Random Discussions On The Case [Archive] - Page 46

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 06:33 AM

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.

Mr. August,

Again, who took the picture and how was it proved that it was taken on that day?

You seem to forget pictures, close up pictures were taken of the coins and Nicole's jeep. To say that the photographer was not directed to back gate to take pictures of the blood drops, close up shots of the blood drops is just not logical.

In Goldberg's book, he states that it took him and Woody Clarke a long time to find this picture. A shot from 15 feet away and then having to blow up it to find it, doesn't even pass the laugh test.

You also forget conflicting testimony in regards to Lange and Fung. You also forget that a fingerprint in blood was seen by at least 2 people yet there were not photographs of that either. We have close ups of a glove and a hat yet not a bloody fingerprint? All the evidence pointed that at least one person did exit the area using the back gate. Again, to say that the fence was not searched and photographed again is just another in a long list of problems of evidence in this case.

Judge Ito said it "appeared" to be blood on the back gate, yet "appeared" to be is not scientific proof that it was in fact blood.

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 06:38 AM

The jurors stated in their book that they were impressed with Dr. Cotton. Why do you find fault with Dr. Cotton for testifying to her test results? Did you expect her to lie?

TV,

IIRC, the jurors described Dr. Cotton as a "school teacher" type of witness and some of the jurors felt that she was talking down to them. Which may have just been Dr. Cotton's style and her demeanor on the witness stand.

Dr. Cotton's testimony did come as a surprise, I don't think any juror would believe the DA's would send them someone else's blood and hope that it would turn into OJ's, Nicole's or Ron's.

Dr. Cotton could only run tests to determine who's DNA it was, she could not determine when, where and how the blood got there. She had no way of determining if blood swatches were switched or not. Which is why I feel her testimony was not a surprise nor did have a major impact on the case. IMO.

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 06:44 AM

Why didn't the defense interview Sydney?

TV,

I don't know if Simpson refused to let the defense question her. I can understand why he would have said that they could not as well as saying they could not call her to testify even about what time she went to bed or give more details of her mother crying and fighting that night. IMO, this was done to protect Sydney.

It may be possible that once Simpson turned over guardianship to the Browns' that he no longer had a legal say in this matter.

What is interesting to think about is what Sydney may have told her sister and AC when they went to pick them up from the police station and later the long drive down to Laguna. Of course, it is very possible she said nothing because she up most of the night and could have just fell asleep.

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 06:53 AM

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.

TV,

Just to clear this up, I believe VA, Lange and Phillips did believe the glove was planted but that did not mean that MF was the only one who could have done it, that he was not the only one with motive and opportunity to do so.

VA lied regarding how the glove was discovered. He never mentions MF as the person who found the glove. He testified that he saw no evidence of anyone jumping the fence or crashing into the wall. He sends Phillips and MF back to Bundy on a "fool's errand" regarding the glove at Bundy.

MF testified that he was asked to lead them up them up there, VA said he did not, that he knew where Rockingham was. MF testified he never told VA about the noise Kato told him about, VA says MF did tell him. MF said that he saw blood he could not see and I don't think VA testified that he did see this blood and that MF never pointed it out.

VA and Lange claim they never read MF's notes about the Bundy crime scene, that is impossible to believe. Lange never completed his walk through, his conduct that morning is in direct conflict with his normal procedures or habits as a detective.

There is evidence to suggest that Simpson was telling the truth about the bleeding in the Bronco, not only on the amount of blood but also where it was found---consistent with someone opening the door and getting something out of it and never getting into the Bronco to retrieve it.

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 06:58 AM

There has been absolutely no indication, evidence or testimony that Mark Fuhrman went to Bundy before the official time given. What glove in the Bronco are you talking about? There was no glove found in the Bronco. Are you saying that Det. Fuhrman put the glove in the Bronco and then removed it when Kato told him about the thumps? Good heavens, please don't make me start mentioning your home planet again.

TV,

MF was called into this case by Phillips and he was not on call that night. This has never been explained why this happened. However, what has been proven is that MF was well aquainted with the Simpsons' as well as knowing Nicole through another police matter that had nothing to do with Simpson.

He had every reason to believe that Simpson was a prime suspect and he had every legal reason to act on them. The fact that this is being denied should raise a lot of red flags, IMO.

Rosa Lopez heard foot steps on Simpson's pavement that night as well as two men talking along the property line. MF interviewed Lopez, ask permission to go along the property line where he later said the glove was found. MF never submitted any report that he did interview Lopez.

The Boys

06-24-2009, 08:59 AM

ms bell and her roomates were in the living room when furhman did his regular racist rant.

LOL, who's living room were they in martin? If you say that Fuhrman was never anywhere with Bell then who's living room are you talking about?

Andrea Terry and Kathleen Bell said they were with Fuhrman at Hennessy's Tavern in 1986 and that Fuhrman made a whole bunch of racist remarks there too, after Bell met Fuhrman originally at the recruiting station. It's in the cross examination of Fuhrman by Bailey.

martin II

06-24-2009, 09:24 AM

LOL, who's living room were they in martin? If you say that Fuhrman was never anywhere with Bell then who's living room are you talking about?

read my post.
Andrea Terry and Kathleen Bell said they were with Fuhrman at Hennessy's Tavern in 1986 and that Fuhrman made a whole bunch of racist remarks there too, after Bell met Fuhrman originally at the recruiting station. It's in the cross examination of Fuhrman by Bailey.

let me help you
Ms Bell and her friend went to the bar for a drink. Furhman and another woman was sitting at a booth before they arrived. . Bell and her friend decided to leave and her friend either spoke to furhman or started to. Bell had walked to the door.

One of Bells roomates had invited furhman and his partner to the apartment.They were in that lkiving room when furhman started doing his racist rant.Bell walked out. a few days later looking out of her window bell saw furhman getting out of his car heading for the apartment. She yelled out the window that he was not allowed to come to the apartment. furhman left.
see Bells testimony.

The Boys

06-24-2009, 09:26 AM

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.

The Browns didn't return the money from Faye's book to her --- they cashed the check and used it for the Nicole Brown Foundation. Faye says this in her second book called "Shattered".

From the minute she was taken out of the condo? She didn't even know what happened until much later.

martin II

06-24-2009, 09:34 AM

Why didn't the defense interview Sydney?

i believe oj told them no or cochran decided not to put her on the stand.

The Boys

06-24-2009, 09:35 AM

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.

LMAO --- if the definition of sophistication has changed to a jury of almost all blacks being unable to admit that one of their was going be dethroned from a respected celebrity status then yeeeessssss they sure were sophisticated!

06-24-2009, 09:44 AM

TV,

MF was called into this case by Phillips and he was not on call that night. This has never been explained why this happened. However, what has been proven is that MF was well aquainted with the Simpsons' as well as knowing Nicole through another police matter that had nothing to do with Simpson.

He had every reason to believe that Simpson was a prime suspect and he had every legal reason to act on them. The fact that this is being denied should raise a lot of red flags, IMO.

Rosa Lopez heard foot steps on Simpson's pavement that night as well as two men talking along the property line. MF interviewed Lopez, ask permission to go along the property line where he later said the glove was found. MF never submitted any report that he did interview Lopez.

Sometimes I'm called into work when I'm not on call -- it happens. In what way was Det. Fuhrman 'well acquainted' with the Simpsons? The only contact that Det. Fuhrman had with the Simpsons was his response to the 911 call when Simpson broke Nicole's windshield.

Why did Rosa Lopez speak perfect English to Mark Fuhrman and then was unable speak it during the trial? Why did she say the Bronco was parked at the house at the time of the murders and then during her testimony say she wasn't sure what time she saw it? Why did the defense withhold the tape of her interview from the prosecution?

06-24-2009, 09:53 AM

i believe oj told them no or cochran decided not to put her on the stand.Then why is the prosecution criticized for not interviewing Sydney?

martin II

06-24-2009, 10:03 AM

LOL, who's living room were they in martin? If you say that Fuhrman was never anywhere with Bell then who's living room are you talking about?

Andrea Terry and Kathleen Bell said they were with Fuhrman at Hennessy's Tavern in 1986 and that Fuhrman made a whole bunch of racist remarks there too, after Bell met Fuhrman originally at the recruiting station. It's in the cross examination of Fuhrman by Bailey.

boys
Below is your post.

You did not say bell went some place or was some place with furhman. I said Bell never went to any bar or any other place with furhman.

this is what you said.
Yeah, that's what Kathleen Bell said that Fuhrman said --- and then went to a bar with him and introduced him to her friend --- that sounds real legit

06-24-2009, 10:09 AM

06-24-2009, 10:23 AM

Mr. August,

I am still waiting for your proof on when this picture was taken.I'm still waiting for your proof that the sweats were removed from the washer and sent to be tested.

martin II

06-24-2009, 10:36 AM

There are so many factual errors in this post I don't know where to start so I'll ask one question -- who is your prime suspect for who planted the glove if not Det. Fuhrman?

i had thought about Phillips.But there were many that had access.imo

martin II

06-24-2009, 10:39 AM

I'm still waiting for your proof that the sweats were removed from the washer and sent to be tested.

I think le removed the sweats.

martin II

06-24-2009, 10:42 AM

Then why is the prosecution criticized for not interviewing Sydney?

i believe le did ask her questions when they had her.

weezer

06-24-2009, 10:43 AM

I think le removed the sweats.

so do you think they took the women's panties (lingerie) also?

weezer

06-24-2009, 10:45 AM

i believe le did ask her questions when they had her.

any proof or do you just 'believe'?

weezer

06-24-2009, 10:46 AM

i had thought about Phillips.But there were many that had access.imo

ahh yes -- the conspiracy of hundreds! geez. . . .

weezer

06-24-2009, 10:55 AM

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'm trying to differentiate between your recollection and fact -- can you provide a link to your statement that 'the Brown home was a shrine to Nicole and that they were very hostile toward Simpson'. Or maybe alink to the social worker's report or comment?

weezer

06-24-2009, 10:57 AM

let me help you
Ms Bell and her friend went to the bar for a drink. Furhman and another woman was sitting at a booth before they arrived. . Bell and her friend decided to leave and her friend either spoke to furhman or started to. Bell had walked to the door.

One of Bells roomates had invited furhman and his partner to the apartment.They were in that lkiving room when furhman started doing his racist rant.Bell walked out. a few days later looking out of her window bell saw furhman getting out of his car heading for the apartment. She yelled out the window that he was not allowed to come to the apartment. furhman left.
see Bells testimony.

martin, do you know at what point bell decided she didn't want to fix her friend up with fuhrman?

martin II

06-24-2009, 11:20 AM

LMAO --- if the definition of sophistication has changed to a jury of almost all blacks being unable to admit that one of their was going be dethroned from a respected celebrity status then yeeeessssss they sure were sophisticated!

They understood clearly what the prosecution was required to do by law and that they had failed without a doubt to do so.They did not roll over and accept the prosecutions BS. Good for them.

weezer

06-24-2009, 11:24 AM

They understood clearly what the prosecution was required to do by law and that they had failed without a doubt to do so.They did not roll over and accept the prosecutions BS. Good for them.

they only understood the little ditty from cockroach -- the real evidence was beyond their comprehension. imo

weezer

06-24-2009, 11:37 AM

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.

no proof? just your 'belief'? wow -- kinda harsh without any proof that it actually happened don't you think?

