a biologist. The only other thing that I would take umbrage with is your statement that I have to put up with anything. Well, I guess I disagree with your entire post.:)

MY attitude?! You are so funny! :tongue:

[bobaugust]

Why would I admit that I was incorrect when I said that an unidentified hair was found inside the Rockingham glove, when I supplied my source for the statement and I am sure you realize that people say on to mean the inside or outside, as in I found it on the inside of the house or I found it on the outside of the house. :)

Why would you admit you were incorrect when you said an unidentified hair was found inside the Rockingham glove? Because you never sited any source when you incorrectly posted, “Fact an unidentified Caucasian hair was found inside the Rockingham glove.” The fact is that an unidentified light brown Caucasian head hair (not limb hair) was found on the glove not inside the glove.

Your comment about on the inside of a house to try and justify your incorrect comment without admitting you are wrong is funny. On the glove means on the outside of the glove, inside the glove means inside the glove. Your source that you later sited made that very clear.

So once again let’s see if you will admit to your mistake.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You seem to dismiss the fact that the magnificent one told the jury that Park was mistaken and the Mr. Baker ridiculed Park's testimony and trapped him in his changed/molded testimony. :) Perhaps, you do not understand or, as you like to say comprehend that those lawyers suggested, inferred, and claimed that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway, through their arguments and cross examinations without feeling the necessity to specifically spell it out to those they felt were sophisticated enough to comprehend the testimony for themselves. :)

Cochran never said Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway. You keep saying that the jury asked for a read back of Park’s testimony. Post the transcript as to what was read back to the criminal trial jury and what they thought Park was mistaken about.

Baker didn’t trap Park and Baker never said he trapped Park. Evidently your so called sophisticated understanding of Baker’s cross was evidently too sophisticated for even Baker to understand since he never claimed it means what you claim it means.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Surely, you jest when you suggest that Kato did his first cursory search, and went to the gate box within twenty or thirty seconds, as Park testified that Simpson answered the intercom immediately, after standing on the sidewalk for a minute and waving at Park.:)

You may clam that kind of nonsense but I don’t.

You can fantasize all you want that Park never saw Kaelin come from behind the house but you are wrong. You can use Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony to make as many unreasonable inferences that you want and imagine as much fantasy evidence you want to support your claim that Park was mistaken when he told the police he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house but you are wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Yes, the source that had the photo entered into evidence had to be unbiased and impartial in his depiction in his work of fiction as to what transpired.:)

What evidence do you know of that supports your claim that Hank Goldberg’s explanation is fiction of how the prosecutors found the photographic proof that the defense gate blood planting theory was false?

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

What evidence do you know of that supports your claim that Hank Goldberg’s explanation is fiction of how the prosecutors found the photographic proof that the defense gate blood planting theory was false?

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I know you addressed this post to William but I am going to ask one more time, why did Goldberg and Clarke have to "find" the proof by enlarging a photograph?

Bottomline, they should not have had to rely on a picture taken 15 feet away and have to enlarge that picture to "find" a drop of blood". There is no way to prove what they were showing a picture or to prove when they say the photograph was taken.

Obviously none of these pictures were date and time stamped.

Remember, some books have it that Fung was never told by Lange about the blood drops so he never looked at the fence. Other books have him looking at the fence but not seeing the blood drops.

All the DA's had to do was to ask Dr. Baden and Dr. Lee if they saw the blood drops on the pack gate, they did not ask this question. And the defense did not need to ask Dr. Lee or Baden this question. The DA's need them, the defense didn't. IMO.

[martin II]

If I'm a juror and I see a piece of evidence that I don't think holds any importance for either side I can discard it. The criminal jurors didn't consider Mark Fuhrman's in their deliberations. Are you saying they were wrong or not following the instructions given them by the court?

Based on testimony i believe the jury considered furhman a racist. in deliberations they discussed and answered questions that some jurors had not made up their minds on or had questions on.Since they had no questions on whether he was a racist and what this meant to them they did not discuss him and this in no way means that they did not follow instructions.
I just listened to a real trial yesterday where the jury took two hours to find a defendant guilty.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, the book is wrong. The blood was found on three places on the Rockingham glove. The inside wrist notch had the blood of Simpson and Ron, outside - near wrist notch had the blood of Ron, Nicole and Simpson and the wrist notch stitching had the blood of Ron, Nicole and Simpson. Colin Yamauchi didn't open the vial of blood anywhere near the other evidence.

The prosecution did give an explanation for why the glove was behind Kato's room -- OJ Simpson dropped it when he returned to his property after the killings.

Carrie Bess made that statement in Armanda Cooley's book. Maybe the contributing jurors didn't care what untrue statements were made. I don't know.

By the way, my people send greetings to your people. We'd wave but there's no way you can see us from way up there. :)

TV,

No, the DA's never explained how the glove got back there because they never explained how Simpson got back there. They couldn't since every detective testified they did not see any evidence of anyone climbing a fence or crashing into a wall. Neither did the SID team. The noise Kato heard neither side could explain. If it was a simple as Mr. August says it is, then the DA's should have had no problem recreating the thumps and would have had Kato give clearer testimony about the thumps.

The DA's felt their Rockingham blood trail lead right from the Bronco into just inside Simpson's house---they provided no other trail or explaination how Simpson got behind Kato's wall.

Clark has him crashing into the AC unit 3 times in her closing but she has him running into the alley not out of it. Go figure!

The three jurors wrote a book. Were all three jurors supposed to read what their fellow jurors wrote and correct them? In fact, Miss Bess view on the glove proves the integrity of the book---no one corrected her, why? Because SHE did not know the Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove does not mean the others did not know it.

My people say to your people, please wave, we are always watching and we appreciate the kindness:)

[martin II]

There is a lot I don't understand about criminal law, and some parts probably differ in different states.

I don't think the jury has to be convinced of every aspect of the prosecution's case to vote guilty. For example in the 1995 SImpson trial the prosecution at one point seemed to be saying that the murders were done before 10:30. I don't recall if the prosecution explicitly said that, but that was the way some commentators interpreted it. I think that if the prosecution had committed themselves to this point, a jury could still convict if they felt the murders occurred after 10:30.

I know that I have read about cases in which the prosecutors charged a diffendent with several crimes (felonies) and the juries convicted on some of the offenses, but not others.

I think there have been cases in which the prosecution charged a person with both first and second degree murder, and tried to show it was first degree murder with second degree as a fall back. In cases like this, the if the jury returned a conviction of second degree murder, they were accepting some of the prosecution's case, but rejecting other parts. Juries have also been asked to decide between, first and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

In the SImpson case the jury could have rejected the sock evidence, but convicted anyway.

This raises a question, if a jury thought there was reason to believe that one piece of evidence had been tampered with, in which cases should the jury allow evidence to taint the entire case? I would guess that if the odds seemed much less than certiain (for example just more than 50% chance the sock or whatever was tampered with), then the rest of the evidence should not be tainted with doubt.

I think that different juries will make different decisons. The Simpson jury was looking for reasons to acquit. At least one of the jurors said the didn't consider the Orenthal Simpson blood at the crime scene because that wasn't one of their reasonable doubts. They violated the judges instructions to consider all the evidence. I don't think that Simpson's blood at BUndy is enough to convict him, but the prosecution shouldn't need much more to convict.

I think the jury also didn't discuss the fact that the killer used unusual gloves, and Mr. Simpson had been photographed wearing gloves that were identical with a possible exception of color.

Something to consider

The judges instructions were 'If you believe a witness lied on a material issue you can dismiss all of that witnesses testimony"

If the jury believed Vanhatter lied,and some did,they could dismiss all of his testimony.If they believed Furhman could have plkanted the glove they could dismiss all of his testimony.If they believed Park lied and most did , they could dismiss all of his testimony.
So if the above was the juries conclusion just on these three, the prosecution had no case left.

By the testimony of three detectives, no one jumped that fence and the prosecution never presented any proof that oj was in the walkway, So it was reasonable that the jury could come to the conclusion that oj was not in the walkway.finding a glove there is not enough to overcome the lack of proof that oj was there.

I saw the trial and had missed the point of how important Parks testimony as it related to what he could have seen or could not have seen. the jury was listening with big ears and proved their sophistication when in deliberation they had questions about his testimony.After they decided he lied or was mistaken,they had to conclude that oj was in his house and by extention he was not at bundy. All of that blood evidence was planted as he could not be in two places at the same time.

They had to vote not guilty.

[martin II]

TV,

No, the DA's never explained how the glove got back there because they never explained how Simpson got back there. They couldn't since every detective testified they did not see any evidence of anyone climbing a fence or crashing into a wall. Neither did the SID team. The noise Kato heard neither side could explain. If it was a simple as Mr. August says it is, then the DA's should have had no problem recreating the thumps and would have had Kato give clearer testimony about the thumps.

The DA's felt their Rockingham blood trail lead right from the Bronco into just inside Simpson's house---they provided no other trail or explaination how Simpson got behind Kato's wall.

Clark has him crashing into the AC unit 3 times in her closing but she has him running into the alley not out of it. Go figure!

The three jurors wrote a book. Were all three jurors supposed to read what their fellow jurors wrote and correct them? In fact, Miss Bess view on the glove proves the integrity of the book---no one corrected her, why? Because SHE did not know the Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove does not mean the others did not know it.

My people say to your people, please wave, we are always watching and we appreciate the kindness:)

Miss Bess and two spoke on the gloves. That makes three out of 12. Yet some when discussing this issue post that THE JURY said the glove fit. This gives a false impression that ALL THE JURY thought the glove fit.

This is not the best example of honesty in posting imo

[William Anthony]

Why would you admit you were incorrect when you said an unidentified hair was found inside the Rockingham glove? Because you never sited any source when you incorrectly posted, “Fact an unidentified Caucasian hair was found inside the Rockingham glove.” The fact is that an unidentified light brown Caucasian head hair (not limb hair) was found on the glove not inside the glove.

Your comment about on the inside of a house to try and justify your incorrect comment without admitting you are wrong is funny. On the glove means on the outside of the glove, inside the glove means inside the glove. Your source that you later sited made that very clear.

So once again let’s see if you will admit to your mistake.

bobaugust

Did you forget that you stood corrected on this issue already? I think my source may be an expert on the evidence and has had many disagreements with your assertions. Since you have made the assertion, please provide a link to support your statement that "is that an unidentified light brown Caucasian head hair (not limb hair) was found on the glove not inside the glove", and that glove being the Rockingham glove.

[William Anthony]

Cochran never said Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway. You keep saying that the jury asked for a read back of Park’s testimony. Post the transcript as to what was read back to the criminal trial jury and what they thought Park was mistaken about.

Baker didn’t trap Park and Baker never said he trapped Park. Evidently your so called sophisticated understanding of Baker’s cross was evidently too sophisticated for even Baker to understand since he never claimed it means what you claim it means.

bobaugust

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
You seem to dismiss the fact that the magnificent one told the jury that Park was mistaken and the Mr. Baker ridiculed Park's testimony and trapped him in his changed/molded testimony. Perhaps, you do not understand or, as you like to say comprehend that those lawyers suggested, inferred, and claimed that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway, through their arguments and cross examinations without feeling the necessity to specifically spell it out to those they felt were sophisticated enough to comprehend the testimony for themselves.

[William Anthony]

You may clam that kind of nonsense but I don’t.

You can fantasize all you want that Park never saw Kaelin come from behind the house but you are wrong. You can use Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony to make as many unreasonable inferences that you want and imagine as much fantasy evidence you want to support your claim that Park was mistaken when he told the police he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house but you are wrong.

bobaugust

Well now, let's see Park's mother, Petro and others suggested what his testimony should be, after his pretrial testimony and, in regard to the testimony he made about seeing Kato it changed in the socio political production. Hence, the need for changed testimony was about his sighting of Kato. When one considers all the testimony it is quite clear that there was an obvious need to change or mold, if you will, Park's testimony and you may believe that memory improves when the events are not fresh in the witnesses mind, as in two and a half years after the event, if you so desire.:)

[William Anthony]

You may clam that kind of nonsense but I don’t.

You can fantasize all you want that Park never saw Kaelin come from behind the house but you are wrong. You can use Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony to make as many unreasonable inferences that you want and imagine as much fantasy evidence you want to support your claim that Park was mistaken when he told the police he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house but you are wrong.

bobaugust

You can claim Park was mistaken in what he saw and offer no testimony to support your assertion and the evidence is that you do this because you believe that you can never be wrong but I have offered testimony and links to support my positions and not just statements or a regurgitation of what I read in works of fiction. You rely on the fact that Park's testimony was consistent on seeing Kato come from behind the house but we all know that MF consistently said that he never used the N word in reference to Blacks in the last ten years and said that all others who said he did were liars. However, MF was proven to be the liar. It does not matter how many times or consistently a lie is told. It still remains a lie. The proof that it is a lie is the fact that Park had to change the circumstances regarding his observations of Kato.

[William Anthony]

What evidence do you know of that supports your claim that Hank Goldberg’s explanation is fiction of how the prosecutors found the photographic proof that the defense gate blood planting theory was false?

bobaugust

The evidence from the trial.

[William Anthony]

MY attitude?! You are so funny! :tongue:

I wish you attitude was funny.