06-24-2009, 01:00 PM

i had thought about Phillips.But there were many that had access.imo

This is desperation talking. Anything to shift the focus and blame from Simpson. There sure were many who had access including the person that left the glove there -- OJ Simpson who had just returned from killing the mother of his children and her friend. Talk about motive and opportunity -- he had more of both than anyone else on earth.

martin II

06-24-2009, 01:00 PM

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.

i posted a correction to my ststement that clarke got her fence info from furhman
sorry

06-24-2009, 01:04 PM

no proof? just your 'belief'? wow -- kinda harsh without any proof that it actually happened don't you think?

You can have a mountain of forensic evidence that points to OJ Simpson as a murderer and it's rejected by his supporters but they'll believe any whisper of a rumor about the victim's family or LE. Remember, in their world, everyone lies but Simpson.

06-24-2009, 01:08 PM

I think le removed the sweats.

No evidence or proof that LE removed the sweats. Why would they go back later and try to find the sweats? Why didn't Simpson or one of his family members ever say the sweats were missing?

06-24-2009, 01:13 PM

They understood clearly what the prosecution was required to do by law and that they had failed without a doubt to do so.They did not roll over and accept the prosecutions BS. Good for them.

Why do you call it BS for a prosecutor to try a case with as much evidence as they had in this case? The only BS in the courtroom came from the defense and their theories that were 'without factual support'.

weezer

06-24-2009, 01:47 PM

You can have a mountain of forensic evidence that points to OJ Simpson as a murderer and it's rejected by his supporters but they'll believe any whisper of a rumor about the victim's family or LE. Remember, in their world, everyone lies but Simpson.

in that small world that the NG's circle -- where cockroaches and flees reign supreme, it has to be someone else. It couldn't possibly be the man who tormented, abused, stalked, threatened Nicole for 17 years. geez

martin II

06-24-2009, 04:01 PM

No evidence or proof that LE removed the sweats. Why would they go back later and try to find the sweats? Why didn't Simpson or one of his family members ever say the sweats were missing?

There is no evidence that le left them at ojs house.That is for sure.LE was the last people known to have them. say what to who.cops steal you know.

martin II

06-24-2009, 04:16 PM

Why do you call it BS for a prosecutor to try a case with as much evidence as they had in this case? The only BS in the courtroom came from the defense and their theories that were 'without factual support'.

The defence had little problems disproving the claims and the jury agreed that the prosecution did not prove their claims.End of story.

martin II

06-24-2009, 04:29 PM

Why do you call it BS for a prosecutor to try a case with as much evidence as they had in this case? The only BS in the courtroom came from the defense and their theories that were 'without factual support'.

what they had was smoke and mirrors. not provable evidence.

fgump2

06-24-2009, 05:49 PM

TV,

Just to clear this up, I believe VA, Lange and Phillips did believe the glove was planted but that did not mean that MF was the only one who could have done it, that he was not the only one with motive and opportunity to do so.

VA lied regarding how the glove was discovered. He never mentions MF as the person who found the glove. He testified that he saw no evidence of anyone jumping the fence or crashing into the wall. He sends Phillips and MF back to Bundy on a "fool's errand" regarding the glove at Bundy.

MF testified that he was asked to lead them up them up there, VA said he did not, that he knew where Rockingham was. MF testified he never told VA about the noise Kato told him about, VA says MF did tell him. MF said that he saw blood he could not see and I don't think VA testified that he did see this blood and that MF never pointed it out.

VA and Lange claim they never read MF's notes about the Bundy crime scene, that is impossible to believe. Lange never completed his walk through, his conduct that morning is in direct conflict with his normal procedures or habits as a detective.

There is evidence to suggest that Simpson was telling the truth about the bleeding in the Bronco, not only on the amount of blood but also where it was found---consistent with someone opening the door and getting something out of it and never getting into the Bronco to retrieve it.

I think the reason you give for varios LAPD lies is that there were inconsistencies in their stories. I think that most of this is due to memory errors. Both criminologists and memory experts believe that memory is inaccurate, even after a few minutes. I have read about experiments by both criminologists and memory experts which show that if they show people a short video, and then take notes immediately, there will be errors, often fairly important. Since it seems to be common knowledge that LAPD employees often didn't take gppd notes, we should expect a lot of errors. The question is are they relevant errors. The very fact that human observation and memory is imprecise is the reason I don't take time line descrepancies seriously.

On the other hand most NGs (people who think that SImpson was innocent) seem to accept all kinds of errors from Orenthal Simpson. He came up with at least 3 stories about his relationship with Nicole in the last 3 months of her life. (1) she dumped him and he was upset about it. This is the story he told Allen Austin before the murders. (2) It was a mutual breakup with mutual respect. This is the story he told in the farewell note.(3) NIcole was bugging him with strange phone calls and erratic behavior. This is the story (according to Martin) that SImpson gave recently. If SImpson was innocent, he would have been ruminating about his relationship with Nicole during the months before she died. To come up with three stories like this is evidence of dishonesty. Also you, Greenice, wrote that Simpson only bad mouthed Nicole when answering Petrocelli's questions. I don't know why Simpson said bad things about Nicole in the posting Martin made, but it wasn't in response to court room questions.

Some of the things that NGs and the 1995 defense team came up with don't even qualify as chicken s**t, more like maybe insect droppings. I realize many people take it seriously that some detective thought they handed blood to Fung when the actually handed it to the assistant (Mazzoli). I don't think that is worth talkin about. I know this has been argued before. This is the sort of thing that doesn't matter to me. I think that GI posted that it was important because chain of custody is important. I think it would be only relevant if Mazzoli was regarded as a security risk. I know that much of the media and I think even Bugliosi took this seriously. I don't, except that it shows that the defense was grasping at straws.

Simpson had to be ruminating a lot about the last months of Nicole's life. Nobody had much reason to ruminate about how the glove was discovered or who recieved the blood sample from the detective. Fung getting confused about which work he did and which work Mazzoli did is another thing that I see as unimportant. If he had confidence in Mazzoli, that would be easy to confuse.

fgump2

06-24-2009, 06:14 PM

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. This seems quite unlikely. The blood from the pool around Nicole would have been quite a bit more degrarded than the drops of bood that matched Mr. Simpson. This is because the blood in the pool stayed wet longer, and since the pool was large it would have come into contact with more diffeent kinds of bacteria. This blood was not completely degraded, even after spending time in a hot truck. It seems quite unlikely that all of the single drops of blood which matched Mr. Simpson would have been completely degraded. It seems even more unlikely that these samples would have all become contaminated with blood from the reference sample. As far as I know all the blood at Bundy held together in a consistent manner. I wrote earlier 'held together for the most part'. As far as I know if held together consistently. For this to happen by accident, by cross contaminaton, in a manner that indicates Simpson is guilty is quite unlikely. It would be like a monkey at a typewriter accidently typing outsentences that make sense. Possible, but not likely. One of the Simpson defense lawyers wrote a few months before the trial, that if cross contamination exists in a crime scene, it would almost always lead to logically implaulsible results. Anyone should be able to see that.
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

I don't think much of the crime scene evidence against Simpson can be attributed to contamination or cross contamination. There were other cases being processed during that time period. If none of the three people's blood in this case showed up in other cases, and no other cases blood showed up in the Simpson case, that would indicate to me that there was very little cross contamination.

socaldiva

06-24-2009, 06:21 PM

I don't think much of the crime scene evidence against Simpson can be attributed to contamination or cross contamination. There were other cases being processed during that time period. If none of the three people's blood in this case showed up in other cases, and no other cases blood showed up in the Simpson case, that would indicate to me that there was very little cross contamination.

I visited that crime lab right around the time of the criminal trial. It sure didn't look like "a cesspool of contamination" as the defense suggested. It looked pristine to me.

martin II

06-24-2009, 06:41 PM

I think the reason you give for varios LAPD lies is that there were inconsistencies in their stories. I think that most of this is due to memory errors. Both criminologists and memory experts believe that memory is inaccurate, even after a few minutes. I have read about experiments by both criminologists and memory experts which show that if they show people a short video, and then take notes immediately, there will be errors, often fairly important. Since it seems to be common knowledge that LAPD employees often didn't take gppd notes, we should expect a lot of errors. The question is are they relevant errors. The very fact that human observation and memory is imprecise is the reason I don't take time line descrepancies seriously.

On the other hand most NGs (people who think that SImpson was innocent) seem to accept all kinds of errors from Orenthal Simpson. He came up with at least 3 stories about his relationship with Nicole in the last 3 months of her life. (1) she dumped him and he was upset about it. This is the story he told Allen Austin before the murders. (2) It was a mutual breakup with mutual respect. This is the story he told in the farewell note.(3) NIcole was bugging him with strange phone calls and erratic behavior. This is the story (according to Martin) that SImpson gave recently. If SImpson was innocent, he would have been ruminating about his relationship with Nicole during the months before she died. To come up with three stories like this is evidence of dishonesty. Also you, Greenice, wrote that Simpson only bad mouthed Nicole when answering Petrocelli's questions. I don't know why Simpson said bad things about Nicole in the posting Martin made, but it wasn't in response to court room questions.

Some of the things that NGs and the 1995 defense team came up with don't even qualify as chicken s**t, more like maybe insect droppings. I realize many people take it seriously that some detective thought they handed blood to Fung when the actually handed it to the assistant (Mazzoli). I don't think that is worth talkin about. I know this has been argued before. This is the sort of thing that doesn't matter to me. I think that GI posted that it was important because chain of custody is important. I think it would be only relevant if Mazzoli was regarded as a security risk. I know that much of the media and I think even Bugliosi took this seriously. I don't, except that it shows that the defense was grasping at straws.

Simpson had to be ruminating a lot about the last months of Nicole's life. Nobody had much reason to ruminate about how the glove was discovered or who recieved the blood sample from the detective. Fung getting confused about which work he did and which work Mazzoli did is another thing that I see as unimportant. If he had confidence in Mazzoli, that would be easy to confuse.

Do you think a defendant should be convicted when le cannot remember what they did or cannot give exact testimony based on bad memory?The purpose of the defence being allowed to challange the prosecutions claims
is to see if the claims are true.If the prosecution can use the excuse of bad memory by le, how do we get the truth about what happened?

martin II

06-24-2009, 06:48 PM

I don't think much of the crime scene evidence against Simpson can be attributed to contamination or cross contamination. There were other cases being processed during that time period. If none of the three people's blood in this case showed up in other cases, and no other cases blood showed up in the Simpson case, that would indicate to me that there was very little cross contamination.

I hope that the lapd lab did not process blood evidence from other cases at the same time and location that the oj evidence was being processed.
From your comment it seems that you think they did.

martin II

06-24-2009, 06:56 PM

I don't think much of the crime scene evidence against Simpson can be attributed to contamination or cross contamination. There were other cases being processed during that time period. If none of the three people's blood in this case showed up in other cases, and no other cases blood showed up in the Simpson case, that would indicate to me that there was very little cross contamination.

since you mentioned me by nic in your post i feel compelled to ask you some questions again.
You have never explained why Martz found EDTA in his sock sample experiment and why three detectives testified that no one jumped the fence and there was no evidence that anyone including oj was in the s walkway at rockingham.

martin II

06-24-2009, 07:09 PM

I think the reason you give for varios LAPD lies is that there were inconsistencies in their stories. I think that most of this is due to memory errors. Both criminologists and memory experts believe that memory is inaccurate, even after a few minutes. I have read about experiments by both criminologists and memory experts which show that if they show people a short video, and then take notes immediately, there will be errors, often fairly important. Since it seems to be common knowledge that LAPD employees often didn't take gppd notes, we should expect a lot of errors. The question is are they relevant errors. The very fact that human observation and memory is imprecise is the reason I don't take time line descrepancies seriously.