[weezer]

Ah, you see, because you are one of those of the ilk, who for some reason feel they must criticize the legal training and experience I have attained and have functioned as a lawyer, who refer to me as a wannabe, and, in recognition that you have not I refer to you as a neverdid, and part of the legal training, experience and functioning as a lawyer has enabled me to not only have knowledge as to what the law is, as opposed to what I believe it is, but also taught me to read carefully and listen to what people actually say as opposed to what I think they said. For example, I will post again what I actually said to which you provided this response.

I ask you to note that I did not say I wanted posters on this board, who have not had my legal training to give me deference. However, I said I think it behooves.... The object of behooves, in my post, is those of the elk (typo) of neverdids.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behooves

–verb (used with object)
1. to be necessary or proper for, as for moral or ethical considerations; be incumbent on: It behooves the court to weigh evidence impartially.

So, you see that I did not say I want neverdids to pay deference to wannabes, only that I think it is necessary and proper and incumbent on them to so do. :) As a wannabe, this is what I have learned when using words and reading them to understand what is actually said.:)

in order for someone to be shown 'deference', someone else has to accept that that person has superior knowledge. So, in order for a person to be considered to have 'superior knowledge,' they would have to display that knowledge and it be accepted as 'superior.' Unfortunately, your posts only show that you like to argue implausible and theories and twist meanings from other people's posts. The conclusions you come to are not substantiated except by your convoluted theories. And your derision for the civil trial reveals someone who is not interested in the truth.

Deference, Reverence, Respect.

Usage: Deference marks an inclination to yield one's opinion, and to acquiesce in the sentiments of another in preference to one's own. Respect marks the estimation that we have for another, which makes us look to him as worthy of high confidence for the qualities of his mind and heart. Reverence denotes a mingling of fear with a high degree of respect and esteem. Age, rank, dignity, and personal merit call for deference; respect should be paid to the wise and good; reverence is due to God, to the authors of our being, and to the sanctity of the laws.

[William Anthony]

You may clam that kind of nonsense but I don’t.

You can fantasize all you want that Park never saw Kaelin come from behind the house but you are wrong. You can use Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony to make as many unreasonable inferences that you want and imagine as much fantasy evidence you want to support your claim that Park was mistaken when he told the police he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house but you are wrong.

bobaugust

This is what precipitated your above response.

Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
Yes I agree this is becoming quite boring because you still can’t seem to grasp what Park actually testified to.

Park testified that after he saw Simpson enter his house he saw lights come on in the downstairs windows. Those windows were on the Ashford side of the house behind where Park said Kaelin stopped. After Park saw those lights come on he testified that he finished his conversation and wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin. When Clark asked Park if he remembered where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house Park answered he was still standing on the sideway referring to the last time Park remembered seeing Kaelin before he finished his telephone conversation with his boss. by bobaugust.

bobaugust
Oh bobaugust, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

"Q: SO IS THAT THE GENERAL LOCATION WHERE HE WAS?

A: YES.

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

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

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

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?

A: HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.

Q: NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES. "

So you see he was not asked what he remembered but what he saw and observed.

****

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

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

****

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

A: YES. "

****

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

A: NO, HE DIDN'T"

****

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. (You do understand that the word still indicates he was standing there in addition to the thirty seconds he talked to his boss and after Simpson went into the house?)

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. "

****


"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. "

Surely, you jest when you suggest that Kato did his first cursory search, and went to the gate box within twenty or thirty seconds, as Park testified that Simpson answered the intercom immediately, after standing on the sidewalk for a minute and waving at Park.

I see you aren't willing to again admit that you were wrong as to what the question and testimony actually were.

[martin II]

GreenIce, the book is wrong. The blood was found on three places on the Rockingham glove. The inside wrist notch had the blood of Simpson and Ron, outside - near wrist notch had the blood of Ron, Nicole and Simpson and the wrist notch stitching had the blood of Ron, Nicole and Simpson. Colin Yamauchi didn't open the vial of blood anywhere near the other evidence.

The prosecution did give an explanation for why the glove was behind Kato's room -- OJ Simpson dropped it when he returned to his property after the killings.

Carrie Bess made that statement in Armanda Cooley's book. Maybe the contributing jurors didn't care what untrue statements were made. I don't know.

By the way, my people send greetings to your people. We'd wave but there's no way you can see us from way up there. :)


tv

can you direct me to the testimony that claims that blood was found in three places on the rockingham glove.i don't remember that testimony.

M Clarke made the claim that oj jumped the fence and dropped the glove but her statement is not proof.She was not able to show any physical proof thay he actually was in the pathway. Finding a glove and saying oj must have dropped it is not proof.Four detectives testified that no one jumped the fence or that oj was there. So what do we do with their testimony? What do we do with the lack of physical evidence that he was in the walkway?

[William Anthony]

in order for someone to be shown 'deference', someone else has to accept that that person has superior knowledge. So, in order for a person to be considered to have 'superior knowledge,' they would have to display that knowledge and it be accepted as 'superior.' Unfortunately, your posts only show that your like to argue and twist meanings from other people's posts. The conclusions you come to are not substantiated except by your convoluted theories. And your derision for the civil trial reveals someone who is not interested in the truth.

Deference, Reverence, Respect.

Usage: Deference marks an inclination to yield one's opinion, and to acquiesce in the sentiments of another in preference to one's own. Respect marks the estimation that we have for another, which makes us look to him as worthy of high confidence for the qualities of his mind and heart. Reverence denotes a mingling of fear with a high degree of respect and esteem. Age, rank, dignity, and personal merit call for deference; respect should be paid to the wise and good; reverence is due to God, to the authors of our being, and to the sanctity of the laws.

The problem is that I have supported my alleged convoluted theories with links and have corrected many misconceptions, inaccuracies and beliefs about the law, as with the recent posts from those who have never had any legal training or, if they did, missed something, about the belief that the prosecution was not required to prove each and every element of the charge. Your post that the prosecution only had to provide evidence by which a jury could say the defendant was guilty without proving each and every element violates the defendant's Constitutional rights. However, you criticize me, because I have had the training to know that you are wrong and that is because of your lack of training in that area. That is why I say I think it behooves those of your ilk to show deference to the training I have had.

[William Anthony]

I wish you attitude was funny.

Correction-I wish your attitude was funny.

[William Anthony]

I have noticed a peculiarity when it comes to some things as some Gs can authoritatively say what is wrong and what a witness was mistaken about when they feel that their conclusions are contradicted but the only one who was shown to be wrong was the prosecution.:)

[weezer]

The problem is that I have supported my alleged convoluted theories with links and have corrected many misconceptions, inaccuracies and beliefs about the law, as with the recent posts from those who have never had any legal training or, if they did, missed something, about the belief that the prosecution was not required to prove each and every element of the charge. Your post that the prosecution only had to provide evidence by which a jury could say the defendant was guilty without proving each and every element violates the defendant's Constitutional rights. However, you criticize me, because I have had the training to know that you are wrong and that is because of your lack of training in that area. That is why I say I think it behooves those of your ilk to show deference to the training I have had.

yeah -- that's not happening. I think your theories are more fantasy than factual. And the fact that you parse words -- rather than facts -- to support your fantasies reflects the lengths to which you are willing to go to 'be right.' imo

I'm still laughing at 'because I have had the training.' There is nothing in what you post that reflects you've had training over and above anyone else on this board.

[martin II]

The problem is that I have supported my alleged convoluted theories with links and have corrected many misconceptions, inaccuracies and beliefs about the law, as with the recent posts from those who have never had any legal training or, if they did, missed something, about the belief that the prosecution was not required to prove each and every element of the charge. Your post that the prosecution only had to provide evidence by which a jury could say the defendant was guilty without proving each and every element violates the defendant's Constitutional rights. However, you criticize me, because I have had the training to know that you are wrong and that is because of your lack of training in that area. That is why I say I think it behooves those of your ilk to show deference to the training I have had.


William

I believe your legal knowledge has contributed much to the understand of the law as it relates to this case.Some that find it difficult to read and understand the meaning of certain legal concepts find it easier to attack you
for posting information that they may not know and may not have what it takes to understand. i hope that these petty attacks will not cause you to change the type of information you post.

:beer::beer::beer:

[tv]

Based on testimony i believe the jury considered furhman a racist. in deliberations they discussed and answered questions that some jurors had not made up their minds on or had questions on.Since they had no questions on whether he was a racist and what this meant to them they did not discuss him and this in no way means that they did not follow instructions.
I just listened to a real trial yesterday where the jury took two hours to find a defendant guilty.

Was the trial nine months long in the trial you watched?

[tv]

tv

can you direct me to the testimony that claims that blood was found in three places on the rockingham glove.i don't remember that testimony.

M Clarke made the claim that oj jumped the fence and dropped the glove but her statement is not proof.She was not able to show any physical proof thay he actually was in the pathway. Finding a glove and saying oj must have dropped it is not proof.Four detectives testified that no one jumped the fence or that oj was there. So what do we do with their testimony? What do we do with the lack of physical evidence that he was in the walkway?

Testimony of Gary Sims about the DNA found on the Rockingham glove --

MR. HARMON: And is what's on the board accurately describe the results of your D1S80 testing on G11?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And whom were you able to exclude--or I'm sorry. Withdraw that. From among the three reference types in this case, whom were you not able to exclude as a possible source of the D1S80 mixture that's on the board?

MR. SIMS: I could not exclude any of the three individuals, the Defendant, Nicole Brown or Mr. Goldman.

**************************
MR. HARMON: And whom were you able to exclude from among the three reference types in this case as a possible source of what you saw in stain G10?
MR. SIMS: We were able to exclude Nicole Brown because we didn't find her 18 allele on the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So you were able to exclude Miss Brown as a possible source for the mixture that you saw there?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You were not able to exclude Mr. Goldberg?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: You were not able to exclude the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

***************************

MR. HARMON: And what were the D1S80 results from G13?

MR. SIMS: The D1S80 results where the 24 allele was present along with weaker 25 and 18 alleles.

MR. HARMON: So the 25 allele is there again; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And from among the three people, the two victims, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and the Defendant, who's the only one that has the 25 allele?

MR. SIMS: That is the Defendant.

[weezer]

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

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

The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.

[Kate Sachel]

I don't think he interacted with the "black community" all the same way --- I think he interacted with different people in different ways --- and I think that's clear by the fact that some black people from the black community made it a point to talk about how good they were treated by him --- to the point that ... crap, I don't have his name --- there was a black guy that said he was arrested for something that he swore he didn't do and that Fuhrman believed him and worked around the clock on his case and actually proved his innocence. Doesn't strike me as a guy that hates blacks as a whole --- and maybe I'm wrong, maybe he hates them all and some of these stories are just a cover, I don't know cause I don't know the guy but it definitely seems contradictory to the devil we have been made to believe he is.

Sounds to me like he was damn good at detective work.

You're thinking of the Harris case, which I believe was in 1994 though I would need to verify that in order to claim with certainty the date.

Why, however, would you not care whether or not he was racist? I would understand that point of view were Fuhrman a regular citizen, but he was a member of law enforcement with an oath and a duty. While I understand that there is nothing proven in regard to the planting of evidence in the OJ Simpson matter, I personally believe that we all have cause to be concerned if an individual in uniform harbors a hatred toward an entire race of people.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

IIRC, Guns and Roses preceded Rapp music but Rapp, which has made many Black millionaires, seems to have taken the sole blame, in the minds of some, for those type of lyrics and fail to see the hypocrisy.

The only Guns and Roses songs that I have heard are singles released that have been played on the radio; I have never purchased any of their albums so I was unaware until your posting of the lyrics contained in other songs created and sung by them though I do admit to enjoying the songs that I have heard.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

It's hard to protect your kids in today's world with all the outside influences that are out there. Teaching a child respect for himself as well as respect for others makes other things fall into place. Just my opinion.

I wholly agree. Nice post.

Kate

[GreenIce]

Miss Bess and two spoke on the gloves. That makes three out of 12. Yet some when discussing this issue post that THE JURY said the glove fit. This gives a false impression that ALL THE JURY thought the glove fit.

This is not the best example of honesty in posting imo

Martin,

I don't remember the other two jurors, agreeing with her about the blood on the glove. I only did look for Miss Bess' statements in the book. Did the other jurors that wrote the book say the same thing?

[William Anthony]

Words compose testimony and testimony is one form of evidence and the jurors were instructed to pay attention to all the evidence. The parsing of words is what makes a trial an adversarial event and the fact that others may not understand that but get annoyed when I do it, tells me that, if God allows, I will be an excellent lawyer. I was speaking of legal training and judging from some of the posts stating what their belief is, I know for a fact that I have had training above and beyond those types of posts, smile.

[GreenIce]

tv

can you direct me to the testimony that claims that blood was found in three places on the rockingham glove.i don't remember that testimony.

M Clarke made the claim that oj jumped the fence and dropped the glove but her statement is not proof.She was not able to show any physical proof thay he actually was in the pathway. Finding a glove and saying oj must have dropped it is not proof.Four detectives testified that no one jumped the fence or that oj was there. So what do we do with their testimony? What do we do with the lack of physical evidence that he was in the walkway?

Martin,

IIRC, Clark got the AC unit theory from MF when he showed her where he found the glove. IIt was Fuhrman's theory that he crashed into the AC unit.
Also, didn't Kato testify in one of the proceedings that he only said he heard a noise, that he didn't remember describing them as a thump let alone 3 thumps?

In her closing, she does having him running into the alley and hitting the AC unit.