On the other hand most NGs (people who think that SImpson was innocent) seem to accept all kinds of errors from Orenthal Simpson. He came up with at least 3 stories about his relationship with Nicole in the last 3 months of her life. (1) she dumped him and he was upset about it. This is the story he told Allen AustinWHO IS THIS PERSON AND DO YOU HAVE A LINK TO THIS INTERVIEW? before the murders. (2) It was a mutual breakup with mutual respect. This is the story he told in the farewell note.(3) NIcole was bugging him with strange phone calls and erratic behavior. This is the story (according to Martin) that SImpson gave recently.OJ MADE THIS COMMENT IN HIS BOOK NOT RECENTLY. THE ERRATIC BEHAVIOR WAS SUPPORTED BY NICOLES FRIENDS. If SImpson was innocent, he would have been ruminating about his relationship with Nicole during the months before she died. To come up with three stories like this is evidence of dishonesty. Also you, Greenice, wrote that Simpson only bad mouthed Nicole when answering Petrocelli's questions. I don't know why Simpson said bad things about Nicole in the posting Martin made, but it wasn't in response to court room questions.NOTHING WRONG WITH OPJ MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT NICOLE.SHE HAD WARTS ALSO ALTHOUGH YOU DO NOT SEEM TO THINK SO./

Some of the things that NGs and the 1995 defense team came up with don't even qualify as chicken s**t, more like maybe insect droppings. I realize many people take it seriously that some detective thought they handed blood to Fung when the actually handed it to the assistant (Mazzoli). I don't think that is worth talkin about. I know this has been argued before. This is the sort of thing that doesn't matter to me. I think that GI posted that it was important because chain of custody is important. I think it would be only relevant if Mazzoli was regarded as a security risk. THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS ALWAYS IMPORTANTI know that much of the media and I think even Bugliosi took this seriously. I don't, except that it shows that the defense was grasping at straws.

Simpson had to be ruminating a lot about the last months of Nicole's life. Nobody had much reason to ruminate about how the glove was discovered or who recieved the blood sample from the detective. Fung getting confused about which work he did and which work Mazzoli did is another thing that I see as unimportant. If he had confidence in Mazzoli, that would be easy to confuse.

Why do you think crimalist are required to take notes?
Someone switched the mazzola swatches without her knowledge. i think.

martin II

06-24-2009, 07:13 PM

weezer

06-24-2009, 07:49 PM

weezer

06-24-2009, 07:52 PM

We don't know if there was contamination or not but there was much testimony to believe that there was.

the blood, hair, fiber, size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints of the murderer, orenthal james simpson, and the blood, hair, and fiber of his two victims, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, were at the scene, the Bronco, and Rockingham. :shrug:

weezer

06-24-2009, 07:55 PM

Do you think a defendant should be convicted when le cannot remember what they did or cannot give exact testimony based on bad memory?The purpose of the defence being allowed to challange the prosecutions claims
is to see if the claims are true.If the prosecution can use the excuse of bad memory by le, how do we get the truth about what happened?

well, in most cases, we use common sense. Unfortunately, the criminal jury ignored the facts and advanced their own agenda.

weezer

06-24-2009, 07:57 PM

I visited that crime lab right around the time of the criminal trial. It sure didn't look like "a cesspool of contamination" as the defense suggested. It looked pristine to me.

I just don't understand why the NG's refuse to acknowledge the testimony of the defense experts (criminal trial) in the civil trial that discounts contamination, planting, etc. :shrug:

weezer

06-24-2009, 08:10 PM

SNIPPED***...(1) she dumped him and he was upset about it. This is the story he told Allen AustinWHO IS THIS PERSON. . ."

you're kidding, right?

O.J. Simpson Suicide Letter
. . ."My golfing buddies, Hoss, Alan Austin, Mike, Craig, Bender, Wyler, Sandy, Jay, Donnie, thanks for the fun." . .

William Anthony

06-24-2009, 09:08 PM

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.

His cross of MF was textbook brilliance. :)

William Anthony

06-24-2009, 09:13 PM

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.

Lee could not have been incompetent since a good speaker understands his audience. :)

An arrogant insubordinate misogynist racist, is that how Thompson portrays MF?

William Anthony

06-24-2009, 09:39 PM

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

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

06-24-2009, 09:41 PM

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

"...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

06-24-2009, 09:43 PM

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

What you fail to comprehend is that Kato cannot and did not testify as to when Park saw Kato.:);):cool:

William Anthony

06-24-2009, 09:45 PM

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

bobaugust

The only thing the photo to which you refer proves is that it was taken after blood was somehow deposited on the gate and that blood had an extraordinary amount of EDTA, enough to say that it could not have come from upreserved human blood. :);):cool:

William Anthony

06-24-2009, 09:51 PM

They gave her garbage and try as much as she did she was left with garbage.

Lets try to turn this garbage in to an excellent cuisine. No thanks.

William Anthony

06-24-2009, 09:53 PM

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

I have posted the testimony of Park from the socio political production and when asked who told him his testimony was wrong, park responded Petro and others. :);):cool:

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 10:35 PM

let me help you
Ms Bell and her friend went to the bar for a drink. Furhman and another woman was sitting at a booth before they arrived. . Bell and her friend decided to leave and her friend either spoke to furhman or started to. Bell had walked to the door.

One of Bells roomates had invited furhman and his partner to the apartment.They were in that lkiving room when furhman started doing his racist rant.Bell walked out. a few days later looking out of her window bell saw furhman getting out of his car heading for the apartment. She yelled out the window that he was not allowed to come to the apartment. furhman left.
see Bells testimony.

Martin,

It was Natalie Singer and her roommate. The Roommate was dating MF's partner. MF was barred from the apartment but not his partner.

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 10:45 PM

The Browns didn't return the money from Faye's book to her --- they cashed the check and used it for the Nicole Brown Foundation. Faye says this in her second book called "Shattered".

From the minute she was taken out of the condo? She didn't even know what happened until much later.

The Boys,

Sydney did know something was terribly wrong because she told her brother that something terrible must have happened to their mother because she did not come and get them.

I did not know that about the Browns, however, Faye sent the money to the children and they would not accept it on the kids's behalf.

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 11:01 PM

Sometimes I'm called into work when I'm not on call -- it happens. In what way was Det. Fuhrman 'well acquainted' with the Simpsons? The only contact that Det. Fuhrman had with the Simpsons was his response to the 911 call when Simpson broke Nicole's windshield.

Why did Rosa Lopez speak perfect English to Mark Fuhrman and then was unable speak it during the trial? Why did she say the Bronco was parked at the house at the time of the murders and then during her testimony say she wasn't sure what time she saw it? Why did the defense withhold the tape of her interview from the prosecution?

TV,

Nicole was receiving obscene phone calls and MF and I think Ron Phillips were the detectives who handled it. In Chris Darden's book he writes that they were able to keep MF's comments about being Nicole's boob job and his being her personal cop out of the trial. I would assume that Darden and Clark did find some proof that MF did make these comments and had to find a way to keep them out of the trial. However, IMO, maybe they should have allowed it. Perhaps they could have used this as evidence that MF was not the hard core racist he claimed to be.

It is well known that there was a power struggle between Shapiro's camp and Cochran's camp. This tape got lost in the shuffle and it was Bill Pavlic's fault. It was also Pavlic's fault about the time he gave about when Lopez saw the Bronco, he had her nuking water for her tea for 5 minutes when it really only took less the minute.

However, her seeing the Bronco was not the key to her testimony, it was not what she saw and when she saw it, but what she heard and when did she hear it.

How do you know that she spoke perfect English to MF? Her "English" had nothing to do with the fact that MF sought her out and asked permission to go along the property line where the glove was found.

Her "English" had nothing to do with MF not making a report of this interview.

IMO.

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 11:08 PM

Then why is the prosecution criticized for not interviewing Sydney?

TV,

First off, with the comments Sydney made, the DA's may not have had to interview her. The DA's may have been able to question Sydney through the Browns--again, not having to interview her. With the Browns' asking question, they did not have to turn it over to the defense.

However, to be fair to both sides, they might not have called Sydney to the stand because they did not to lose a jurors by calling her to testify. I think it is always a huge risk to call a child to the stand---some jurors may be extrmely offended by this. Again, IMO.

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 11:18 PM

There are so many factual errors in this post I don't know where to start so I'll ask one question -- who is your prime suspect for who planted the glove if not Det. Fuhrman?

TV,

Please point out my factual errors. I don't believe I did this.

I do not have a prime suspect on who planted the glove. I think there is more evidence to suggest that it was MF since he was at the two places where he said that Simpson was, in the neighbor's yard and behind Kato's wall.

However, if you take into the consideration the phone call about two bodies on Bundy, Nicole laying where she could be seen from the street or someone walking by leads me to believe that the killers did have excellent inside knowledge of the Simpsons as well as their coming and goings. We do know for a fact that Nicole was followed and it was never linked to Simpson.

It has never been explained how the gloves came off. In fact, I don't think was ever proved the gloves were even wore by the killer(s) during the actual murders. The ony reason I bring this point up is because Ron and Nicole's blood was found inside the Rockingham glove.

And I don't think any blood was found on the Bundy glove or the hat for that matter. I maybe wrong but I don't remember blood being found on or inside the glove or the hat.

My people are waving to your people:)

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 11:27 PM

I'm still waiting for your proof that the sweats were removed from the washer and sent to be tested.

TV,

I am glad you bring this up again!

I believe I was very clear that this information came from a book and what a news station reported about this. However, Lange and Vanatter's book does back this up. They were talking about the media and how they embellished as well as made things up about "evidence". Like how the rust on the clothes found in the washer was being called "blood" being found on them. How could they have known these spots were rust and not blood if they were not collected or tested?

Clark has the blood clothes coming from the hamper upstairs in the bedroom. She was angry at Fung because he did not collect them. I think she said that she saw a picture of Fung holding them and sent for him to find out where they were.

Another problem, the DA's needed to link Simpson to a sweat suit, yet they did not use this picture or the picture in the washer.

One last problem and it was a biggie, Kato was never sure what Simpson was wearing but he was wrong on what OJ wore to the airport.

If Kato was in the defense camp as many believe he was, then itsn't it possible he sent the LAPD on a wild goose chase on this issue?

fgump2

06-24-2009, 11:27 PM

I hope that the lapd lab did not process blood evidence from other cases at the same time and location that the oj evidence was being processed.
From your comment it seems that you think they did.

I realize that police labs need procedures to make the results valid. I don't know what procedures the LAPD lab had or should have had. But they aren't going to have a different lab or room for each case, and the fact that as far as I know the Simpson case blood didn't get into other cases, and blood from other cases didn't get into the Simpson case.

The fact that the blood work at the crime scene came accross as logically consistent and had no blood from outside cases would seem to me to be strong evidence that there was little cross contamination.

bobaugust

06-24-2009, 11:37 PM

Mr. August,

Again, who took the picture and how was it proved that it was taken on that day?

You seem to forget pictures, close up pictures were taken of the coins and Nicole's jeep. To say that the photographer was not directed to back gate to take pictures of the blood drops, close up shots of the blood drops is just not logical.

In Goldberg's book, he states that it took him and Woody Clarke a long time to find this picture. A shot from 15 feet away and then having to blow up it to find it, doesn't even pass the laugh test.

You also forget conflicting testimony in regards to Lange and Fung. You also forget that a fingerprint in blood was seen by at least 2 people yet there were not photographs of that either. We have close ups of a glove and a hat yet not a bloody fingerprint? All the evidence pointed that at least one person did exit the area using the back gate. Again, to say that the fence was not searched and photographed again is just another in a long list of problems of evidence in this case.

Judge Ito said it "appeared" to be blood on the back gate, yet "appeared" to be is not scientific proof that it was in fact blood.

GreenIce, Rolf Rokahr was the photographer who took the photographs of both crime scenes on June 13. The defense was originally provided first generation copies of all the photographs Rokahr took that day. I would think you can either assume that Simpson’s attorneys never questioned that fact because they understood that the original photograph was taken on June 13 or you can assume that they just didn’t think of asking that question, right?

All photographs of blood only appear to be blood. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the June 13 photograph showed the same blood stain that was photographed and collected on July 3. That photograph proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

bobaugust

06-24-2009, 11:38 PM

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?

I posted the transcript where Deedrick testified that the only unidentified hair that came from the Rockingham glove was a light brown Caucasian head hair and that hair was on the Rockingham glove.

If you think there was an unidentified Caucasian limb hair found inside the Rockingham glove then post the testimony that supports your claim.

bobaugust

bobaugust

06-24-2009, 11:41 PM

"...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."

No attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred or claimed that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house. Only you have made that false claim, William.

Park never contradicted any of his previous testimony when he answered Baker’s questions and Baker never claimed he did. If Baker, as an experienced trial lawyer, actually believed he trapped Park into contradicting his previous testimony or that Park’s answers meant that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house Baker would have absolutely told the jury that instead of keeping it a “sophisticated” secret. Your claim that Baker trapped Park is false.
.
bobaugust

bobaugust

06-24-2009, 11:42 PM

The only thing the photo to which you refer proves is that it was taken after blood was somehow deposited on the gate and that blood had an extraordinary amount of EDTA, enough to say that it could not have come from upreserved human blood. :);):cool:

That June 13 crime scene photograph shows a blood stain on the rear gate at Bundy that Simpson’s defense had claimed wasn’t there on June 13 but was planted there weeks later. That photograph proved the defense gate blood planning theory false.

Post the testimony where that particular blood stain contained any EDTA.

bobaugust

bobaugust

06-24-2009, 11:42 PM

I have posted the testimony of Park from the socio political production and when asked who told him his testimony was wrong, park responded Petro and others. :);):cool:

I do not recall that testimony. Please post it again or post the message number where you say you posted it.

bobaugust

fgump2

06-24-2009, 11:45 PM

Lee could not have been incompetent since a good speaker understands his audience. :)

An arrogant insubordinate misogynist racist, is that how Thompson portrays MF?

Henry Lee was a good speaker for the defense. He helped them win the case. But his testimony lacked credibility.

His biggest and worst mistake was in saying he had found footprints that belonged to one of the killers, when these were actually old impressions in the cement. One was an old footprint in the cement, a few others were trowel marks. People have defended these mistakes by saying that he was looking at photographs of the crime scene, and that is why he couldn't tell the difference between a crime scene footprint and an old mark in the cement.

That makes a little sense; but if Henry Lee had thought he had found evidence that the prosecution overlooked, I think he should have taken this to the prosecution. I don't know if any criminologist ethical rules encourage or require this, but I think they should. Most people know that the more time passes, the harder it is to catch a criminal. I think Mr. Lee was more interested in helping SImpson beat the rap than in obtaining justice.

I think Mr. Lee didn't take this (false) foot print information to the prosecution (Fung) because if the had the prosecution would have done one of two things: (1) explained to Mr. Lee that he was mistaken or (2) done a better job of embarrassing Mr. Lee in the criminal trial.

I am pretty sure that after the criminal trial Henry Lee has refused to talk about the footprints. I take this to be his way of admitting that he goofed.

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 11:49 PM

No evidence or proof that LE removed the sweats. Why would they go back later and try to find the sweats? Why didn't Simpson or one of his family members ever say the sweats were missing?

TV,

Why would Simpson's family members testify about a sweat suit if there wasn't one?

Kato's testimony about this issue was vague, he testified to what he thought he was wearing as sweat suit type outfit. This vague description gave the DA's plenty of room to work with. In other words, since Kato wasn't sure what he was wearing, doesn't it only make sense they would look for a sweat suit?

GreenIce

06-24-2009, 11:56 PM

Henry Lee was a good speaker for the defense. He helped them win the case. But his testimony lacked credibility.

His biggest and worst mistake was in saying he had found footprints that belonged to one of the killers, when these were actually old impressions in the cement. One was an old footprint in the cement, a few others were trowel marks. People have defended these mistakes by saying that he was looking at photographs of the crime scene, and that is why he couldn't tell the difference between a crime scene footprint and an old mark in the cement.

That makes a little sense; but if Henry Lee had thought he had found evidence that the prosecution overlooked, I think he should have taken this to the prosecution. I don't know if any criminologist ethical rules encourage or require this, but I think they should. Most people know that the more time passes, the harder it is to catch a criminal. I think Mr. Lee was more interested in helping SImpson beat the rap than in obtaining justice.

I think Mr. Lee didn't take this (false) foot print information to the prosecution (Fung) because if the had the prosecution would have done one of two things: (1) explained to Mr. Lee that he was mistaken or (2) done a better job of embarrassing Mr. Lee in the criminal trial.

I am pretty sure that after the criminal trial Henry Lee has refused to talk about the footprints. I take this to be his way of admitting that he goofed.

fgump2,

Dr. Lee testified that the patterns he saw were consistent with a shoe print. If this was a shoe print, then it did not come from a Bruno Magli. The defense and the Dr. Lee knew about the trowel before he testified and it was still his belief that there was evidence to suggest it was a shoe print.

However, even if he was mistaken on this, the were 3 or 4 other places he noted the same pattern, two on pieces of papers.

There has never been any evidence, in all the cases that Dr. Lee has handled that he was ever advocate for either side. He has made this very clear.

Again, even if he was wrong about the cement, his testimony was not just about shoe prints.

06-25-2009, 12:00 AM

TV,

Why would Simpson's family members testify about a sweat suit if there wasn't one?

Kato's testimony about this issue was vague, he testified to what he thought he was wearing as sweat suit type outfit. This vague description gave the DA's plenty of room to work with. In other words, since Kato wasn't sure what he was wearing, doesn't it only make sense they would look for a sweat suit?

There was a sweat suit in the washer. I didn't ask why they wouldn't testify -- my question is why would they not say anything if a sweat suit came up missing from their home after LE had been there. At the time the sweat suit was found in the washer the significance of it wasn't known to LE. First you say LE sent the sweat suit out to be tested and now you're saying there was no sweat suit. Kato didn't say he wasn't sure what Simpson was wearing. He said he was wearing a dark sweat suit.

06-25-2009, 12:02 AM

06-25-2009, 12:07 AM

There is no evidence that le left them at ojs house.That is for sure.LE was the last people known to have them. say what to who.cops steal you know.

What do you mean 'say what to who'? A video was made of the way the house looked after the police were finished. Why didn't they ask what happened to the clothing they had in the washer if someone took them?

You really hate cops don't you?

06-25-2009, 12:11 AM

The defence had little problems disproving the claims and the jury agreed that the prosecution did not prove their claims.End of story.

They disproved none of the prosecution's case. End of the story? Nope, the reason Simpson is in jail today is because he's still as arrogant as he was on June 12, 1994.

06-25-2009, 12:14 AM

I just don't understand why the NG's refuse to acknowledge the testimony of the defense experts (criminal trial) in the civil trial that discounts contamination, planting, etc. :shrug:

Because if they acknowledge it they have to face the idea that OJ Simpson is a brutal murderer and they can't do that. Geez, weezer, worlds could collide!! :eek:

06-25-2009, 12:19 AM

TV,

I am glad you bring this up again!

I believe I was very clear that this information came from a book and what a news station reported about this. However, Lange and Vanatter's book does back this up. They were talking about the media and how they embellished as well as made things up about "evidence". Like how the rust on the clothes found in the washer was being called "blood" being found on them. How could they have known these spots were rust and not blood if they were not collected or tested?

Clark has the blood clothes coming from the hamper upstairs in the bedroom. She was angry at Fung because he did not collect them. I think she said that she saw a picture of Fung holding them and sent for him to find out where they were.

Another problem, the DA's needed to link Simpson to a sweat suit, yet they did not use this picture or the picture in the washer.

One last problem and it was a biggie, Kato was never sure what Simpson was wearing but he was wrong on what OJ wore to the airport.

If Kato was in the defense camp as many believe he was, then itsn't it possible he sent the LAPD on a wild goose chase on this issue?

Fung discovered the stains on the machine were rust. LE didn't realize that Kato was going to say that OJ Simpson was wearing sweats that night so the significance of the sweats in the washer wasn't known at the time. Lange and Vannatter never said the sweats were sent out to be tested. They didn't use the picture because they were never able to recover the sweats.

No, it isn't possible that Kato sent LE on a wild goose chase. That is baseless speculation on your part.

06-25-2009, 12:20 AM

in that small world that the NG's circle -- where cockroaches and flees reign supreme, it has to be someone else. It couldn't possibly be the man who tormented, abused, stalked, threatened Nicole for 17 years. geez

:beer:

fgump2

06-25-2009, 12:27 AM

fgump2,

Dr. Lee testified that the patterns he saw were consistent with a shoe print. If this was a shoe print, then it did not come from a Bruno Magli. The defense and the Dr. Lee knew about the trowel before he testified and it was still his belief that there was evidence to suggest it was a shoe print.

However, even if he was mistaken on this, the were 3 or 4 other places he noted the same pattern, two on pieces of papers.

There has never been any evidence, in all the cases that Dr. Lee has handled that he was ever advocate for either side. He has made this very clear.

Again, even if he was wrong about the cement, his testimony was not just about shoe prints.
I don't have any links on it, but I thought he got burned about the shoe prints, and more or less admitted it by refusing to talk about it afterwards.

I thought his "something wrong" remark was an attempt to confuse the jury and the press. I would certainly be dissatisfied if I went to an expert, such as a doctor and he told me "something wrong here, this should not be, all I can say is something wrong".

How about some interpetation? I think he wanted the jury to disregard the blood evidence without actually saying that. If we look at both his testimony for the criminal and civil trial (actually desposition for the civil tria) he never said that the evidence was either tampered with or unreliable because of "something wrong". If the evidence is unreliable, why not say so and explain why? IF it is reliable then why not say that?

Also at one point Henry Lee answered a quesiton about the sock evidence, about how the blood soaked through. The prosecution gave an exlanation and Henry Lee replied "probably not likely". The DNA lawyer, Scheck quoted this as "Highly unlikely". Not the same. Something wrong here with Barry Scheck.
Something wrong with people who take Scheck and Lee seriously.

When the civil trial lawyer interviewed Mr. Lee for a desposition, Mr. Lee claimed he was an independent expert, with no connection to Simpson. ANd yet he had Scheck as a legal advisor. Scheck was working for SImpson in the cirminal trial, and was at that time working for SImpson in the civil trial. For Henry Lee to claim he wasn't an advocate for Simpson, that he was an independent expert, that is unethical. If he was independent, he would have gotten a different lawyer.

During the criminal trial, Scheack and Henry Lee worked for weeks on deciding how to word Henry Lee's testimony. As far as I know he put no time at all in with the prosecutors on how to word the testimony.

This would be an interesting case to ask an outside observer to pass judgement on it, about whether Lee could be considered an independent expert. I think an outside observer would say "Something wrong here. Henry Lee is unreliable".

06-25-2009, 12:48 AM

TV,

Just to clear this up, I believe VA, Lange and Phillips did believe the glove was planted but that did not mean that MF was the only one who could have done it, that he was not the only one with motive and opportunity to do so.