I don't think Clark would have risked telling the jury that he jumped the fence and crashed into the wall only because the jury was going to go to Rockingham and see where the glove was find. She could allow them to spend that much time looking at the fence because she could not explain how a big man such as Simpson as could have climbed the fence and crash into the wall and just leave a glove and no other evidence.

IMO, I think many people forget the nature of a crash, when someone crashes hard enough, they are going to "bounce", there was no evidence of this.

I have often wondered if the jurors also question what Kato should have heard or would have heard if he crashed into the wall.

[William Anthony]

William

I believe your legal knowledge has contributed much to the understand of the law as it relates to this case.Some that find it difficult to read and understand the meaning of certain legal concepts find it easier to attack you
for posting information that they may not know and may not have what it takes to understand. i hope that these petty attacks will not cause you to change the type of information you post.

:beer::beer::beer:

Thank you for a very kind and thoughtful post. As to the other types, I consider the source.;)

[William Anthony]

You're thinking of the Harris case, which I believe was in 1994 though I would need to verify that in order to claim with certainty the date.

Why, however, would you not care whether or not he was racist? I would understand that point of view were Fuhrman a regular citizen, but he was a member of law enforcement with an oath and a duty. While I understand that there is nothing proven in regard to the planting of evidence in the OJ Simpson matter, I personally believe that we all have cause to be concerned if an individual in uniform harbors a hatred toward an entire race of people.

Kate

Very well stated.

[William Anthony]

The only Guns and Roses songs that I have heard are singles released that have been played on the radio; I have never purchased any of their albums so I was unaware until your posting of the lyrics contained in other songs created and sung by them though I do admit to enjoying the songs that I have heard.

Kate

They never appealed to me and therefore I missed the actual language but heard about it on the media.

[GreenIce]

Greenice, people have criticized you for writing as though you can read minds. I think this criticism is justified. I think you have gone way to far when you write that "if the noise Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them and they were meant to draw him out". Analyzing the motives in this situation makes no sense to me.

fgump2,

IMO, I am not reading anyone's mind. I am looking at the evidence, looking at motives and giving my opinons. The same thing that you and every other other poster does.

I have no problem problem with you or any one else's criticism. However, I do have a tad a problem when you do the same. Isn't it your belief because you read it in VB's book that cops don't like to take notes so they don't? Aren't you reading Lange and Vanatter's mind? What about your "being tired" theory? Aren't you reading their minds?

Bottom line, the DA's never explained the noise nor how the glove got back there. They did a great dance around this but bottom line, they never proved how it got back there. They were never able to overcome VA's obvious attempts of hiding MF involvement in the case from very early on, as in the search warrant and sending him back to Bundy to compare the gloves.

The fact that someone did call the police regarding two homicides on Bundy, the fact that Simpson did not have to risk being seen or heard is another factor. Without those thumps, whoever made them knew that there was no way to prove that Simpson was not in the house. With the thumps, while it didn't prove that it was Simpson, it did question if he was in his house during the murders.

IMO, it makes no sense that Simpson would kill Nicole at Bundy with the kids so close. It makes no sense that Simpson would have killed Nicole knowing she was expecting someone that night. It makes no sense that Simpsom would have done anything that would have shifted the focus on him. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Did you forget that you stood corrected on this issue already? I think my source may be an expert on the evidence and has had many disagreements with your assertions. Since you have made the assertion, please provide a link to support your statement that "is that an unidentified light brown Caucasian head hair (not limb hair) was found on the glove not inside the glove", and that glove being the Rockingham glove.

William

I am assuming that a limb hair found inside a glove would have come from the male's finger. Do all men have hair on their fingers? And would a finger hair have the same characteristics of that of a leg hair or an arm hair?

[GreenIce]

Testimony of Gary Sims about the DNA found on the Rockingham glove --

MR. HARMON: And is what's on the board accurately describe the results of your D1S80 testing on G11?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And whom were you able to exclude--or I'm sorry. Withdraw that. From among the three reference types in this case, whom were you not able to exclude as a possible source of the D1S80 mixture that's on the board?

MR. SIMS: I could not exclude any of the three individuals, the Defendant, Nicole Brown or Mr. Goldman.

**************************
MR. HARMON: And whom were you able to exclude from among the three reference types in this case as a possible source of what you saw in stain G10?
MR. SIMS: We were able to exclude Nicole Brown because we didn't find her 18 allele on the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So you were able to exclude Miss Brown as a possible source for the mixture that you saw there?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You were not able to exclude Mr. Goldberg?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: You were not able to exclude the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

***************************

MR. HARMON: And what were the D1S80 results from G13?

MR. SIMS: The D1S80 results where the 24 allele was present along with weaker 25 and 18 alleles.

MR. HARMON: So the 25 allele is there again; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And from among the three people, the two victims, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and the Defendant, who's the only one that has the 25 allele?

MR. SIMS: That is the Defendant.

TV,

If I am reading this correcting, then I still don't see where they are saying that it was Simpson's blood, unless he was the only person in the world who has 25 alleles in the world or if this is such a rare amount.

However, didn't Willilam Thompson, a defense lawyer write about this? That alles consistent with Simpson's were found both in Nicole's and Ron's reference samples? I am not sure exactly if this was it.

[William Anthony]

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

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

The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.

I will now correct some of the misstatements in this post and do not know where this poster came up with the information posted to view it all in its proper context. However the first is in the section where the words "REASONABLE DOUBT" appear. That entire first sentence is inaccurate, because reasonable doubt is that which allows a defendant to be acquitted as proven by the statement in the second sentence in the paragraph, "A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case."

The second paragraph is one of many accepted definitions of what the prosecution must prove in its case in order to get a conviction.

The third paragraph has nothing to do with what we were discussing as it is irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the issue we were discussing. However, since I realize that the law can be confusing to those untrained in it and, if they are willing to learn and show deference to the training received in studying law, they will see that the standards referred to in the third paragraph deal with the admissibility of evidence and a stipulation to the authenticity of the evidence. This is why, if the evidence is not contested, then it is stipulated to as being authentic, either by de jure or de facto. As far as the rest of the sentence that evidence does not have to be relevant. That is the most furthest statement from the truth I have ever heard and certainly could not have been made by anyone with the slightest training in the law, since relevancy is the hallmark of admissibility of evidence. I know some posters may not defer to my training, so, after I am done responding I will include a link to support that statement but I really think that anyone with any level of sophistication or awareness of the law knows that what I have said is true.:) We were discussing the fact that the prosecution must prove each and every element of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, not whether or not that was the test for the admissibility of evidence and I will admit it is easy for one not trained in the law to get confused and supply irrelevant things, such as this post about evidence admissibility and can lead those that do not understand and do not have training to have false beliefs.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule402

"All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
"

I cannot stress the paramount importance of that last sentence, enough. I do not think that the parties can stipulate to the admissibility of irrelevant evidence, de jure, but it may come in if a party fails to object to its admissibility, de facto.

[William Anthony]

William

I am assuming that a limb hair found inside a glove would have come from the male's finger. Do all men have hair on their fingers? And would a finger hair have the same characteristics of that of a leg hair or an arm hair?

I don't know the answer to that question and it is an interesting one. Perhaps it could be or it could be a hair for the lower arm area.

[GreenIce]

I get the impression that you think the jury was sophisticated because you like to the conclusion they came to.

To blame all the jury's illogical thinking on the prosecution is unfair. Under this type of thinking, the jury can do no wrong. Any mistake they make is because of mistakes by the prosecution, or at least the other people in the courtroom.

According to Rantala's book, on page 178, Ito seemed to believe that an unbiased juror is an ignorant juror. It said that Ito discharged people because they visited bookstores, or read a newspaper during the selection process.
It is possible that Rantala's book misrepresents Ito's position, but I think other people the same criticism of Ito.

In other words the theory is that unfair bias comes from knowledge. In this case I thnk any unfair biases came from prospective jurors opinions about race, celebrities, and problems between men and women.

fgump2,

Because of the huge role the media does play in criminal cases, many judges are forced to take this into consideration when picking a jury. While it is rare, trials are often moved several miles away because of this.

However, even in 1994, many avid newspaper readers have opted to read it on line. Even in 1994, the internet was up running and a person can read a lot more on the case by going to different sources on the web.

The bookstore ban was basically because of Faye Resnick's book. Yes, many other other books were written but Faye could have been a key witness. While Sheila Weller's book also came out before the trial and was written with the Browns permission or cooperation, Faye Resnick's role in the trial would have been huge. IMO.

IMO, this makes no sense:

unfair bias comes from knowledge---what exactly does that mean? Aren't jurors suppose to bring their life experience/knowledge into the jury room? To say that the jury was uneducated means that a majority of the people who have posted on these types of boards are also uneducated, if you are referring to higher learning and experience and knowledge of DNA evidence.

IMO, it doesn't take a higher degree to realize when someone is not telling the truth or the whole truth. It does not take a lot of education to notice a clear pattern of problems with the evidence, again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I don't know the answer to that question and it is an interesting one. Perhaps it could be or it could be a hair for the lower arm area.

William,

In Hank Goldberg's book, he gives a chart of where the blood was found on the Rockingham glove, he does not include a mixture of Simpson's blood but he also, if I am understanding it right, that Ron and Nicole's blood were also found on the inside the glove--in the finger area. Do you remember anything about this?

[William Anthony]

fgump2,

Because of the huge role the media does play in criminal cases, many judges are forced to take this into consideration when picking a jury. While it is rare, trials are often moved several miles away because of this.

However, even in 1994, many avid newspaper readers have opted to read it on line. Even in 1994, the internet was up running and a person can read a lot more on the case by going to different sources on the web.

The bookstore ban was basically because of Faye Resnick's book. Yes, many other other books were written but Faye could have been a key witness. While Sheila Weller's book also came out before the trial and was written with the Browns permission or cooperation, Faye Resnick's role in the trial would have been huge. IMO.

IMO, this makes no sense:

unfair bias comes from knowledge---what exactly does that mean? Aren't jurors suppose to bring their life experience/knowledge into the jury room? To say that the jury was uneducated means that a majority of the people who have posted on these types of boards are also uneducated, if you are referring to higher learning and experience and knowledge of DNA evidence.

IMO, it doesn't take a higher degree to realize when someone is not telling the truth or the whole truth. It does not take a lot of education to notice a clear pattern of problems with the evidence, again, IMO.

What is unfair bias and how does it differ from fair bias?

[tv]

TV,

If I am reading this correcting, then I still don't see where they are saying that it was Simpson's blood, unless he was the only person in the world who has 25 alleles in the world or if this is such a rare amount.

However, didn't Willilam Thompson, a defense lawyer write about this? That alles consistent with Simpson's were found both in Nicole's and Ron's reference samples? I am not sure exactly if this was it.

The testimony clearly states that the DNA of OJ Simpon and Ron Goldman was found in sample G10 which was inside the glove by the wrist notch. The DNA of OJ Simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown was found in sample G11 which was outside near the wrist notch. The DNA of OJ Simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown was found in sample G13 which was on the wrist notch stitching. The defense did not refute these findings only how the blood of OJ Simpson came to be there.

I don't know anything about alleles consistant with Simpson's being found in the reference samples of Ron and Nicole. Maybe Vanatter, one of the evil twins of deception, mixed all three samples together. How's that for a framing theory?

[William Anthony]

William,

In Hank Goldberg's book, he gives a chart of where the blood was found on the Rockingham glove, he does not include a mixture of Simpson's blood but he also, if I am understanding it right, that Ron and Nicole's blood were also found on the inside the glove--in the finger area. Do you remember anything about this?

No, I don't. Was there any testimony to that effect that you recall?

[tv]

William,

In Hank Goldberg's book, he gives a chart of where the blood was found on the Rockingham glove, he does not include a mixture of Simpson's blood but he also, if I am understanding it right, that Ron and Nicole's blood were also found on the inside the glove--in the finger area. Do you remember anything about this?

GreenIce, the blood of Ron and Nicole was found on the middle finger and the index finger. Ron's was found on the ring finger. All three samples were on the inside.

[GreenIce]

What is unfair bias and how does it differ from fair bias?

William,

Now that is a great question!

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, the blood of Ron and Nicole was found on the middle finger and the index finger. Ron's was found on the ring finger. All three samples were on the inside.

TV,

Any idea how Ron and Nicole's blood got on the inside of the glove? Did it seep through?

[tv]

TV,

Any idea how Ron and Nicole's blood got on the inside of the glove? Did it seep through?

No clue.

[GreenIce]

No clue.

TV,

IIRC, I know the gloves were "worn" but I don't remember any testimony that there were any tears in it or that they were so worn that the blood could have seeped through.

However, if that is not the case, then how could have Ron's and Nicole's blood get inside the glove?

[fgump2]

fgump2,

The jury's job is to evaluate the case put on both sides and render a verdict based on the evidence presented by both sides. Instead of just focusing on the Simpson jury, why not cast your net wider? THis is a thread for the Simpson situation (2 trials to my way of thinking). To get into situations about juries that incorrectly convicted someone would be off topic. It is important, but a better subject for a book than for this thread Have you ever seen a juror or a jury inteviewed after the person they sent to death row was later freed to due to DNA evidence or police and/or DA misconduct? Did this jury do wrong by not only convicting an innocent person but also making the decision to take their life?

Your point about juries that incorrectly sentenced innocent people is important, and also off topic. I hope there are people doing research on it. I am guessing you have done more reading about the Simpson situation than you have about innocent people being convicted.