VA lied regarding how the glove was discovered. He never mentions MF as the person who found the glove. He testified that he saw no evidence of anyone jumping the fence or crashing into the wall. He sends Phillips and MF back to Bundy on a "fool's errand" regarding the glove at Bundy.

MF testified that he was asked to lead them up them up there, VA said he did not, that he knew where Rockingham was. MF testified he never told VA about the noise Kato told him about, VA says MF did tell him.

MF said that he saw blood he could not see and I don't think VA testified that he did see this blood and that MF never pointed it out.

VA and Lange claim they never read MF's notes about the Bundy crime scene, that is impossible to believe. Lange never completed his walk through, his conduct that morning is in direct conflict with his normal procedures or habits as a detective.

There is evidence to suggest that Simpson was telling the truth about the bleeding in the Bronco, not only on the amount of blood but also where it was found---consistent with someone opening the door and getting something out of it and never getting into the Bronco to retrieve it.

There is no statement, proof or evidence that Phillips, Vannatter or Lange believed the glove was planted. I'm still waiting for those non-verbal indicators that they believed this.

Is this what you're calling a fool's errand? -- Testimony of Vannatter at the criminal trial -

BECAUSE WHAT I HAD SEEN ORIGINALLY AT BUNDY AND WHAT I HAD SEEN AT ROCKINGHAM, IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TYPE GLOVE, A LEFT AND A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE, MAN'S LEATHER GLOVE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS SEEING. I WANTED HIM TO GO BACK AND CONFIRM THAT THIS WAS A LEFT-HANDED MAN'S LEATHER GLOVE.

You are wrong about Vannatter saying that Fuhrman didn't tell him about the thumps. --

Q: HE DIDN'T TELL YOU TO TALK TO KATO?

A: HE ASKED ME TO SPEAK WITH HIM.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE WANTED YOU TO SPEAK TO KATO ABOUT?

A: BRIEFLY, YES.

Q: WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HE WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT?

A: HE SAID THAT KATO HAD HEARD SOME SOUNDS OUTSIDE OF HIS ROOM THAT HE THOUGHT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE AND HE WANTED ME TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT.

Vannatter didn't say that Mark Fuhrman didn't show him the blood on the Bronco -- he said he didn't recall him doing so --

Q: AND IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE DOOR, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO POINT OUT TO YOU, WOULD IT NOT?

A: HE MAY HAVE POINTED THEM OUT. I DON'T RECALL HIM DOING THAT

I'm going to stop now as this is turning into a major project. What is the evidence that Simpson is telling the truth about the blood in the Bronco? Something credible I mean. I'm too tired to wave at your people but tell them hello for me.

GreenIce

06-25-2009, 06:42 AM

There was a sweat suit in the washer. I didn't ask why they wouldn't testify -- my question is why would they not say anything if a sweat suit came up missing from their home after LE had been there. At the time the sweat suit was found in the washer the significance of it wasn't known to LE. First you say LE sent the sweat suit out to be tested and now you're saying there was no sweat suit. Kato didn't say he wasn't sure what Simpson was wearing. He said he was wearing a dark sweat suit.

TV,

Let me clear this up, Lange and VA in their book do not say the clothes in the washing machine were sweats, only that it reported that the rust found the clothes was turned into blood by the media. One would think that tests were done to determine if it was blood.

However, I do question how rust could have formed so quickly on the clothes if they were examined less then 24 hours of being washed.

I think Arnelle and the maid testified that Simpson did not own a sweat suit and I think Arnelle said the clothes in the washer were hers.

Just to be fair to your side, why wasn't Fung ever asked in court about the contents of the washing machine? Surely the DA's could have used him to float their theory that he was wearing a sweat suit that night?

Kato was never positive on what Simpson wore. It was a sweat suit type outfit and it had white piping or a white zipper. I think Kato said it looked "really sharp".

Kato also said that he was wearing the same thing to the airport and he was wrong.

Clark said it was in the hamper--yet again, she did not ask Fung about the contents of the hamper or the washer and if she did, I don't remember it.

Fung was the witness who should have been the one to testify about the sweat suit. Doug Deedrick could only say the fibers came from the same piece of cloth---never did he say these fibers were consistent coming from a sweat suit.

GreenIce

06-25-2009, 06:53 AM

Fung discovered the stains on the machine were rust. LE didn't realize that Kato was going to say that OJ Simpson was wearing sweats that night so the significance of the sweats in the washer wasn't known at the time. Lange and Vannatter never said the sweats were sent out to be tested. They didn't use the picture because they were never able to recover the sweats.

No, it isn't possible that Kato sent LE on a wild goose chase. That is baseless speculation on your part.

TV,

I am only posting what I have read in two books. I do remember the news reports that spots on the washing machine that could have been blood was in fact rust.

However, the two books make it clear, the contents of the washing machine was examined and there was no blood found on any of the clothing in the washing machine.

Why did the police look into the washing machine in the first place? They had no idea what Simpson was wearing so it only makes sense they would take any contents of the washing machine and/or dryer as well as empty out his closet, his hampers, etc. I don't believe there was ever a list of items that was made public about what clothes were tested for blood.

You want to hang on to the sweat suit theory when it makes no logical sense for you to do so. I am sure blue-black cotton fibers are used to make make up many garments---why waste the fiber evidence on garments they could never prove?

You can't have Kato in OJ's camp when you want him and then have him in the DA's camp when you like what he has to say. So was Kato slanting his testimony toward Simpson?

If Kato was slanting his testimony, it would not have only been on his description of what "upset" means to him. IMO.

weezer

06-25-2009, 09:10 AM

TV,

Let me clear this up, Lange and VA in their book do not say the clothes in the washing machine were sweats, only that it reported that the rust found the clothes was turned into blood by the media. One would think that tests were done to determine if it was blood. there were no reports of rust found on clothing

However, I do question how rust could have formed so quickly on the clothes if they were examined less then 24 hours of being washed. there were no reports of rust found on clothing

I think Arnelle and the maid testified that Simpson did not own a sweat suit and I think Arnelle said the clothes in the washer were hers. there was testimony that orenthal did in fact keep the sweat suit from the workout filming. So, arnelle said the lingerie was hers, the laundry basket was her but denied the sweatsuit. Have you wondered why?

Just to be fair to your side, why wasn't Fung ever asked in court about the contents of the washing machine? Surely the DA's could have used him to float their theory that he was wearing a sweat suit that night? are you saying that Fung was not asked about the sweatsuit?

Kato was never positive on what Simpson wore. It was a sweat suit type outfit and it had white piping or a white zipper. I think Kato said it looked "really sharp". Sure he was: "Q: What was he wearing?

A: I remember it being a dark sweat outfit, kind of a sharp sweat--you know, dress kinda sweats.

Kato also said that he was wearing the same thing to the airport and he was wrong. :shrug:

Clark said it was in the hamper--yet again, she did not ask Fung about the contents of the hamper or the washer and if she did, I don't remember it. it makes me laugh that you make a definitive statement and then end it with ". . .and if she did, I don't remember it. ."

Fung was the witness who should have been the one to testify about the sweat suit. Doug Deedrick could only say the fibers came from the same piece of cloth---never did he say these fibers were consistent coming from a sweat suit.

there are three parts to the tale of the sweatsuit:

1. The fact that orenthal denied having/wearing a sweatsuit (contradicted by the lady who bought the dark sweatsuit for orenthal to wear in the exercise video and Kato's testimony and to what orenthal was wearing when they went to eat) and;

2. arnelle's testimony that the lingerie and laundry basket belonged to her but that she didn't do the wash and the maid's testimony that she didn't do arenelle's wash. and;

3. the disappearance of the dark sweatsuit. But the most important aspect -

4. it didn't matter where the fibers came from, what mattered and was proven was that the fibers found on the victims, at the crime scene, and at rockingham linked orenthal and his two victims on the night he butchered them.

weezer

06-25-2009, 09:25 AM

TV,

I am only posting what I have read in two books. I do remember the news reports that spots on the washing machine that could have been blood was in fact rust.

However, the two books make it clear, the contents of the washing machine was examined and there was no blood found on any of the clothing in the washing machine. 1. the clothing was 'freshly washed'

Why did the police look into the washing machine in the first place? wouldn't be the strangest place to find a hidden weapon? They had no idea what Simpson was wearing so it only makes sense they would take any contents of the washing machine and/or dryer as well as empty out his closet, his hampers, etc. LOL, so they're going to take women's lingerie? LOL. maybe our resident wannabe can explain to you that LE is not allowed to just take anything under the auspices of a search warrant. I don't believe there was ever a list of items that was made public about what clothes were tested for blood. sure there was

You want to hang on to the sweat suit theory when it makes no logical sense for you to do so. I am sure blue-black cotton fibers are used to make make up many garments---why waste the fiber evidence on garments they could never prove? the fiber evidence wasn't wasted -- most of us understand that if orenthal and Ron and Nicole all had the same fibers on them, they were in contact.

You can't have Kato in OJ's camp when you want him and then have him in the DA's camp when you like what he has to say. So was Kato slanting his testimony toward Simpson? Kato put Kato in orenthal's camp when he tried to not make orenthal mad by being less than forthcoming. Remember his testimony that orenthal tried to tell him what his testimony should be?

If Kato was slanting his testimony, it would not have only been on his description of what "upset" means to him. IMO.

Kato said that he was afraid -- that orenthal was calling and calling him and telling kato what to say.

martin II

06-25-2009, 10:01 AM

weezer

06-25-2009, 10:08 AM

i think kato said i think it was like a sweat suite WITH A WHITE ZIPPER DOWN THE FRONT.

With all that was going on you think oj should have been concerned about a sweat suite.Again there was absolutely no proof that a sweat suite was at oj when the last cop left the house.I think you know this.

you just seem to be taking the word of some cop weeks after the fact.

forget the sweatsuit -- think 'fibers' ;)

martin II

06-25-2009, 10:13 AM

There is no statement, proof or evidence that Phillips, Vannatter or Lange believed the glove was planted. I'm still waiting for those non-verbal indicators that they believed this.

Is this what you're calling a fool's errand? -- Testimony of Vannatter at the criminal trial -

BECAUSE WHAT I HAD SEEN ORIGINALLY AT BUNDY AND WHAT I HAD SEEN AT ROCKINGHAM, IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TYPE GLOVE, A LEFT AND A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE, MAN'S LEATHER GLOVE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS SEEING. I WANTED HIM TO GO BACK AND CONFIRM THAT THIS WAS A LEFT-HANDED MAN'S LEATHER GLOVE.

You are wrong about Vannatter saying that Fuhrman didn't tell him about the thumps. --

Q: HE DIDN'T TELL YOU TO TALK TO KATO?

A: HE ASKED ME TO SPEAK WITH HIM.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE WANTED YOU TO SPEAK TO KATO ABOUT?

A: BRIEFLY, YES.

Q: WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HE WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT?

A: HE SAID THAT KATO HAD HEARD SOME SOUNDS OUTSIDE OF HIS ROOM THAT HE THOUGHT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE AND HE WANTED ME TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT.

Vannatter didn't say that Mark Fuhrman didn't show him the blood on the Bronco -- he said he didn't recall him doing so --

Q: AND IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE DOOR, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO POINT OUT TO YOU, WOULD IT NOT?

A: HE MAY HAVE POINTED THEM OUT. I DON'T RECALL HIM DOING THAT

I'm going to stop now as this is turning into a major project. What is the evidence that Simpson is telling the truth about the blood in the Bronco? Something credible I mean. I'm too tired to wave at your people but tell them hello for me.

the job of identfying evidence is with the lab.Why did vanhatter call furhman from one crime scene to another. that is againt crime scene 101.

Also lang had fung to bring the glove to him at bundy and fung told him he did not like the idea.

martin II

06-25-2009, 10:16 AM

I don't have any links on it, but I thought he got burned about the shoe prints, and more or less admitted it by refusing to talk about it afterwards.

I thought his "something wrong" remark was an attempt to confuse the jury and the press. I would certainly be dissatisfied if I went to an expert, such as a doctor and he told me "something wrong here, this should not be, all I can say is something wrong".

How about some interpetation? I think he wanted the jury to disregard the blood evidence without actually saying that. If we look at both his testimony for the criminal and civil trial (actually desposition for the civil tria) he never said that the evidence was either tampered with or unreliable because of "something wrong". If the evidence is unreliable, why not say so and explain why? IF it is reliable then why not say that?

Also at one point Henry Lee answered a quesiton about the sock evidence, about how the blood soaked through. The prosecution gave an exlanation and Henry Lee replied "probably not likely". The DNA lawyer, Scheck quoted this as "Highly unlikely". Not the same. Something wrong here with Barry Scheck.
Something wrong with people who take Scheck and Lee seriously.

When the civil trial lawyer interviewed Mr. Lee for a desposition, Mr. Lee claimed he was an independent expert, with no connection to Simpson. ANd yet he had Scheck as a legal advisor. Scheck was working for SImpson in the cirminal trial, and was at that time working for SImpson in the civil trial. For Henry Lee to claim he wasn't an advocate for Simpson, that he was an independent expert, that is unethical. If he was independent, he would have gotten a different lawyer.

During the criminal trial, Scheack and Henry Lee worked for weeks on deciding how to word Henry Lee's testimony. As far as I know he put no time at all in with the prosecutors on how to word the testimony.

This would be an interesting case to ask an outside observer to pass judgement on it, about whether Lee could be considered an independent expert. I think an outside observer would say "Something wrong here. Henry Lee is unreliable".

The something wrong comment was a result of Lee answering questions on the wet transfer issue.Guess what SOMETHING WAS WRONG.

martin II

06-25-2009, 10:29 AM

I don't have any links on it, but I thought he got burned about the shoe prints, and more or less admitted it by refusing to talk about it afterwards.

I thought his "something wrong" remark was an attempt to confuse the jury and the press. I would certainly be dissatisfied if I went to an expert, such as a doctor and he told me "something wrong here, this should not be, all I can say is something wrong".

How about some interpetation? I think he wanted the jury to disregard the blood evidence without actually saying that. If we look at both his testimony for the criminal and civil trial (actually desposition for the civil tria) he never said that the evidence was either tampered with or unreliable because of "something wrong". If the evidence is unreliable, why not say so and explain why? IF it is reliable then why not say that?

Also at one point Henry Lee answered a quesiton about the sock evidence, about how the blood soaked through. The prosecution gave an exlanation and Henry Lee replied "probably not likely". The DNA lawyer, Scheck quoted this as "Highly unlikely". Not the same. Something wrong here with Barry Scheck.
Something wrong with people who take Scheck and Lee seriously.

When the civil trial lawyer interviewed Mr. Lee for a desposition, Mr. Lee claimed he was an independent expert, with no connection to Simpson. ANd yet he had Scheck as a legal advisor. Scheck was working for SImpson in the cirminal trial, and was at that time working for SImpson in the civil trial. For Henry Lee to claim he wasn't an advocate for Simpson, that he was an independent expert, that is unethical. If he was independent, he would have gotten a different lawyer.

During the criminal trial, Scheack and Henry Lee worked for weeks on deciding how to word Henry Lee's testimony. As far as I know he put no time at all in with the prosecutors on how to word the testimony.

This would be an interesting case to ask an outside observer to pass judgement on it, about whether Lee could be considered an independent expert. I think an outside observer would say "Something wrong here. Henry Lee is unreliable".

lee was hired by the defence why would he discuss his testimony with the prosecution.
no FBI expert went over their testimony with the defence.
but i think each side can interview all witnesses.

Both Scheck and Lee have excellant reputations with their peers. Constantly claiming they were incompetant is wearing thin as it is not accurate.imo

martin II

06-25-2009, 10:39 AM

What do you mean 'say what to who'? A video was made of the way the house looked after the police were finished. Why didn't they ask what happened to the clothing they had in the washer if someone took them?

You really hate cops don't you?

tv
the policy of videotaping the houses was the results of previous searches where people complained of missing items when cops left.

i think oj had many other issues to deal with than a sweat suite. he may have had many others in his closet.
Again there is no proof that a sweat was left when the last cop left the house and i think you know this.

martin II

06-25-2009, 10:45 AM

I realize that police labs need procedures to make the results valid. I don't know what procedures the LAPD lab had or should have had. But they aren't going to have a different lab or room for each case, and the fact that as far as I know the Simpson case blood didn't get into other cases, and blood from other cases didn't get into the Simpson case.

The fact that the blood work at the crime scene came accross as logically consistent and had no blood from outside cases would seem to me to be strong evidence that there was little cross contamination.

It is not necessary to have a seperate room to prevent contamination.but it does require that evidence from one case is never near another case. i think the lab had more than one set of examiners.

martin II

06-25-2009, 10:54 AM

I realize that police labs need procedures to make the results valid. I don't know what procedures the LAPD lab had or should have had. But they aren't going to have a different lab or room for each case, and the fact that as far as I know the Simpson case blood didn't get into other cases, and blood from other cases didn't get into the Simpson case.

The fact that the blood work at the crime scene came accross as logically consistent and had no blood from outside cases would seem to me to be strong evidence that there was little cross contamination.

At the time of the oj case, the lapd was not operating to any national standards. i assume there were written protocols but in many instances they did not follow their own.

weezer

06-25-2009, 11:03 AM

At the time of the oj case, the lapd was not operating to any national standards. i assume there were written protocols but in many instances they did not follow their own.

and there still was no evidence of cross contamination. ;)

weezer

06-25-2009, 11:05 AM

The something wrong comment was a result of Lee answering questions on the wet transfer issue.Guess what SOMETHING WAS WRONG.

Dr. Lee testified that he never intended to insinuate that there was 'something wrong' with the results only that there was something wrong with the process the lab was using that allowed wet samples to be put up.

weezer

06-25-2009, 11:07 AM

lee was hired by the defence why would he discuss his testimony with the prosecution.
no FBI expert went over their testimony with the defence.
but i think each side can interview all witnesses.

Both Scheck and Lee have excellant reputations with their peers. Constantly claiming they were incompetant is wearing thin as it is not accurate.imo

scheck proved himself to be for sale to the highest bidder and lee proved himself not only to be for sale but to be incompetent.

weezer

06-25-2009, 11:09 AM

tv
the policy of videotaping the houses was the results of previous searches where people complained of missing items when cops left.

i think oj had many other issues to deal with than a sweat suite. he may have had many others in his closet.
Again there is no proof that a sweat was left when the last cop left the house and i think you know this.

I thought you were taking the maid's and arnelle's word that orenthal didn't own any sweatsuits. :eek:

so you're thinking a cop had a plastic sandwich baggie in his sock that he whipped out and put the wet sweatsuit in? :eek:

06-25-2009, 11:19 AM

tv
the policy of videotaping the houses was the results of previous searches where people complained of missing items when cops left.

i think oj had many other issues to deal with than a sweat suite. he may have had many others in his closet.
Again there is no proof that a sweat was left when the last cop left the house and i think you know this.

Video isn't taken only for that reason. It's also taken because people lie about LE taking items and also to prove there was no damage to the house. Why would someone take a pair of soggy sweats that held no significance but leave a large sum of money in his closet? There's no proof that they didn't take the drain cleaner under the kitchen sink either...so what?

06-25-2009, 11:20 AM

I thought you were taking the maid's and arnelle's word that orenthal didn't own any sweatsuits. :eek:

so you're thinking a cop had a plastic sandwich baggie in his sock that he whipped out and put the wet sweatsuit in? :eek:

LOL, we're suppposed to believe that someone like OJ Simpson who was into sports and physical activity didn't own any sweats? Riiiight.

06-25-2009, 11:22 AM

06-25-2009, 11:27 AM

the job of identfying evidence is with the lab.Why did vanhatter call furhman from one crime scene to another. that is againt crime scene 101.

Also lang had fung to bring the glove to him at bundy and fung told him he did not like the idea.

I don't know why you keep asking why Vannatter sent Mark Fuhrman from one crime scene to another. He gave testimony, which I posted, that gives his reason. I'm not in the habit of mindreading like some people on this forum -- I prefer to stay with the testimony when possible.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 12:17 PM

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

bobaugust

I never saw a photo like that, only one that was allegedly taken on the night of the murders. :)

martin II

06-25-2009, 12:29 PM

That kind of blows GreenIce's statement out of the water that Kato was vague about what Simpso
n was wearing that evening.
not true.
kato was vague and misrepresented the evidence.there was never any sweat in this case that had a white zipper on the front panel.

weezer

06-25-2009, 12:32 PM

not true.
kato was vague and misrepresented the evidence.there was never any sweat in this case that had a white zipper on the front panel.

forget whether or not the dark sweats that Kato testified orenthal was wearing that night (and photos taken of) had a white zipper -- think fibers! ;)

weezer

06-25-2009, 12:34 PM

I never saw a photo like that, only one that was allegedly taken on the night of the murders. :)

really? that may be because you have refused to look at all of the evidence. Seems your pursuit of justice ended with the criminal trial. :shrug:

martin II

06-25-2009, 12:50 PM

I don't know why you keep asking why Vannatter sent Mark Fuhrman from one crime scene to another. He gave testimony, which I posted, that gives his reason. I'm not in the habit of mindreading like some people on this forum -- I prefer to stay with the testimony when possible.

crime scene rules state that a person or evidence should not go from one crime scene to another. contimination is the issue.but le did not seem to care.

Vanhatter brought ojs blood to the rockingham crime scene.Furhman came from one scene and stood over the bloody glove at bundy.lang had fung bring a glove from ropckingham to bundy.

this is against anticontimination rules.101
the gloves should have been compared in the lab under control situation.

martin II

06-25-2009, 01:02 PM

The prosecution found some fibers but had no sweat suite to compare them to. so the fibers were just some fibers that proved nothing.

bobaugust

06-25-2009, 01:11 PM

I never saw a photo like that, only one that was allegedly taken on the night of the murders. :)

I do not recall any photograph taken the night of the murders. What was photographed and who took it?

The crime scene photograph taken at Bundy by Rokahr that was a perspective shot showing a blood stain on bottom of the rear gate was taken the morning of June 13, hours before Simpson returned from Chicago. That photograph proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

weezer

06-25-2009, 01:15 PM

The prosecution found some fibers but had no sweat suite to compare them to. so the fibers were just some fibers that proved nothing.

hmmm -- the fact that the fibers found on and around the victims and on and around orenthal prove that the night Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were murdered, orenthal james simpson was in physical contact with them. ;)

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 01:50 PM

I do not recall any photograph taken the night of the murders. What was photographed and who took it?

The crime scene photograph taken at Bundy by Rokahr that was a perspective shot showing a blood stain on bottom of the rear gate was taken the morning of June 13, hours before Simpson returned from Chicago. That photograph proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

Perhaps, you are unlike most of America, who refer to the early morning hours as the night before or the hours before day break , if you will. However, just because you do not comprehend it does not make it so.:)

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 01:56 PM

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.

Excellent post. It seems the other poser forgets that Park did not change his molded testimony until after he talked with Petro in the socio political production.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:03 PM

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.