For someone to call a jury sophisticated because they agreed with the conclusion shows - a lack of sophistication. This kind of thinking can lead us to a lot of bad conclusions.

Most jury decision where involve only two possibile answers, innocent or guilty. To have confidence in someone and to call them sophisticated because I agree with their conclusions is something I wouldn't do. A broken clock will give the correct answer twice a day, but that doesn't make it sophisticated. The broken clock in question would in fact be inferior to a clock that was always 5 minutes slow.

One thing I feel a lot of disrespect for the pro defense people is the way they are so quick to praise people who helped Simpson beat the rap. I realize that is what they were being paid for, but I don't have to know much about the law to understand that most of them don't deserve the praise the NG people give them.
Flea Bailey was being at most competent in nailing Fuhrman, not brilliant. A defense lawyer like Cochran who made over a dozen discovery violations in his opening speech doesn't deserve to be called magnificent, at least not on that trial. It is also rare for a NG person to admit that Henry Lee was incompetent in the trial. I think that Bugliosi wrote that he should have been ridden out of town on a rail.

[fgump2]

What is unfair bias and how does it differ from fair bias?

I guess I should have left of the word unfair.

[GreenIce]

The testimony clearly states that the DNA of OJ Simpon and Ron Goldman was found in sample G10 which was inside the glove by the wrist notch. The DNA of OJ Simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown was found in sample G11 which was outside near the wrist notch. The DNA of OJ Simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown was found in sample G13 which was on the wrist notch stitching. The defense did not refute these findings only how the blood of OJ Simpson came to be there.

I don't know anything about alleles consistant with Simpson's being found in the reference samples of Ron and Nicole. Maybe Vanatter, one of the evil twins of deception, mixed all three samples together. How's that for a framing theory?

TV,

Again, I am confused. Are they basing their identification of who's blood it is by the number of alleles? And Sims only says that he can't exclude Simpson.
I will have to take a shot at reading his testimony on this.

I do know the jurors had a very difficult time with the alleles on the a couple of the blood drops at Bundy, they were very faded and they couldn't be sure it was Simpson's blood. I think that is when a couple of the jurors said they wished they had Simpson children's blood to look at, to compare them. That it would have helped to determine if was Simpson's blood. They did not say they didn't believe it was not Simpson's blood, only they couldn't be sure.

Well VA did have all three reference samples. It would not take alot of time to carry this off. What hurts VA on this issue, at least for me, is that he lied about how he got it and where he got it from. Again, that is my opinon.

[tv]

insiTV,

IIRC, I know the gloves were "worn" but I don't remember any testimony that there were any tears in it or that they were so worn that the blood could have seeped through.

However, if that is not the case, then how could have Ron's and Nicole's blood get inside the glove?

As I said before, I have no idea how the blood got on the inside. There was testimony that there was a hole in the palm of the Rockingham glove but whether it was completely worn through I don't know. IMO, planting the blood of Nicole and Ron inside the glove can be dismissed because there was no reason to plant the victim's blood inside the glove and if someone wanted to implicate OJ Simpson in the murders it would be his blood that they planted inside the glove. What are you getting at in regard to the victim's blood being inside the glove?

[fgump2]

fgump2,

IMO, I am not reading anyone's mind. I am looking at the evidence, looking at motives and giving my opinons. The same thing that you and every other other poster does.

I have no problem problem with you or any one else's criticism. However, I do have a tad a problem when you do the same. Isn't it your belief because you read it in VB's book that cops don't like to take notes so they don't? Aren't you reading Lange and Vanatter's mind? What about your "being tired" theory? Aren't you reading their minds?
You are correct, but you seem to be hinting that there was some kind of conspiricy, planting a glove at Bundy for example. And yet you can point to no evidence of it, and you don't write about who the conspiricy parties were. Unproved conspiricy theories have caused a lot of problems throughout history...

Bottom line, the DA's never explained the noise nor how the glove got back there. They did a great dance around this but bottom line, they never proved how it got back there. They were never able to overcome VA's obvious attempts of hiding MF involvement in the case from very early on, as in the search warrant and sending him back to Bundy to compare the gloves.

The fact that someone did call the police regarding two homicides on Bundy, the fact that Simpson did not have to risk being seen or heard is another factor. Without those thumps, whoever made them knew that there was no way to prove that Simpson was not in the house. With the thumps, while it didn't prove that it was Simpson, it did question if he was in his house during the murders.
I don't know if Simpson did have a rational reason to fear being seen, but if he just killed two people he would probably have some irrational thoughts on his mind. If he had a cocaine problem that would have been another reason for irrational fears. As far as proving SImpson wasn't in the house, the fact that he was so late in answering the buzzer indicates he wasn't in the house, but I don't understand how the bumps (1 or 3) wold have done them any good.
IMO, it makes no sense that Simpson would kill Nicole at Bundy with the kids so close. It makes no sense that Simpson would have killed Nicole knowing she was expecting someone that night. It makes no sense that Simpsom would have done anything that would have shifted the focus on him. IMO.

We don't know what SImpson was planning that night. He may have been planning on scaring Nicole or slashing tires. If he had enough anger on his mind to kill, he had enough anger to forget deails about she was expecting someone, or Sydney was having a sleepover. I know I forget details when I am angry. If he had a cocaine problem that would have confused him more. Coke heads don't often commit perfect crimes.

I have never been a conspiricy buff. I find it easier to think that the bump(s) were caused by SImpson than by a conspiricy. Carelessness is a much bigger factor in human affairs than secret conspiricies.

[GreenIce]

Your point about juries that incorrectly sentenced innocent people is important, and also off topic. I hope there are people doing research on it. I am guessing you have done more reading about the Simpson situation than you have about innocent people being convicted.

For someone to call a jury sophisticated because they agreed with the conclusion shows - a lack of sophistication. This kind of thinking can lead us to a lot of bad conclusions.

Most jury decision where involve only two possibile answers, innocent or guilty. To have confidence in someone and to call them sophisticated because I agree with their conclusions is something I wouldn't do. A broken clock will give the correct answer twice a day, but that doesn't make it sophisticated. The broken clock in question would in fact be inferior to a clock that was always 5 minutes slow.

One thing I feel a lot of disrespect for the pro defense people is the way they are so quick to praise people who helped Simpson beat the rap. I realize that is what they were being paid for, but I don't have to know much about the law to understand that most of them don't deserve the praise the NG people give them.
Flea Bailey was being at most competent in nailing Fuhrman, not brilliant. A defense lawyer like Cochran who made over a dozen discovery violations in his opening speech doesn't deserve to be called magnificent, at least not on that trial. It is also rare for a NG person to admit that Henry Lee was incompetent in the trial. I think that Bugliosi wrote that he should have been ridden out of town on a rail.

fgump2,

IMO, that is one of the major problems with this case--they treat the Simpson trial and jury as being unique and that the verdict the jury came back with was wrong. I think your comment was a "jury can do no wrong". I just used examples to help explain my opinons on this.

Dr. Lee was not incompetent at the trial, in fact, he was one of the best witnesses. According to Goldberg, he destroyed Dr. Lee on cross he was turned turned out be their witness. VB wrote very dangerous nonsense and he did not read the trial transcripts--according to Darden, Goldberg and I think Clark may have said this as well. VB is a legend in his own mind, IMO.

The DA's had discovery violations as well. IMO, both sides will use what ever stragedy they can, despite the risks, for the benefit of their case. Look how long it took the DA's to send out certain evidence to be tested? Both sides use tactics that are meant to offset and hinder the other side's case as much as possible.

Look at how many times the evidence was renumbered? How many times did the defense have to go to Judge Ito to force the DA's to turn over their discovery as well as other evidence like cell phone bills and contact sheets for photographs.

You only focus on the defense and I can see why some may believe they did this because, however, it has never been explained why the DA's would use the exact same tactics, IMO.

I do not believe that FLB was at his career best in the Simpson case. However, he did show flashes brilliance and he was a classic example of the "classical" defense attorney. His style along with lawyers of his generation were of a different mold, IMO.

Also, in regards to JC's opening statements, the only discovery violations that I was aware that he made was in regards to some witnesses, like MAG. I truly don't remember the other.

However, Marcia Clark also made several mistatments as well. It is all part of the game, IM0. They take a chances and risks. Sometimes it works and some times it doesn't. IMO.

[tv]

TV,

Again, I am confused. Are they basing their identification of who's blood it is by the number of alleles? And Sims only says that he can't exclude Simpson.
I will have to take a shot at reading his testimony on this.

I do know the jurors had a very difficult time with the alleles on the a couple of the blood drops at Bundy, they were very faded and they couldn't be sure it was Simpson's blood. I think that is when a couple of the jurors said they wished they had Simpson children's blood to look at, to compare them. That it would have helped to determine if was Simpson's blood. They did not say they didn't believe it was not Simpson's blood, only they couldn't be sure.

Well VA did have all three reference samples. It would not take alot of time to carry this off. What hurts VA on this issue, at least for me, is that he lied about how he got it and where he got it from. Again, that is my opinon.

The defense didn't dispute that the blood belonged to Simpson only how it got on the glove. The only blood drop at Bundy that I know of that was not presented in court was one belonging to Nicole which had a faint C dot so was only mentioned but not presented as evidence. The term "can't exclude" is the way DNA results are read -- nothing unusual about that.

Whether the jurors thought the children should have been tested or not in regard to the Bundy blood doesn't matter because DNA is an exact science. The blood could not have belonged to the children. I don't recall at any time anyone saying either of the children had injured themselves and bled outside at Bundy anyway.

As for Vannatter mixing the blood samples -- I was kidding.

[tv]

fgump2,

IMO, that is one of the major problems with this case--they treat the Simpson trial and jury as being unique and that the verdict the jury came back with was wrong. I think your comment was a "jury can do no wrong". I just used examples to help explain my opinons on this.

Dr. Lee was not incompetent at the trial, in fact, he was one of the best witnesses. According to Goldberg, he destroyed Dr. Lee on cross he was turned turned out be their witness. VB wrote very dangerous nonsense and he did not read the trial transcripts--according to Darden, Goldberg and I think Clark may have said this as well. VB is a legend in his own mind, IMO.

The DA's had discovery violations as well. IMO, both sides will use what ever stragedy they can, despite the risks, for the benefit of their case. Look how long it took the DA's to send out certain evidence to be tested? Both sides use tactics that are meant to offset and hinder the other side's case as much as possible.

Look at how many times the evidence was renumbered? How many times did the defense have to go to Judge Ito to force the DA's to turn over their discovery as well as other evidence like cell phone bills and contact sheets for photographs.

You only focus on the defense and I can see why some may believe they did this because, however, it has never been explained why the DA's would use the exact same tactics, IMO.

I do not believe that FLB was at his career best in the Simpson case. However, he did show flashes brilliance and he was a classic example of the "classical" defense attorney. His style along with lawyers of his generation were of a different mold, IMO.

Also, in regards to JC's opening statements, the only discovery violations that I was aware that he made was in regards to some witnesses, like MAG. I truly don't remember the other.

However, Marcia Clark also made several mistatments as well. It is all part of the game, IM0. They take a chances and risks. Sometimes it works and some times it doesn't. IMO.

GreenIce, you are mistaken about Vincent Bugliosi. He did read the trial transcripts. He also interviewed many of the people involved and did extensive research in preparation for his book about the trial.

How do you explain how Dr. Lee mistook a workman's footprint in the cement for a bloody footprint?

[tv]

fgump2,

IMO, I am not reading anyone's mind. I am looking at the evidence, looking at motives and giving my opinons. The same thing that you and every other other poster does.

I have no problem problem with you or any one else's criticism. However, I do have a tad a problem when you do the same. Isn't it your belief because you read it in VB's book that cops don't like to take notes so they don't? Aren't you reading Lange and Vanatter's mind? What about your "being tired" theory? Aren't you reading their minds?

Bottom line, the DA's never explained the noise nor how the glove got back there. They did a great dance around this but bottom line, they never proved how it got back there. They were never able to overcome VA's obvious attempts of hiding MF involvement in the case from very early on, as in the search warrant and sending him back to Bundy to compare the gloves.

The fact that someone did call the police regarding two homicides on Bundy, the fact that Simpson did not have to risk being seen or heard is another factor. Without those thumps, whoever made them knew that there was no way to prove that Simpson was not in the house. With the thumps, while it didn't prove that it was Simpson, it did question if he was in his house during the murders.

IMO, it makes no sense that Simpson would kill Nicole at Bundy with the kids so close. It makes no sense that Simpson would have killed Nicole knowing she was expecting someone that night. It makes no sense that Simpsom would have done anything that would have shifted the focus on him. IMO.

What makes you think Simpson knew Nicole was expecting someone that night?

[GreenIce]

The defense didn't dispute that the blood belonged to Simpson only how it got on the glove. The only blood drop at Bundy that I know of that was not presented in court was one belonging to Nicole which had a faint C dot so was only mentioned but not presented as evidence. The term "can't exclude" is the way DNA results are read -- nothing unusual about that.

Whether the jurors thought the children should have been tested or not in regard to the Bundy blood doesn't matter because DNA is an exact science. The blood could not have belonged to the children. I don't recall at any time anyone saying either of the children had injured themselves and bled outside at Bundy anyway.

As for Vannatter mixing the blood samples -- I was kidding.

TV,

IMO, "can't exclude" is just another way of saying "consisitent with" which does not mean it was a scientific fact. Can't exclude doesn't mean it is conclusive, IMO.