I do see something that supports an inference but nothing stated as a fact as you have claimed. :);):cool:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:07 PM

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:08 PM

let me help you
Ms Bell and her friend went to the bar for a drink. Furhman and another woman was sitting at a booth before they arrived. . Bell and her friend decided to leave and her friend either spoke to furhman or started to. Bell had walked to the door.

One of Bells roomates had invited furhman and his partner to the apartment.They were in that lkiving room when furhman started doing his racist rant.Bell walked out. a few days later looking out of her window bell saw furhman getting out of his car heading for the apartment. She yelled out the window that he was not allowed to come to the apartment. furhman left.
see Bells testimony.

I think you are speaking of Ms. Singer and her roommate.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:11 PM

LMAO --- if the definition of sophistication has changed to a jury of almost all blacks being unable to admit that one of their was going be dethroned from a respected celebrity status then yeeeessssss they sure were sophisticated!

This has nothing to do with "a jury of almost all blacks being unable to admit that one of their was going to be dethroned". It has do do with a jury of almost all Blacks being able to understand their duty and fulfilling said duty, according to the instructions given them, meaning sophistication. :);):cool:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:15 PM

IIRC, after MF opened his mouth was when the sophisticated Ms. Bell, decided she no longer wanted him to meet her friend.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:18 PM

The sophisticated jury did not bury their heads in the sand and have their toes pointing to the sky.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:21 PM

There is no evidence that le left them at ojs house.That is for sure.LE was the last people known to have them. say what to who.cops steal you know.

Here we go with a subversion of the burden of proof. When all else fails say what the defense did not prove and forget that they were required to prove nothing. :);):cool:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:26 PM

Some of the things that NGs and the 1995 defense team came up with don't even qualify as chicken s**t, more like maybe insect droppings. I realize many people take it seriously that some detective thought they handed blood to Fung when the actually handed it to the assistant (Mazzoli). I don't think that is worth talkin about. I know this has been argued before. This is the sort of thing that doesn't matter to me. I think that GI posted that it was important because chain of custody is important. I think it would be only relevant if Mazzoli was regarded as a security risk. I know that much of the media and I think even Bugliosi took this seriously. I don't, except that it shows that the defense was grasping at straws.

Simpson had to be ruminating a lot about the last months of Nicole's life. Nobody had much reason to ruminate about how the glove was discovered or who recieved the blood sample from the detective. Fung getting confused about which work he did and which work Mazzoli did is another thing that I see as unimportant. If he had confidence in Mazzoli, that would be easy to confuse.

Chain of evidence is necessary to establish trustworthiness in the evidence. You may not see it as important unless Mazzola was a security risk but the law does. We are not required to have confidence in Mazzola because DF did, but it seems that you do . :);):cool:

06-25-2009, 02:28 PM

The sophisticated jury did not bury their heads in the sand and have their toes pointing to the sky.

That might be anatomically impossible.

06-25-2009, 02:32 PM

The prosecution found some fibers but had no sweat suite to compare them to. so the fibers were just some fibers that proved nothing.

Of course they had no sweat suit to compare them to -- OJ Simpson or one of his accomplices made sure of that. I'm curious about something -- you seem to be contradicting yourself -- if LAPD removed the sweats as you claim why wasn't there a sweat suit to compare the fibers with?

06-25-2009, 02:33 PM

Here we go with a subversion of the burden of proof. When all else fails say what the defense did not prove and forget that they were required to prove nothing. :);):cool:

Exactly! They threw out wild theories 'without any factual support' and baseless speculation and the jury sucked it all up like sponges.

06-25-2009, 02:35 PM

crime scene rules state that a person or evidence should not go from one crime scene to another. contimination is the issue.but le did not seem to care.

Vanhatter brought ojs blood to the rockingham crime scene.Furhman came from one scene and stood over the bloody glove at bundy.lang had fung bring a glove from ropckingham to bundy.

this is against anticontimination rules.101
the gloves should have been compared in the lab under control situation.

Anticontamination rules 101 -- when did you attend this class?

The Boys

06-25-2009, 02:36 PM

Quotes from Alan Dershowitz:

"I think the prosecution did have a very strong, winnable case without planting evidence"

"The prosecution wanted a black jury to convict a prominent black man. And they made a terrible blunder by allowing eight black women to serve on the jury"

"Every day I thought about did he do it or didn't he do it. Any human being has private thoughts. I closely identified with the victims in the case. I closely identify with a battered woman. I closely identified with a Jewish man. I identified with the parents, with the families. I constantly asked myself, "Did he do it?" And I constantly asked myself, "Am I on the right side of this case?"

"We wanted to see a trial of the prosecutors, of the police, of the labs, not O.J. Simpson".

:eek:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:37 PM

Exactly! They threw out wild theories 'without any factual support' and baseless speculation and the jury sucked it all up like sponges.

The defense, who weren't called the dream team for nothing, illustrated that there were enough problems with the prosecution's alleged moutain of evidence to show it could not be trusted, thereby raising reasonable doubt, which that sophisticated jury understood as evidenced by the verdict.:);):cool:

The Boys

06-25-2009, 02:39 PM

IIRC, after MF opened his mouth was when the sophisticated Ms. Bell, decided she no longer wanted him to meet her friend.

Ah no, the first time the lying Bell claims she encountered Fuhrman was at the recruiting station when she says he offended her so much she fled. Then she ends up with her friend joining him for drinks at some bar.

I personally think she had a thing for him.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:46 PM

Ah no, the first time the lying Bell claims she encountered Fuhrman was at the recruiting station when she says he offended her so much she fled. Then she ends up with her friend joining him for drinks at some bar.

I personally think she had a thing for him.

I think that you have your facts very much askew and should reread Ms. Bell's testimony about the lying racist genocidally despicably reprehensibly demonically speaking MF.

I think she had a thing for him to which was what she should have had, disgust.

06-25-2009, 02:50 PM

Ah no, the first time the lying Bell claims she encountered Fuhrman was at the recruiting station when she says he offended her so much she fled. Then she ends up with her friend joining him for drinks at some bar.

I personally think she had a thing for him.

Yep, that's what I think too. When he didn't give her the time of day she decided to get even. As William is always saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:50 PM

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 02:52 PM

Yep, that's what I think too. When he didn't give her the time of day she decided to get even. As William is always saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.

Who am I to argue against a woman making this argument who may have had some experience in the area. I will simply say that, even if she was scorned, her testimony was not refuted and collaborated by others as to MF's vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic statements.

06-25-2009, 02:55 PM

The defense, who weren't called the dream team for nothing, illustrated that there were enough problems with the prosecution's alleged moutain of evidence to show it could not be trusted, thereby raising reasonable doubt, which that sophisticated jury understood as evidenced by the verdict.:);):cool:

If you think they were the dream team you don't have very high standards. If you call devious and dirty the hallmarks of a dream team so be it. They knew if they threw out something for the jury to hang onto they would -- it worked!

06-25-2009, 02:57 PM

Who am I to argue against a woman making this argument who may have had some experience in the area. I will simply say that, even if she was scorned, her testimony was not refuted and collaborated by others as to MF's vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic statements.

I'm getting tired of your slimey veiled references to my character and the character of other women on this forum that don't agree with you. Why don't you man up and stop it?

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:00 PM

I'm getting tired of your slimey veiled references to my character and the character of other women on this forum that don't agree with you. Why don't you man up and stop it?

I think you should follow your own advice and just not post to me when things you think I said upset you. Is this not what you said in reference to the character of Ms. Bell?

As William is always saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.

It really does not look good when the pot calls the kettle black, IMHO.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:03 PM

If you think they were the dream team you don't have very high standards. If you call devious and dirty the hallmarks of a dream team so be it. They knew if they threw out something for the jury to hang onto they would -- it worked!

Hang on to all the evidence of sloppy evidence handling, collection, storage techniques, evidence of contamination and cross contamination, evidence of evidence planting, evidence of improper amounts of EDTA, evidence of gloves that did not fit as well as a time line that did not.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:04 PM

I'm getting tired of your slimey veiled references to my character and the character of other women on this forum that don't agree with you. Why don't you man up and stop it?

I would think you would have been upset with MF's characterization of women. :);):cool:

06-25-2009, 03:08 PM

I would think you would have been upset with MF's characterization of women. :);):cool:
Unlike you I don't spend every waking moment thinking about Mark Fuhrman.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:09 PM

Ah no, the first time the lying Bell claims she encountered Fuhrman was at the recruiting station when she says he offended her so much she fled. Then she ends up with her friend joining him for drinks at some bar.

I personally think she had a thing for him.

"MR. BAILEY: All right. Had you at that time any special reason for wanting to meet Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: I thought that he would be interested in meeting my girlfriend Andrea Terry.

MR. BAILEY: What is there about Andrea Terry that you thought might match up well with Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: She is six feet tall and really beautiful and I thought that--she liked tall men and so I thought that she might want to meet him as well.

MR. BAILEY: All right. How did you introduce yourself to Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: Umm, I just said hello and the Marines actually introduced me and I don't remember the first kind of shooting the breeze kind of first part of the conversation. It was just very mild and I was talking about Andrea. I began talking about Andrea.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What did you tell him about Andrea Terry?

MS. BELL: I said that I have a girlfriend--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: Did you tell Mr. Fuhrman something about a girl named Andrea Terry, without saying precisely what it was?

MS. BELL: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: All right. In the course of giving him that information did you mention the name of anyone who is a public figure?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What was that name?

MR. DARDEN: Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: Marcus Allen.

MR. BAILEY: What happened when you mentioned the name Marcus Allen to Mark Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: His demeanor changed and his attitude toward me changed.

MR. BAILEY: And what, if anything, did he say?

MS. BELL: He said that if--when he sees a black man with a white woman driving in a car he pulls them over.

MR. BAILEY: And what did you say?

MS. BELL: I was taken back a little bit and so I kind of paused and I looked at the Marines and I just said, "Well, what if they didn't do anything wrong?"

MR. BAILEY: What did he say?

MS. BELL: He said he would find something.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And did you talk any further about that hypothetical of a black man riding with a white woman being pulled over?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What else was said?

MS. BELL: I asked, "What if they are in love?"

MR. BAILEY: And what did he say to that?

MS. BELL: He said, "That is disgusting."

MR. BAILEY: The fact that a black man might be in love with a white woman was disgusting?

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

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: What was he referring to in your understanding when he used the word "Disgusting"?

MS. BELL: That I said--I asked him what if they were in love and I think the idea of them being in love was disgusting to him.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, objection to strike, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: After the word "Disgusting" was uttered, what was next said by either of you?

MS. BELL: Well, again I looked at the Marines because I had spoken to them before and they didn't seem to be mean people, and so I was waiting for some kind of reaction from them, and then, umm, I just was kind of--I just kind of paused and then he said, "If I had my way I would gather"--"All the ni**ers would be gathered together and burned."

MR. BAILEY: All right. And what was your reaction when he told you that he would gather the ni**ers all together and burn them?

MS. BELL: Umm, I'm sorry, I didn't--I thought that that was--nobody ever said that to me before. I heard the "N" word before, but nobody ever said something like that to me before."

Sounds like love at first sight to me. :);):cool:

06-25-2009, 03:10 PM

Hang on to all the evidence of sloppy evidence handling, collection, storage techniques, evidence of contamination and cross contamination, evidence of evidence planting, evidence of improper amounts of EDTA, evidence of gloves that did not fit as well as a time line that did not.

Most of this is gross exaggeration if not downright false.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:10 PM

Unlike you I don't spend every waking moment thinking about Mark Fuhrman.

How about mine, as you seem prone to so quickly try to find fault? :);)

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:11 PM

Most of this is gross exaggeration if not downright false.