Your comment about the DNA science is why the jurors wanted the children's alleles to compare that to their father's. However, since neither side was allowed to inteview either of them, we don't know if they did injure themselves.

I have always felt that Sydney and Justin could have decided this case if they were asked if they say those blood drops before that night. If they did not, then that does not bode well for their father. However, if they did, then that did not bode well for the DA's, IMO.

IMO, I think the blood drops at Bundy were was probably one of the main reasons why Clark did not use Simpson's statement.

I have often wondered about what Sydney knew about the evidence. She is a very smart girl and while I believe her grandparents and aunts did try to shield them from much of the trial, it only makes sense that Sydney would ask Nicole's family why they felt their father was guilty. I can't believe that any of their relatives would say it was based on their gut feelings. I would think Sydney would have kept asking until she received some answers to why they felt this well.

As much as Denise Brown hates Simpson, I can't believe she wanted Simpson to be guilty and took great pleasure in telling Sydney this.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, you are mistaken about Vincent Bugliosi. He did read the trial transcripts. He also interviewed many of the people involved and did extensive research in preparation for his book about the trial.

How do you explain how Dr. Lee mistook a workman's footprint in the cement for a bloody footprint?

TV,

I can't only tell you what I read about Goldberg's and Darden's comments. Darden made his comments about VB on the Oprah Show, I think during his book tour. Again, VB is a legend in his own mind and he want a little bit of the glory back that he gained during Manson's trial. Again, IMO. His comments and his book was his way of saying that he should have been asked to be the DA's or be on the DA's team for this trial. Again, IMO.

First, in American Tragedy, the defense and Dr. Lee did know about the cement issue and it was explained rather well in that book. However, the "cement" was not the only place where Dr. Lee noticed this pattern. While he said it could have been a footprint but if it was a shoeprint, it was not from a Bruno Magli. There was another piece of paper, right by Nicole's head that had the same pattern--this piece of paper was never collected, so they say. There was similar pattern on Ron's jeans and I believe the envelope with the glasses.

I have no problem with VB writing a book, however, I do have a problem with some of his comments that made, like cops not liking to take notes so it is no big deal when the lead detectives in the case do not take them. It is a huge deal, IMO.

[GreenIce]

What makes you think Simpson knew Nicole was expecting someone that night?

TV,

In his converation with Kato after the recital as well as Nicole's garage door being open and knowing where she left the remote control so her guests could let themselves in.

Also, her sisters gave an interview and said that setting in Nicole's condo was consistent with her expecting a guest that night. Even in Sheila Weller's book she writes this. This later changed to she used this setting to relax. The fact that this was changed, leads me to believe that her sisters' first comments about this were much closer to the truth.

[tv]

TV,

IMO, "can't exclude" is just another way of saying "consisitent with" which does not mean it was a scientific fact. Can't exclude doesn't mean it is conclusive, IMO.

Your comment about the DNA science is why the jurors wanted the children's alleles to compare that to their father's. However, since neither side was allowed to inteview either of them, we don't know if they did injure themselves.

I have always felt that Sydney and Justin could have decided this case if they were asked if they say those blood drops before that night. If they did not, then that does not bode well for their father. However, if they did, then that did not bode well for the DA's, IMO.

IMO, I think the blood drops at Bundy were was probably one of the main reasons why Clark did not use Simpson's statement.

I have often wondered about what Sydney knew about the evidence. She is a very smart girl and while I believe her grandparents and aunts did try to shield them from much of the trial, it only makes sense that Sydney would ask Nicole's family why they felt their father was guilty. I can't believe that any of their relatives would say it was based on their gut feelings. I would think Sydney would have kept asking until she received some answers to why they felt this well.

As much as Denise Brown hates Simpson, I can't believe she wanted Simpson to be guilty and took great pleasure in telling Sydney this.

You are wrong about the wording but that's neither here nor there. Why do you keep arguing about whether or not the blood really belonged to Simpson? This something the defense didn't even argue. I really don't understand where you're coming from with this.

I'm sorry, but once again you're mindreading. You can't know what was on Sydney's mind or even whether or not she's a smart girl -- she probably is but how would you have any way of knowing that for a fact? Just because you think Sydney would keep asking questions doesn't make it so.

Are you saying that Denise took great pleasure in telling Sydney she didn't want Simpson to be guilty?

[tv]

TV,

In his converation with Kato after the recital as well as Nicole's garage door being open and knowing where she left the remote control so her guests could let themselves in.

There is no way Simpson could have known that Ron was coming over to Nicole's. It was a last minute thing after Nicole's mother left her glasses at the restaurant. Where did you read or hear this about the garage and the remote control?

[tv]

TV,

I can't only tell you what I read about Goldberg's and Darden's comments. Darden made his comments about VB on the Oprah Show, I think during his book tour. Again, VB is a legend in his own mind and he want a little bit of the glory back that he gained during Manson's trial. Again, IMO. His comments and his book was his way of saying that he should have been asked to be the DA's or be on the DA's team for this trial. Again, IMO.

First, in American Tragedy, the defense and Dr. Lee did know about the cement issue and it was explained rather well in that book. However, the "cement" was not the only place where Dr. Lee noticed this pattern. While he said it could have been a footprint but if it was a shoeprint, it was not from a Bruno Magli. There was another piece of paper, right by Nicole's head that had the same pattern--this piece of paper was never collected, so they say. There was similar pattern on Ron's jeans and I believe the envelope with the glasses.

I have no problem with VB writing a book, however, I do have a problem with some of his comments that made, like cops not liking to take notes so it is no big deal when the lead detectives in the case do not take them. It is a huge deal, IMO.

The only piece of paper I know about near Nicole was the menu.

[GreenIce]

You are wrong about the wording but that's neither here nor there. Why do you keep arguing about whether or not the blood really belonged to Simpson? This something the defense didn't even argue. I really don't understand where you're coming from with this.

I'm sorry, but once again you're mindreading. You can't know what was on Sydney's mind or even whether or not she's a smart girl -- she probably is but how would you have any way of knowing that for a fact? Just because you think Sydney would keep asking questions doesn't make it so.

Are you saying that Denise took great pleasure in telling Sydney she didn't want Simpson to be guilty?

TV,

Because the blood drop was so degraded, it made the results difficult to read for the jurors. They looked at "x-ray" and because it was so faded, they couldn't be sure if was Simpsons and/or how "old" it was.

IMO, from everything that has been written about Sydney, she is not only a smart girl but she needed answers. The Browns had a phone just for Sydney and Justin to talk to their father. Both kids were told at first that their father was away helping the police to find out who killed their mother. Sydney refused to talk or take Simpson's phone calls until he told her the truth where he was.

The Browns also got a lot of harsh words written about them because they did not attend the trial everyday like the Goldmans. Their response was it was very difficult to go to the trial and then come home and look at the kids.

As much as we may tried to hide our feelings from children, it is very rare to be able to keep this up under these types of circumstances. I am sure that any parent would be hard to press to conceal our feelings to our grandchildren if we believed their father killed their mother--my daughter.

As much as Denise hated Simpson, I do not believe she wanted Simpson to be guilty. I do not believe she would want to tell Sydney why she believed her father was guity, but I do believe she would have explained why she did believe he was guilty and would have used the evidence to explain her feelings rather then tell her that your father always said he was going to kill your mother.

Also, how many times have you made comments that your children overheard? I am sure the Browns talked among themselves about their feelings and the trial and most likey when they thought the kids were asleep. But because they think they can't be overheard does not mean they were not overheard.

[GreenIce]

There is no way Simpson could have known that Ron was coming over to Nicole's. It was a last minute thing after Nicole's mother left her glasses at the restaurant. Where did you read or hear this about the garage and the remote control?

TV,

In Simpson's statement to the police, he talks about what Nicole does when she is expecting guests. Because the garage door was open and the remote could not be found, leads me to believe that if Simpson was the killer, he would have known she was expecting someone and they were going to use the entrance through the garage.

It has been assumed that Ron was the only guest that Nicole was expecting that night, however, that has never been proven. In Faye's book, she says that Nicole was expecting Marcus Allen that night and she says that she knew Ron was coming over--yet Faye could not have known about Ron either.

And then we have Dr. Ameli who has Nicole scared out her mind and Dr. Ameli suggests she invite a friend over until she knew Simpson was out of town. Again, another reason for Ron being there? Another reason for the garage door being left open?

[GreenIce]

The only piece of paper I know about near Nicole was the menu.

TV,

I remember the menu. I have to check this but VA and Lange even disagree with MF about where the menu came from, was it pizza place or was it a Thai menu?

If it is the one piece of paper that I am thinking off, it looked more like an plain sheet of paper. I could not see any writing on it nor did it appear to be a menu.

[tv]

TV,

Because the blood drop was so degraded, it made the results difficult to read for the jurors. They looked at "x-ray" and because it was so faded, they couldn't be sure if was Simpsons and/or how "old" it was.

IMO, from everything that has been written about Sydney, she is not only a smart girl but she needed answers. The Browns had a phone just for Sydney and Justin to talk to their father. Both kids were told at first that their father was away helping the police to find out who killed their mother. Sydney refused to talk or take Simpson's phone calls until he told her the truth where he was.

The Browns also got a lot of harsh words written about them because they did not attend the trial everyday like the Goldmans. Their response was it was very difficult to go to the trial and then come home and look at the kids.

As much as we may tried to hide our feelings from children, it is very rare to be able to keep this up under these types of circumstances. I am sure that any parent would be hard to press to conceal our feelings to our grandchildren if we believed their father killed their mother--my daughter.

As much as Denise hated Simpson, I do not believe she wanted Simpson to be guilty. I do not believe she would want to tell Sydney why she believed her father was guity, but I do believe she would have explained why she did believe he was guilty and would have used the evidence to explain her feelings rather then tell her that your father always said he was going to kill your mother.

Also, how many times have you made comments that your children overheard? I am sure the Browns talked among themselves about their feelings and the trial and most likey when they thought the kids were asleep. But because they think they can't be overheard does not mean they were not overheard.

You're entitled to all the opinions you expressed here but my opinion is that if and when Sydney wants answers she'll read the transcripts of both trials and talk to her mother's friends and loved ones that can give her the other side of the story. I don't know if she's done that yet but maybe one day she will. I hope that with her father in jail she'll do it if she hasn't already. I did read that she's angry with him about the Vegas caper right now but it may be tabloid gossip -- not sure.

[tv]

TV,

I remember the menu. I have to check this but VA and Lange even disagree with MF about where the menu came from, was it pizza place or was it a Thai menu?

If it is the one piece of paper that I am thinking off, it looked more like an plain sheet of paper. I could not see any writing on it nor did it appear to be a menu.

I'm not sure about where the menu was from. I believe the menu was laying at Nicole's feet but I'm not sure. Lange and Vannatter disagreed with Mark Fuhrman about many things but what they agree on is important and that is that Mark Fuhrman didn't plant the Rockingham glove.

[GreenIce]

You're entitled to all the opinions you expressed here but my opinion is that if and when Sydney wants answers she'll read the transcripts of both trials and talk to her mother's friends and loved ones that can give her the other side of the story. I don't know if she's done that yet but maybe one day she will. I hope that with her father in jail she'll do it if she hasn't already. I did read that she's angry with him about the Vegas caper right now but it may be tabloid gossip -- not sure.

TV,

While I believe Simpson is innocent of the murders, I do believe that both Sydney and Justin are livid with their father. IMO, he has painted his own bulls eye targets all over his body. I can understand both Sydney and Justin being angry with him for getting himself into this situation knowing full well that everything he does is going to be watched.

Sydney may have already read them however, Sydney may have known from the minute she got woken up and taken out of the condo that her father did not have anything to do with this or he was not there that night.

I seriously doubt she will talk to that many of her mother's friends, IMO, these friends went public with their "knowledge" of their mother's abuse and not one of them helped her. Her comments regarding Faye's book were something like "maybe she wasn't mommy's best friend after all". I do know the Browns returned the money from Faye's book to her. Faye was hurt and stunned and does not understand why they did this.

[GreenIce]

I'm not sure about where the menu was from. I believe the menu was laying at Nicole's feet but I'm not sure. Lange and Vannatter disagreed with Mark Fuhrman about many things but what they agree on is important and that is that Mark Fuhrman didn't plant the Rockingham glove.

TV,

Lange and VA, IMO, did believe the glove was planted, they didn't know for sure it was MF but they had reason to suspect him. They never arrived at Bundy until two hours after MF arrived. Neither one of them was there to tail MF on every move he made.

However, the fact that VA went to great lengths to keep MF out of the search warrant and lied about how the glove was found, IMO, speaks volumes.

There is no way that Lange and VA did not search that area looking for any evidence how Simpson or anyone else entered that alley with out leaving physical evidence behind--accept for a glove was still moist and sticky and had no othe debris on it.

Lange and VA were no different then anyone else, they could have accused MF but with out a confession or someone seeing him doing it, they had to keep silent with their accusations. IMO.

Night!

[martin II]

We don't know what SImpson was planning that night. He may have been planning on scaring Nicole or slashing tires. If he had enough anger on his mind to kill, he had enough anger to forget deails about she was expecting someone, or Sydney was having a sleepover. I know I forget details when I am angry. If he had a cocaine problem that would have confused him more. Coke heads don't often commit perfect crimes.

I have never been a conspiricy buff. I find it easier to think that the bump(s) were caused by SImpson than by a conspiricy. Carelessness is a much bigger factor in human affairs than secret conspiricies.


You seen to be ignoring the fact that there was no evidence that oj was in the walkway. Are you willing to reject the testimony of Vanhatter and the two other cops and the lack of proof that oj was there?

[martin II]

I'm not sure about where the menu was from. I believe the menu was laying at Nicole's feet but I'm not sure. Lange and Vannatter disagreed with Mark Fuhrman about many things but what they agree on is important and that is that Mark Fuhrman didn't plant the Rockingham glove.

They dissagreed with furhman that oj jumped the fence.

[William Anthony]

I guess I should have left of the word unfair.

We all make mistakes and when I reread my posts. I find quite a few. :)

[GreenIce]

They dissagreed with furhman that oj jumped the fence.

Martin,

I really don't remember, did MF's theory have Simpson jumping over the fence? I haven't looked at his book in a long time.

However, he lost credibility as did the other lead detectives and the SID team when he said he saw no evidence of anyone being back there other then the glove, because he was NOT looking for any.

Does that make sense that the man who walked around a corner to take a look at SUV he thought was parked "alittle" askey and was able to spot a tiny drop of blood, blood wisps he could not see unless he opened the door, use his flashlight to check inside the SUV to see a package with OJ's name on it but does not look for physical evidence to connect Kato's noise to the glove he later says he found?

And it isn't about 15 minutes from from the time MF dropped Kato off to VA and to when he finally found the glove. Where did he go for other 11 minutes or so?

[William Anthony]

Your point about juries that incorrectly sentenced innocent people is important, and also off topic. I hope there are people doing research on it. I am guessing you have done more reading about the Simpson situation than you have about innocent people being convicted. (As I see the point, it was about juries who may have been educated and knowledgeable by some posters standards and they rendered an incorrect verdict.)

For someone to call a jury sophisticated because they agreed with the conclusion shows - a lack of sophistication. This kind of thinking can lead us to a lot of bad conclusions. (What do you think is the level of sophistication of those, who call a jury uneducated, ignorant and racially biased, because they disagree with the juries verdict?

Most jury decision where involve only two possibile answers, innocent or guilty. To have confidence in someone and to call them sophisticated because I agree with their conclusions is something I wouldn't do. A broken clock will give the correct answer twice a day, but that doesn't make it sophisticated. The broken clock in question would in fact be inferior to a clock that was always 5 minutes slow. (The broken clock would be superior to the slow clock on two occasions, as you indicated, and based on that it would matter what the importance of the time was, which was being displayed on the clock. If that time was the time displayed on the broken clock, as deciding a person's liberty, the broken clock would be infinitely superior, if that time was the appointed time a person was to be set free. I think that if you ask a prisoner, who has been incorrectly incarcerated for many years, you will find that every second counts as to when they will be freed.)

One thing I feel a lot of disrespect for the pro defense people is the way they are so quick to praise people who helped Simpson beat the rap. I realize that is what they were being paid for, but I don't have to know much about the law to understand that most of them don't deserve the praise the NG people give them. (I don't understand. If a doctor saves a life, is he not given praise? If a plumber fixes a leak in a home, does not the homeowner brag and tell others of his work. Are not prosecutors with winning records looked up to? Why should we not praise defense lawyers who are successful, unless we hold some unfair bias for them?:)
Flea Bailey was being at most competent in nailing Fuhrman, not brilliant. A defense lawyer like Cochran who made over a dozen discovery violations in his opening speech doesn't deserve to be called magnificent, at least not on that trial. It is also rare for a NG person to admit that Henry Lee was incompetent in the trial. I think that Bugliosi wrote that he should have been ridden out of town on a rail.

DR. Henry Lee was a witness. The Brilliant Bailey, which some refuse to admit, which is understandable, not only was brilliant in setting the trap for the lying MF but in successfully arguing the admissibility of the LHM tapes. It was the way that he phrased the questions, which allowed him to argue that the evidence toward MF should be allowed because a witness' credibility is always at issue. I am not trying to seem superior to anyone else on the board but only trying to impart some of the knowledge I have attained and it is to those who want to learn more that this is offered. I have recently supplied a link on the fact that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. The prosecution argued and were winning the argument that the evidence of MF's racial animus should not be allowed because of relevance, meaning it was more prejudicial than probative of the fact that he harbored racial animus and there was no showing that the animus played any part in this case. However, it was the brilliant Bailey, who reminded the court and left the prosecution dumbfounded on the issue of a witnesses credibility and that it was the jury's obligation to decide that issue. I remember the hesitation and dismay on the prosecution's face when the judge asked them to respond to that issue as the brilliant Bailey had argued a point for admissibility that had been overlooked or at least not previously argued and the evidence was subsequently admitted. One must be competent to be brilliant, IMHO.

[GreenIce]

PROVING THE CASE: THE SCIENCE OF DNA: DNA EVIDENCE IN THE O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 827



William C. Thompson, Professor, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, California



. Introduction

To draw appropriate lessons from the O.J. Simpson case, one must have an accurate appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of the DNA evidence against Simpson. Much of the public discourse about the case begins with the premise that the DNA evidence proved Simpson's guilt conclusively and proceeds quickly to an analysis of factors that might explain why the jury nevertheless voted to acquit. This line of analysis generally leads to unflattering conclusions about the fairness or intelligence of the Simpson jury and, more broadly, to cynical conclusions about the capacity of the criminal justice system, as currently constituted, to produce just results. The first section of this essay challenges the underlying premise of this analysis. I argue that the jury could quite reasonably have concluded that the DNA evidence against Simpson deserved little or no weight.

The Defense Account

The defense story had several elements.

Simpson Bled at His Home and in the Bronco. The defense argued that Simpson accidentally cut himself at his home during the evening of the crime, perhaps while retrieving a cellular phone from the Bronco, and thereby left drops of his own blood inside the Bronco, on his driveway, and in the foyer of his home. Simpson later traveled to Chicago, where he cut himself again, and more seriously, when he broke a glass in his Chicago hotel room upon learning of the death of his ex-wife. n7 The testimony of Dr. Robert Huizenga established that there were two cuts on Simpson's left middle finger and that the smaller, less conspicuous cut could have bled sufficiently to account for the quantity of Simpson's blood found in the Bronco and at his Rockingham residence. n8 [*832]

The Bundy Blood Drops and Rockingham Glove Were Contaminated with Simpson's DNA at the LAPD Laboratory. LAPD criminalist Collin Yamauchi admitted that he spilled some of Simpson's blood from a reference vial while working in the evidence processing room and that shortly thereafter he handled the Rockingham glove and the cotton swatches containing the blood from the Bundy drops. The defense proposed that some of Simpson's blood was inadvertently transferred to these evidentiary samples, perhaps on Yamauchi's gloves or instruments.

DNA of the person who left the blood drops (possibly the true perpetrator) could not be detected, the defense argued, because it was degraded and destroyed due to mishandling of the Bundy samples. LAPD criminalists collected the blood drops by swabbing them with wet cotton swatches. The swatches were then put in plastic bags and left several hours in a hot truck. The prosecution's experts all acknowledged that DNA degrades rapidly when blood samples are left in a moist, warm environment, that degradation can render the DNA originally in a sample untypeable, and that subsequent contamination of such a sample by a second person's DNA can cause it falsely to match the second person on a DNA test.

The defense argued that the pattern of the DNA test results fits neatly with the cross-contamination theory. The quantity of DNA found on the evidentiary items was small enough to be consistent with such an inadvertent transfer. On the glove, the allele matching Simpson was found in samples from the wrist notch, in an area where Yamauchi wrote his initials, and nowhere else. In the blood swatches, the quantity of DNA consistent with Simpson declined in the order in which Yamauchi handled them - that is, the first sample he handled had the most DNA, and the later samples contained much less DNA.

To bolster further the cross-contamination theory, the defense presented evidence of sloppiness in the LAPD's handling of samples prior to DNA testing. The criminalists were poorly trained with respect to sample handling, were not following a written protocol, did not understand the purpose and importance of precautionary measures, such as changing gloves, and made serious errors even when attempting to demonstrate proper sample collection and handling techniques. Defense expert Dr. John Gerdes, who reviewed DNA test results at the LAPD laboratory during the year prior to the Simpson case, found a history of serious contamination problems that he attributed largely to cross-contamination of DNA due to poor sample handling procedures.

Dr. Gerdes also found startling evidence of cross-contamination in the DNA test results of the Simpson case itself: it appeared that the reference vials containing the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were contaminated with the DNA of O.J. Simpson! Extra alleles consistent with O.J. Simpson's appeared when the victims' blood was typed both at the LAPD laboratory and at two other laboratories to which the same vials were later sent.




http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm

[GreenIce]

DR. Henry Lee was a witness. The Brilliant Bailey, which some refuse to admit, which is understandable, not only was brilliant in setting the trap for the lying MF but in successfully arguing the admissibility of the LHM tapes. It was the way that he phrased the questions, which allowed him to argue that the evidence toward MF should be allowed because a witness' credibility is always at issue. I am not trying to seem superior to anyone else on the board but only trying to impart some of the knowledge I have attained and it is to those who want to learn more that this is offered. I have recently supplied a link on the fact that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. The prosecution argued and were winning the argument that the evidence of MF's racial animus should not be allowed because of relevance, meaning it was more prejudicial than probative of the fact that he harbored racial animus and there was no showing that the animus played any part in this case. However, it was the brilliant Bailey, who reminded the court and left the prosecution dumbfounded on the issue of a witnesses credibility and that it was the jury's obligation to decide that issue. I remember the hesitation and dismay on the prosecution's face when the judge asked them to respond to that issue as the brilliant Bailey had argued a point for admissibility that had been overlooked or at least not previously argued and the evidence was subsequently admitted. One must be competent to be brilliant, IMHO.

William,

I think F.Lee did show flashes of greatness but I also think that many times his style was misunderstood. I think what hurt Baily was his cross of William Bodizak and any of his attempts at asking outlandish questions, such as Rock Harmon and a few other DA's, was met with scorn and ridicule.

It did not help him that he was a war with Shapiro and his investigators were at war with Shapiro as well.

I did forget just how badley the media wanted Baily to fall flat on his face with MF and said after his cross of MF but then he became great when the tapes surfaced.

[GreenIce]

DR. Henry Lee was a witness. The Brilliant Bailey, which some refuse to admit, which is understandable, not only was brilliant in setting the trap for the lying MF but in successfully arguing the admissibility of the LHM tapes. It was the way that he phrased the questions, which allowed him to argue that the evidence toward MF should be allowed because a witness' credibility is always at issue. I am not trying to seem superior to anyone else on the board but only trying to impart some of the knowledge I have attained and it is to those who want to learn more that this is offered. I have recently supplied a link on the fact that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. The prosecution argued and were winning the argument that the evidence of MF's racial animus should not be allowed because of relevance, meaning it was more prejudicial than probative of the fact that he harbored racial animus and there was no showing that the animus played any part in this case. However, it was the brilliant Bailey, who reminded the court and left the prosecution dumbfounded on the issue of a witnesses credibility and that it was the jury's obligation to decide that issue. I remember the hesitation and dismay on the prosecution's face when the judge asked them to respond to that issue as the brilliant Bailey had argued a point for admissibility that had been overlooked or at least not previously argued and the evidence was subsequently admitted. One must be competent to be brilliant, IMHO.

William,

Did you think Dr. Lee was incompetent in the trial? I agree with the jurors, he was one of the best science witness there was.

I do realize that many G's want to focus on the cement debate but what they don't realize is that defense and the Dr. Lee knew about this and it was not sprung on him by Goldberg. It doesn't even make sense that Goldberg would do the cross of Dr. Lee so Goldberg's self assessment that he destroyed Dr. Lee is only in his mind, IMO.

I think Goldberg was honest in his book about the tapes and the language of cops as well I think he was very bitter and upset at MF for not just telling the truth about the n-word and the tapes.

It is in his book that he talks for Phillips and Phillips says that MF is not a racist, he just hates women. (Like that is supposed to help?) However, Phillips denies he knew anything about the tapes or the screen play but VA and Lange have him giving MF an orde not to talk to LHM about the case. Which he promptly disobeyed.

[martin II]

Martin,

I really don't remember, did MF's theory have Simpson jumping over the fence? I haven't looked at his book in a long time.

However, he lost credibility as did the other lead detectives and the SID team when he said he saw no evidence of anyone being back there other then the glove, because he was NOT looking for any.

Does that make sense that the man who walked around a corner to take a look at SUV he thought was parked "alittle" askey and was able to spot a tiny drop of blood, blood wisps he could not see unless he opened the door, use his flashlight to check inside the SUV to see a package with OJ's name on it but does not look for physical evidence to connect Kato's noise to the glove he later says he found?

And it isn't about 15 minutes from from the time MF dropped Kato off to VA and to when he finally found the glove. Where did he go for other 11 minutes or so?


vanatter testified that he investigated that area and came to that conclusion.
two other detectives investigated and came to the same cpmclusion.

clarke got her fence jumping theory from furhman

[martin II]

Martin,

I really don't remember, did MF's theory have Simpson jumping over the fence? I haven't looked at his book in a long time.

However, he lost credibility as did the other lead detectives and the SID team when he said he saw no evidence of anyone being back there other then the glove, because he was NOT looking for any.

Does that make sense that the man who walked around a corner to take a look at SUV he thought was parked "alittle" askey and was able to spot a tiny drop of blood, blood wisps he could not see unless he opened the door, use his flashlight to check inside the SUV to see a package with OJ's name on it but does not look for physical evidence to connect Kato's noise to the glove he later says he found?

And it isn't about 15 minutes from from the time MF dropped Kato off to VA and to when he finally found the glove. Where did he go for other 11 minutes or so?



if you mean furhman maby to his car to get the glove to toss it into the walkway.

[martin II]

You're entitled to all the opinions you expressed here but my opinion is that if and when Sydney wants answers she'll read the transcripts of both trials and talk to her mother's friends and loved ones that can give her the other side of the story. I don't know if she's done that yet but maybe one day she will. I hope that with her father in jail she'll do it if she hasn't already. I did read that she's angry with him about the Vegas caper right now but it may be tabloid gossip -- not sure.

Why do you think she has not evaluated the trial/claims and came to the conclusion that her father did not kill her mother. She certainly knew more about their relationships than any of us.

[martin II]

cortrection

i think furhman said oj entered the rockingham gate ran to the back walkway dropped the glove and ran back out to the front door.

[martin II]

Very well stated.

William
We do know who first stated that they did not care if furhman was racist.
i think this comment is what led to the discussion on race.
if i am not mistaken.

[martin II]

TV,

Because the blood drop was so degraded, it made the results difficult to read for the jurors. They looked at "x-ray" and because it was so faded, they couldn't be sure if was Simpsons and/or how "old" it was.

IMO, from everything that has been written about Sydney, she is not only a smart girl but she needed answers. The Browns had a phone just for Sydney and Justin to talk to their father. Both kids were told at first that their father was away helping the police to find out who killed their mother. Sydney refused to talk or take Simpson's phone calls until he told her the truth where he was.

The Browns also got a lot of harsh words written about them because they did not attend the trial everyday like the Goldmans. Their response was it was very difficult to go to the trial and then come home and look at the kids.

As much as we may tried to hide our feelings from children, it is very rare to be able to keep this up under these types of circumstances. I am sure that any parent would be hard to press to conceal our feelings to our grandchildren if we believed their father killed their mother--my daughter.

As much as Denise hated Simpson, I do not believe she wanted Simpson to be guilty. I do not believe she would want to tell Sydney why she believed her father was guity, but I do believe she would have explained why she did believe he was guilty and would have used the evidence to explain her feelings rather then tell her that your father always said he was going to kill your mother.

Also, how many times have you made comments that your children overheard? I am sure the Browns talked among themselves about their feelings and the trial and most likey when they thought the kids were asleep. But because they think they can't be overheard does not mean they were not overheard.

The lawyer/social worker that represented the children in the custody hearing reported that one of the reasons the kids should not be given to the browns was because of racial comments about oj spoken in the browns house
when the children were there.

[tv]

Why do you think she has not evaluated the trial/claims and came to the conclusion that her father did not kill her mother. She certainly knew more about their relationships than any of us.

I have no idea whether she has or not and neither do you. This is all speculation and opinion on my part which I have no problem admitting.

[tv]

TV,

Lange and VA, IMO, did believe the glove was planted, they didn't know for sure it was MF but they had reason to suspect him. They never arrived at Bundy until two hours after MF arrived. Neither one of them was there to tail MF on every move he made.

However, the fact that VA went to great lengths to keep MF out of the search warrant and lied about how the glove was found, IMO, speaks volumes.

There is no way that Lange and VA did not search that area looking for any evidence how Simpson or anyone else entered that alley with out leaving physical evidence behind--accept for a glove was still moist and sticky and had no othe debris on it.

Lange and VA were no different then anyone else, they could have accused MF but with out a confession or someone seeing him doing it, they had to keep silent with their accusations. IMO.

Night!

GreenIce, it's nonsense that Lange and Vannatter think the glove was planted. Please show me or direct me to any statement they have made that even hints at this.

[tv]

William,

Did you think Dr. Lee was incompetent in the trial? I agree with the jurors, he was one of the best science witness there was.
I do realize that many G's want to focus on the cement debate but what they don't realize is that defense and the Dr. Lee knew about this and it was not sprung on him by Goldberg. It doesn't even make sense that Goldberg would do the cross of Dr. Lee so Goldberg's self assessment that he destroyed Dr. Lee is only in his mind, IMO.

I think Goldberg was honest in his book about the tapes and the language of cops as well I think he was very bitter and upset at MF for not just telling the truth about the n-word and the tapes.

It is in his book that he talks for Phillips and Phillips says that MF is not a racist, he just hates women. (Like that is supposed to help?) However, Phillips denies he knew anything about the tapes or the screen play but VA and Lange have him giving MF an orde not to talk to LHM about the case. Which he promptly disobeyed.

The jurors were impressed with Dr. Lee because he smiled warmly at them and spoke directly to them. They were impressed with Dr. Cotton but I notice that you never say that.

[martin II]

I have no idea whether she has or not and neither do you. This is all speculation and opinion on my part which I have no problem admitting.

i think that if she had changed her mind she would have acted out on it by now.She is a senior in college and a young adult.

[martin II]

The jurors were impressed with Dr. Lee because he smiled warmly at them and spoke directly to them. They were impressed with Dr. Cotton but I notice that you never say that.

i think it was because of his knowledge that they respected him.

[tv]

i think it was because of his knowledge that they respected him.

That's not what they said. Why do you think they respected Dr. Cotton?

[tv]

i think that if she had changed her mind she would have acted out on it by now.She is a senior in college and a young adult.

Neither one of us have any way of knowing what's in Sydney's mind or what she has or hasn't done in regard to her mother's murder. The older people get the more they see the flaws in their parents. We already know she has issues with her father as evidenced by her words on the 911 call. The fact that he didn't want her to go to a party isn't the thing that stands out for me -- it's what she said about him not loving any of his children and the name she called him. He may love his children but if Sydney's perception is that he doesn't there is a reason for that.

[weezer]

Neither one of us have any way of knowing what's in Sydney's mind or what she has or hasn't done in regard to her mother's murder. The older people get the more they see the flaws in their parents. We already know she has issues with her father as evidenced by her words on the 911 call. The fact that he didn't want her to go to a party isn't the thing that stands out for me -- it's what she said about him not loving any of his children and the name she called him. He may love his children but if Sydney's perception is that he doesn't there is a reason for that.

I just always thought it odd that she called the police and not child services/DHS. Something somewhere made her afraid of him -- you don't call the police when a parent doesn't let you go to a party.

[martin II]

That's not what they said. Why do you think they respected Dr. Cotton?

i don't know what they thought about cotton. The white jury said the DNA was BS or something close to that. i don;t know if she was talking about cotton or her results. But all that cotton did to try to support the prosecutions claims did not prove to them that oj killed any one.Right?

[weezer]

i don't know what they thought about cotton. The white jury said the DNA was BS or something close to that. i don;t know if she was talking about cotton or her results. But all that cotton did to try to support the prosecutions claims did not prove to them that oj killed any one.Right?

it couldn't -- the criminal jury was too d@mn stupid to comprehend it!

[bobaugust]

Did you forget that you stood corrected on this issue already? I think my source may be an expert on the evidence and has had many disagreements with your assertions. Since you have made the assertion, please provide a link to support your statement that "is that an unidentified light brown Caucasian head hair (not limb hair) was found on the glove not inside the glove", and that glove being the Rockingham glove.

Did you forget that what I stood corrected on was that your source supported your incorrect claim? The fact is your so called “expert” source is incorrect and the post you made saying “Fact an unidentified Caucasian hair was found inside the Rockingham glove” is also incorrect. Did you forget that instead of admitting to your mistake you tried to argue that inside the glove is the same thing as outside the glove? That was funny.

June 30, 1995 Deedrick

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Deedrick, did you find any human hairs in the paper fold marked Q3A, which was hair removed from the Rockingham glove, that did not exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as either Ron Goldman or Nicole Brown?
MR. DEEDRICK: Could I refresh my memory, please?
MS. CLARK: Certainly.
MR. DEEDRICK: Thank you. Yes. There was one short Caucasian head hair about one-inch long, light brown, that was dissimilar to the known hair standards that I received.
MS. CLARK: Was that hair naturally shed or forcibly removed?
MR. DEEDRICK: It was a naturally shed hair.

MS. CLARK: So you even compared your own hair to that one light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Of all of the samples that you compared, including those of Ron
Goldman and Nicole Brown, was there any one sample that did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those in the short light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?
MR. DEEDRICK: The only sample that had an area of the hair that was close was the known sample from Ronald Goldman, and that would have been the proximal portion of the hair only, that nearest the root.
MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?
MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.
MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald
Goldman?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.
MS. CLARK: Do people shed their hairs--I think you indicated earlier--naturally every day on their clothing, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: I've read a hundred hairs a day may be shed during the day.
MS. CLARK: Let me pose to you a hypothetical, sir. If Ronald Goldman at the time that he was attacked had naturally shed hairs already on his shirt and then was attacked by the killer wearing the glove found at Rockingham, could that account for the naturally shed hair found on the Rockingham glove that did not exactly exhibit the same characteristics microscopically as those of Ronald Goldman?
MR. BAILEY: Object, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: I've stated previously that hairs can be transferred either directly from the head, which would be a primary type transfer, or secondarily. Hairs that are found on the clothing of an individual may be transferred during that contact just as well, and it happens frequently. So the possibility does exist that that hair may have been on the clothing of Ron Goldman during the contact and been exchanged.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
You seem to dismiss the fact that the magnificent one told the jury that Park was mistaken and the Mr. Baker ridiculed Park's testimony and trapped him in his changed/molded testimony. Perhaps, you do not understand or, as you like to say comprehend that those lawyers suggested, inferred, and claimed that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway, through their arguments and cross examinations without feeling the necessity to specifically spell it out to those they felt were sophisticated enough to comprehend the testimony for themselves.

Cochran never said Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway. You keep saying that the jury asked for a read back of Park’s testimony. Post the transcript as to what was read back to the criminal trial jury and what they thought Park was mistaken about.

Baker didn’t trap Park and Baker never said he trapped Park. Evidently your so called sophisticated understanding of Baker’s cross was evidently too sophisticated for even Baker to understand since he never claimed it means what you claim it means.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You can claim Park was mistaken in what he saw and offer no testimony to support your assertion and the evidence is that you do this because you believe that you can never be wrong but I have offered testimony and links to support my positions and not just statements or a regurgitation of what I read in works of fiction. You rely on the fact that Park's testimony was consistent on seeing Kato come from behind the house but we all know that MF consistently said that he never used the N word in reference to Blacks in the last ten years and said that all others who said he did were liars. However, MF was proven to be the liar. It does not matter how many times or consistently a lie is told. It still remains a lie. The proof that it is a lie is the fact that Park had to change the circumstances regarding his observations of Kato.

There is no evidence that Park’s civil trial testimony was molded. Petrocelli understood that Park had previously given mistaken testimony when he testified to some things he thought Kaelin did, not what he actually saw Kaelin do, so in the civil trial Petrocelli asked Park more specific questions to clear the issue up. I posted that testimony.

What you can’t seem to comprehend is that Kaelin tells us what he did that night, not Park. The inferences you have made based on Park’s mistaken testimony are not reasonable and have no credibility.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The evidence from the trial.

The crime scene photograph that proved the defense gate blood planting theory false is evidence from the criminal trial.

bobaugust

[martin II]

There is no evidence that Park’s civil trial testimony was molded. Petrocelli understood that Park had previously given mistaken testimony when he testified to some things he thought Kaelin did, not what he actually saw Kaelin do, so in the civil trial Petrocelli asked Park more specific questions to clear the issue up. I posted that testimony.

What you can’t seem to comprehend is that Kaelin tells us what he did that night, not Park. The inferences you have made based on Park’s mistaken testimony are not reasonable and have no credibility.

bobaugust

So parks testimony was molded in the criminal trial but not in the civil trial.

Park told us what Kato did just as he told us what he thought OJ did.Just like he told us who loaded the bags in the limo and like he told us what he did.

[martin II]

I remember media talking heads comminting that after weeks and weeks of the prosecution talking about DNA who did they expect to understand or remember the crap.Most of them didn't.

[socaldiva]

i think that if she had changed her mind she would have acted out on it by now.She is a senior in college and a young adult.

OJ didn't become a killer until he was in his 40's :shrug:

[tv]

I remember media talking heads comminting that after weeks and weeks of the prosecution talking about DNA who did they expect to understand or remember the crap.Most of them didn't.

The jurors said they understood the DNA evidence and that 'most' of them thought they now knew enough to become doctors.

[tv]

i don't know what they thought about cotton. The white jury said the DNA was BS or something close to that. i don;t know if she was talking about cotton or her results. But all that cotton did to try to support the prosecutions claims did not prove to them that oj killed any one.Right?

Cotton was there to give the results of the DNA testing done at her lab. It's not her fault that the testing supported OJ Simpson being the killer of Ron and Nicole...that's Simpson's fault.

[tv]

OJ didn't become a killer until he was in his 40's :shrug:

Exactly. I wonder what the poster meant by 'acted out on it'?

[socaldiva]

Exactly. I wonder what the poster meant by 'acted out on it'?

I'm not sure. Perhaps they'll elaborate.

[martin II]

Cotton was there to give the results of the DNA testing done at her lab. It's not her fault that the testing supported OJ Simpson being the killer of Ron and Nicole...that's Simpson's fault.

They gave her garbage and try as much as she did she was left with garbage.

[martin II]

Exactly. I wonder what the poster meant by 'acted out on it'?

You know like what you do sometimes:) act out

[bobaugust]

So parks testimony was molded in the criminal trial but not in the civil trial.

Park told us what Kato did just as he told us what he thought OJ did.Just like he told us who loaded the bags in the limo and like he told us what he did.

There is no evidence that any of Park’s testimony was ever molded unless you think that molding is when a lawyer asks a witness questions. Park answered the questions he was asked no matter what lawyer was questioning him.

In the criminal trial and the civil trial Park testified to what he saw Kaelin do not what he didn’t see Kaelin do. Kaelin testified to what he did when Park wasn’t paying any attention to him.

bobaugust

[martin II]

There is no evidence that any of Park’s testimony was ever molded unless you think that molding is when a lawyer asks a witness questions. Park answered the questions he was asked no matter what lawyer was questioning him.

In the criminal trial and the civil trial Park testified to what he saw Kaelin do not what he didn’t see Kaelin do. Kaelin testified to what he did when Park wasn’t paying any attention to him.

bobaugust

Kato was still standing on the sidewalk
PARK

[bobaugust]

Kato was still standing on the sidewalk
PARK

In the criminal trial Park said after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on downstairs from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk where he had stopped after he came from behind the house and down the pathway. Park said he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished his telephone conversation with his boss. Park said after he hung the phone up he continued to wait to be let in. When no one let him in he said he got out of the limo and went to the intercom and rang it for the fifth time that night and this time Simpson answered. After Park spoke with Simpson he said he went back to the limo and again waited to be let in. Park said finally he saw Kaelin again when Kaelin came “up” the driveway from the direction of the garage area and go to the gate control box and open the gate.

Kaelin testified that after hearing the noises on his wall he left his room and walked around the house and down the pathway to the driveway and saw the limo parked at the gate. Kaelin said he continued on to the garage area and went a short distance behind the garage. Kaelin said when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still parked outside the gate so he went “up” the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate.

bobaugust

[martin II]

In the criminal trial Park said after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on downstairs from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk where he had stopped after he came from behind the house and down the pathway. Park said he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished his telephone conversation with his boss. Park said after he hung the phone up he continued to wait to be let in. When no one let him in he said he got out of the limo and went to the intercom and rang it for the fifth time that night and this time Simpson answered. After Park spoke with Simpson he said he went back to the limo and again waited to be let in. Park said finally he saw Kaelin again when Kaelin came “up” the driveway from the direction of the garage area and go to the gate control box and open the gate.

Kaelin testified that after hearing the noises on his wall he left his room and walked around the house and down the pathway to the driveway and saw the limo parked at the gate. Kaelin said he continued on to the garage area and went a short distance behind the garage. Kaelin said when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still parked outside the gate so he went “up” the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate.

bobaugust

When park said kato was still standing on the sidewalk for me he meant that kato was Still STANDING WHERE HE WAS STANDING when he origionally came from his quarters, Which means park did not see kato run to the garage area.

STILL standing means that kato did not move from the sidewalk that park first saw him on.

[GreenIce]

if you mean furhman maby to his car to get the glove to toss it into the walkway.

Martin,

IMO, if Fuhrman planted the glove, if Kato never told him about the thumps, the glove would have been found in the Bronco.

Again, IMO, I believe Fuhrman went to Bundy long before the official time given and it was on that orginial trip he put the glove in the Bronco. That is my theory if MF planted the glove.

[GreenIce]

vanatter testified that he investigated that area and came to that conclusion.
two other detectives investigated and came to the same cpmclusion.

clarke got her fence jumping theory from furhman

Martin,

Do you recall when Clark relayed this to the jury? IMO, she never would have used MF's theory because there was no evidence to support the fence jumping. And, she has him running into the alley, not out of it.

IMO, Clark was very well aware of the weakness of her case. She would not risk, IMO, giving another theory she could not support. Her timeline theory was blown to bits, the motive they tried to used was blown to hell as well.

I also believe she would not have used MF's theory because there is no way that she could not have known that MF was accused of planting evidence in another case and the was scheduled to go on trial for this during the Simpson case.

Also, MF claims that he and Brad Roberts saw the socks before Fung entered the room yet according to MF's book, he was told to forget about the socks. Why would she do this? Perhaps because she already knew she was going to have problem with the socks as well---as where they were found and how to explain OJ getting rid of the other evidence but not the socks. Again, IMO.

However, it is possible that she tried to slip in two theories in and figured she had nothing to lose doing this.

[GreenIce]

The lawyer/social worker that represented the children in the custody hearing reported that one of the reasons the kids should not be given to the browns was because of racial comments about oj spoken in the browns house
when the children were there.

Martin,

IIRC, the social worker felt that the Brown home was a shrine to Nicole and that they were very hostile toward Simpson and the children could not help but knowing this.

I never heard about the racial comments but I have a hard time believing this only because the children were half African American and I can't think they would say anything like this---what did they have to gain by doing this? Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I have no idea whether she has or not and neither do you. This is all speculation and opinion on my part which I have no problem admitting.

TV,

After the trial, people had no problem posting "guilty" signs on Simpson's fence, Sydney went outside the fence and wrote "not" in front of the guilty signs.

IMO, I think Sydney was unoffically questioned several times by the Browns. While the DA's were not allowed to question Sydney by the Browns, that does not mean they were not asked to ask Sydney some questions about that night. Also, IMO, had Sydney had testimony that would implicate Simpson, I believe she would have taken the stand in an in-camera hearing.

Remember, if the DA's did interview Sydney, they would have had to turn this over the defense. I do wonder what Sydney's statement was to the police. I would assume the DA's would have had to turn this over to the defense.

If the DA's interviewed Sydney, Nicole's crying and fighting with someone that night would have had to come into it. A can of worms the DA's did not want to open, IMO.

[GreenIce]

The jurors were impressed with Dr. Lee because he smiled warmly at them and spoke directly to them. They were impressed with Dr. Cotton but I notice that you never say that.

TV,

IMO, the jurors were not impressed with Dr. Cotton, because her testimony was based on samples that were sent to her by the DA's. I think every juror already knew what she was going testify to the results of samples that were sent to her by the DA's.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, it's nonsense that Lange and Vannatter think the glove was planted. Please show me or direct me to any statement they have made that even hints at this.

TV,

Why would Lange and VA make any obvious statements that they believed the glove was planted? However, IMO, Vanatter's testimony that is in direct conflict with MF's may be considered as statements.

However, their actions speak louder then any "verbal" statements. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The crime scene photograph that proved the defense gate blood planting theory false is evidence from the criminal trial.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I am still waiting for your proof on when this picture was taken.

[bobaugust]

When park said kato was still standing on the sidewalk for me he meant that kato was Still STANDING WHERE HE WAS STANDING when he origionally came from his quarters, Which means park did not see kato run to the garage area.

STILL standing means that kato did not move from the sidewalk that park first saw him on.

Park said he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway and almost at the same time he saw Simpson come from the driveway into the entranceway, enter his house and lights come on. That is where and when Park thought Kaelin was still standing, on the pathway (the sidewalk) near the driveway. These events happened almost simultaneously and “still standing” was only a matter of seconds after Park saw Kaelin come down the pathway to the driveway.

Park’s concerns that no one was on the estate were alleviated. Park told Dale “somebody’s here” and as he finished his telephone conversation with Dale he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin so he never saw Kaelin continue on to the garage.

After hanging up the phone Park waited to be let in.
Park went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson.
Park went back to the limo and again waited to be let in.

Finally Park saw Kaelin for the second time that night when Kaelin came “up” the driveway from the garage area, go to the gate control box and open the gate.

Because Park never saw Kaelin continue on to the garage he never knew that was what Kaelin did so he could not testify that was what Kaelin did. But Kaelin could and did testify that is what he did do during the time Park was waiting outside the gate. Kaelin said that when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still outside the gate so he went “up” the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I am still waiting for your proof on when this picture was taken.


April 4, 1995

THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS APPARENTLY A BLOWUP
OF A PHOTOGRAPH. WE HAVE A SMALL VERSION OF THAT
PHOTOGRAPH, BUT WE NEVER HAD A BLOWN UP VERSION OF THIS
PHOTOGRAPH.
OBVIOUSLY IT'S BEING USED AT THIS POINT IN TIME
TO TRY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SOME STAINS ON THIS REAR GATE
WHICH WERE FOUND ON JULY 3RD WERE THERE ON JUNE 13TH, AND
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR NOTICE THEY WERE GOING TO
ENGAGE IN THIS KIND OF BLOWUP SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN EXPERT STUDY IT AND PERHAPS DO OUR
OWN OR GET ACCESS TO THE NEGATIVES.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS
ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON JULY THE 13TH AND THEY ALL
HAVE HAD IT IN DISCOVERY FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS. I MEAN, I
DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION.
MR. SCHECK: THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR,
IS, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PROCESSES THEY USED. THEY ARE GOING
TO BE OFFERING IT TO THIS JURY. WE, OF COURSE, HAVE LOOKED
AT A SMALLER VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND ATTEMPTED TO
SEE IF WE CAN SEE SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH
115 AND 116 THERE AND FROM THE SMALLER VERSION, YOU KNOW,
COULD NOT REACH SUCH CONCLUSIONS. AND THE PROBLEM IS, WE
HAVE NO IDEA HOW THIS WAS BLOWN UP. WE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY
-- ACCESS TO NEGATIVES AND EXAMINE OUR OWN OR FIGURE OUT
WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS KIND OF PHOTOGRAPHY.
THAT'S ALL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM
DISCOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. WE'VE GIVEN THEM THE
PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY'VE HAD IT FOR MONTHS. THEY HAVE KNOWN
THIS EXISTED.
WHAT THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IS, THEY DON'T
KNOW WHAT OUR TRIAL TACTIC IS GOING TO BE. WE DON'T HAVE
TO GIVE THEM NOTICE OF HOW BIG THE PHOTOGRAPH -- WILL YOU
PLEASE WAIT -- OF HOW BIG THE PHOTOGRAPH IS GOING TO BE.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY -- WE DON'T HAVE TO
GIVE THEM NOTICE OF SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE ARE GOING TO USE,
YOU KNOW, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO USE TO HANDLE ISSUES THAT
THEY'VE RAISED PER SE AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THAT DISCOVERY,
AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE MATERIAL. WHAT THEY ARE
COMPLAINING ABOUT IS, THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT MY STRATEGY WAS
GOING TO BE.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, WHAT I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT
IS THE FACT THAT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BEING OFFERED FOR A VERY
MATERIAL PURPOSE. THAT IS TO SAY THAT YOU CAN SEE
SOMETHING THERE THAT'S VERY, VERY FAINT AND SOMETHING THAT,
YOU KNOW, WE HAD DIFFICULTY SEEING IN A SMALL PHOTOGRAPH.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PROCESSES WERE USED TO BLOW
THIS UP. THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE NEGATIVES. IF THEY WERE
GOING TO BE ENGAGING IN BLOWING UP A PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS
KIND, PARTICULARLY FOR THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE, THEY WERE
REQUIRED TO TELL US, SHOW US SO THAT WE CAN INVESTIGATE
THIS PHOTOGRAPH, GET ACCESS TO THE NEGATIVES OURSELVES AND
BLOW IT UP EVEN FURTHER.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A SURPRISE TACTIC AND
THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO SHOW US THIS. THEY CAN'T GIVE US A
PHOTOGRAPH WHERE YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE ANYTHING AND TRY TO
PROVE THAT THERE'S REALLY BLOODSTAINS ON A GATE ON JUNE
13TH THAT THEY CAME BACK AND FOUND JULY 3RD. I DON'T THINK
THAT'S FAIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE
PHOTOGRAPH. IT DOES APPEAR TO BE A ROUGHLY EIGHT BY TEN
COLOR PHOTOGRAPH THAT APPEARS TO DEPICT THE BOTTOM PORTION
OF THE FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUNDY WALKWAY. AND BY
USING A MAGNIFYING GLASS, I CAN SEE FROM THIS BLOWN-UP
PHOTOGRAPH WHAT APPEARS TO BE A REDDISH STAIN AT THE BOTTOM
OF THE GATE WHICH APPARENTLY IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT
HERE.


I DON'T NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE
MANNER IN WHICH THIS HAS BEEN BLOWN UP. IT DOESN'T APPEAR
TO BE DISTORTED IN ANY WAY, AND I'LL OVERRULE THE
OBJECTION.

[martin II]

Martin,

IIRC, the social worker felt that the Brown home was a shrine to Nicole and that they were very hostile toward Simpson and the children could not help but knowing this.

I never heard about the racial comments but I have a hard time believing this only because the children were half African American and I can't think they would say anything like this---what did they have to gain by doing this? Again, IMO.

I don't think these comments actually came from JB OR LB but i certainly believe that Denise would have made them. Pure anger would have been her motive.

[tv]

TV,

Why would Lange and VA make any obvious statements that they believed the glove was planted? However, IMO, Vanatter's testimony that is in direct conflict with MF's may be considered as statements.

However, their actions speak louder then any "verbal" statements. IMO.
I don't understand. What are the actions that show that they believe Mark Fuhrman planted the glove. They have said emphatically that he didn't so I'm interested to know what non-verbal clues you think you're picking up on.