So saith the nurse. Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, at least as to where you are concerned.:)

06-25-2009, 03:14 PM

"MR. BAILEY: All right. Had you at that time any special reason for wanting to meet Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: I thought that he would be interested in meeting my girlfriend Andrea Terry.

MR. BAILEY: What is there about Andrea Terry that you thought might match up well with Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: She is six feet tall and really beautiful and I thought that--she liked tall men and so I thought that she might want to meet him as well.

MR. BAILEY: All right. How did you introduce yourself to Mr. Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: Umm, I just said hello and the Marines actually introduced me and I don't remember the first kind of shooting the breeze kind of first part of the conversation. It was just very mild and I was talking about Andrea. I began talking about Andrea.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What did you tell him about Andrea Terry?

MS. BELL: I said that I have a girlfriend--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: Did you tell Mr. Fuhrman something about a girl named Andrea Terry, without saying precisely what it was?

MS. BELL: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: All right. In the course of giving him that information did you mention the name of anyone who is a public figure?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What was that name?

MR. DARDEN: Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: Marcus Allen.

MR. BAILEY: What happened when you mentioned the name Marcus Allen to Mark Fuhrman?

MS. BELL: His demeanor changed and his attitude toward me changed.

MR. BAILEY: And what, if anything, did he say?

MS. BELL: He said that if--when he sees a black man with a white woman driving in a car he pulls them over.

MR. BAILEY: And what did you say?

MS. BELL: I was taken back a little bit and so I kind of paused and I looked at the Marines and I just said, "Well, what if they didn't do anything wrong?"

MR. BAILEY: What did he say?

MS. BELL: He said he would find something.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And did you talk any further about that hypothetical of a black man riding with a white woman being pulled over?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What else was said?

MS. BELL: I asked, "What if they are in love?"

MR. BAILEY: And what did he say to that?

MS. BELL: He said, "That is disgusting."

MR. BAILEY: The fact that a black man might be in love with a white woman was disgusting?

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

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: What was he referring to in your understanding when he used the word "Disgusting"?

MS. BELL: That I said--I asked him what if they were in love and I think the idea of them being in love was disgusting to him.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, objection to strike, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: After the word "Disgusting" was uttered, what was next said by either of you?

MS. BELL: Well, again I looked at the Marines because I had spoken to them before and they didn't seem to be mean people, and so I was waiting for some kind of reaction from them, and then, umm, I just was kind of--I just kind of paused and then he said, "If I had my way I would gather"--"All the ni**ers would be gathered together and burned."

MR. BAILEY: All right. And what was your reaction when he told you that he would gather the ni**ers all together and burn them?

MS. BELL: Umm, I'm sorry, I didn't--I thought that that was--nobody ever said that to me before. I heard the "N" word before, but nobody ever said something like that to me before."

Sounds like love at first sight to me. :);):cool:

When was the last time you saw someone cry and flee when they heard a racial slur? Haha, Bell is a big liar. What was she doing hanging around with the marines? Did she work there? I find the name Marcus Allen coming up interesting. Very convenient that it was someone connected to OJ Simpson.

martin II

06-25-2009, 03:15 PM

06-25-2009, 03:20 PM

So saith the nurse. Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, at least as to where you are concerned.:)

What does my being a nurse have to do with anything I've said? I don't beat people over the head with what I may or may not know due to my training. I'm sure you understand. Lighthearted banter? I'm not sure it exists on the forum between opposing views these days.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:25 PM

What does my being a nurse have to do with anything I've said? I don't beat people over the head with what I may or may not know due to my training. I'm sure you understand. Lighthearted banter? I'm not sure it exists on the forum between opposing views these days.

Your nurse training would provide valuable insight on some aspects of some cases and I would never try to say that you are wrong, simply because I believe you are wrong and try to challenge your education in health care. That is what my post has to do with this post of yours and posts of some of our other posters.

Most of this is gross exaggeration if not downright false.

:);):cool:

06-25-2009, 03:28 PM

i think they removed and tested the sweats and found that they did not natch the fiberr so they made up the lie that they left them or some cop just stole them for himself.

but you cannot say they were there when the last cop left. that is for sure.
you just want to pretend they were left there so as to point a finger at oj but you know you have no proof.imo

You can't prove all the spoons were still there but it doesn't mean anyone took them.

If they tested the sweats and they didn't match the fibers they would have said that. They would have been no worse off then not being able to introduce the sweats at all because they were missing.

I'm not pretending they were there. There is a picture to prove that they were there and no one in the household ever reported them missing. You come up with any theory except what really happened. OJ Simpson made sure they were washed and then got rid of them because he knew that Kato was going to say he was wearing sweats. What cop would take a pair of soggy sweats for himself when there were so many other things in the house he could take if he wanted a souvenier?

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:29 PM

When was the last time you saw someone cry and flee when they heard a racial slur? Haha, Bell is a big liar. What was she doing hanging around with the marines? Did she work there? I find the name Marcus Allen coming up interesting. Very convenient that it was someone connected to OJ Simpson.

Perhaps, where you hail from, people do not get upset over racial slurs but I don't think that is true when you challenged me, even though I did not realize and did not use a racial slur but used a word that came close to a slur. Please, post a link where she was hanging around with marines. What are you saying about the character of women who marry marines :);):cool:?

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:31 PM

06-25-2009, 03:32 PM

I think you should follow your own advice and just not post to me when things you think I said upset you. Is this not what you said in reference to the character of Ms. Bell?

It really does not look good when the pot calls the kettle black, IMHO.

This is why I don't engage in lighthearted banter with you. Your nasty side always rears it's ugly head.

06-25-2009, 03:34 PM

Ah, I think someone has fallen into the trap. How did they know the sweat suit was soggy? :)

Uh...because it was in the washer and had been washed?

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:35 PM

This is why I don't engage in lighthearted banter with you. Your nasty side always rears it's ugly head.

I did not mean to be nasty or snide and did not feel like being attacked when I posted that you have made comments similar to the comments of mine that you attacked, which is what I meant about the pot calling the kettle black, :), so don't get upset where you need not be, :).

06-25-2009, 03:36 PM

Perhaps, where you hail from, people do not get upset over racial slurs but I don't think that is true when you challenged me, even though I did not realize and did not use a racial slur but used a word that came close to a slur. Please, post a link where she was hanging around with marines. What are you saying about the character of women who marry marines :);):cool:?

I don't know what all this is but I think I'll ignore it. I asked why she was there. If you don't know the answer just say so.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:37 PM

Uh...because it was in the washer and had been washed?

Ah, but who knew that it had not dried, only LE and the person who absconded with it as that information was not made public.:)

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:38 PM

I don't know what all this is but I think I'll ignore it. I asked why she was there. If you don't know the answer just say so.

You did not ask why she was there. You asked what she was doing hanging out with marines. If you don't know why she was there, how can you say she was scorned?:)

06-25-2009, 03:41 PM

I did not mean to be nasty or snide and did not feel like being attacked when I posted that you have made comments similar to the comments of mine that you attacked, which is what I meant about the pot calling the kettle black, :), so don't get upset where you need not be, :).

You're mistaken if you think I'm upset. :shrug:

06-25-2009, 03:43 PM

You did not ask why she was there. You asked what she was doing hanging out with marines. If you don't know why she was there, how can you say she was scorned?:)

What does why she was there have anything to do with her having a thing for Mark Fuhrman? Talk about leaps of logic. :eek:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:47 PM

You're mistaken if you think I'm upset. :shrug:

I stand corrected and add that, if this is an example of when you are clam

This is why I don't engage in lighthearted banter with you. Your nasty side always rears it's ugly head.,

I hate to see you when you are upset.:);):cool:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:48 PM

What does why she was there have anything to do with her having a thing for Mark Fuhrman? Talk about leaps of logic. :eek:

I don't know. So, why did you ask why she was hanging out with marines?:);):cool: Where you just being nasty and snide toward Ms. Bell?

06-25-2009, 03:49 PM

Ah, but who knew that it had not dried, only LE and the person who absconded with it as that information was not made public.:)

The sweats were last seen by LE when they were photographed after being washed. If you have EVIDENCE or PROOF otherwise please share it with us.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:52 PM

The sweats were last seen by LE when they were photographed after being washed. If you have EVIDENCE or PROOF otherwise please share it with us.

You provided the evidence when you posted they were soggy. That is a fact not known by the public and unless you are LE, you must be the one with the sweat suit. :)

06-25-2009, 03:52 PM

I don't know. So, why did you ask why she was hanging out with marines?:);):cool: Where you just being nasty and snide toward Ms. Bell?

I'm mildly curious why she was there. Did she work there or in the building? Did she have a friend who was a recruiter? Was she looking to meet men? I don't have to be snide -- I'll just come right out and say I think she's a big liar.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 03:55 PM

I'm mildly curious why she was there. Did she work there or in the building? Did she have a friend who was a recruiter? Was she looking to meet men? I don't have to be snide -- I'll just come right out and say I think she's a big liar.

If you do not know why she was there, how can you think that she is a big liar or a woman scorned? Is it because she testified against some of America's hero, MF, and brought his statements about hating interracial couples to the forefront?

06-25-2009, 03:59 PM

You provided the evidence when you posted they were soggy. That is a fact not known by the public and unless you are LE, you must be the one with the sweat suit. :)

You're right William. I have the sweats. Why else would I think that sweats in a washer that have been through the wash cycle would be wet? I've been trying to contact Mike Gilbert to see if he can find a buyer for me. I wonder if Bruce Fromong would be interested?

06-25-2009, 04:00 PM

If you do not know why she was there, how can you think that she is a big liar or a woman scorned? Is it because she testified against some of America's hero, MF, and brought his statements about hating interracial couples to the forefront?

You stopped making sense many posts ago. :seeya:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 04:01 PM

You're right William. I have the sweats. Why else would I think that sweats in a washer that have been through the wash cycle would be wet? I've been trying to contact Mike Gilbert to see if he can find a buyer for me. I wonder if Bruce Fromong would be interested?

Just as I suspected. :)

06-25-2009, 04:02 PM

I stand corrected and add that, if this is an example of when you are clam

,

I hate to see you when you are upset.:);):cool:

You hate to see me at all but I can fix that. Bye. :seeya:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 04:05 PM

You stopped making sense many posts ago. :seeya:

I was only responding to your posts as to your question as to why she was there, when you opined that she was a "big liar or may have been a woman scorned" and now you say it is irrelevant as to why she was there, because you say it requires a leap in logic to say she was attracted to MF. I thought so too and was glad to hear you say it so I would not appear snide and/or nasty.:);):cool:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 04:06 PM

You hate to see me at all but I can fix that. Bye. :seeya:

I did not meant to expose you and I think the statute of limitations has expired. :)

weezer

06-25-2009, 04:19 PM

weezer

06-25-2009, 04:32 PM

I'm mildly curious why she was there. Did she work there or in the building? Did she have a friend who was a recruiter? Was she looking to meet men? I don't have to be snide -- I'll just come right out and say I think she's a big liar.

IIRC, she had an office either next door or above the recruiting station -- not sure why that would require her to be hanging around with the marines. I thought it was very odd that when she and her friend ran into Fuhrman at the bar (him with another woman) -- she 'confided' in her friend what she claims Fuhrman had said earlier. Of course, she'd never mentioned it to anyone else or her friend until that moment and the marines at the recruiting station didn't hear it. And then, she wasn't the one to say anything, it was the friend? The one who didn't know Fuhrman. The friend stopped by his table and gave him a talking to about his language -- language she never heard him say. riiiight. . . .:rolleyes:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 04:50 PM

I think all of us have friends we trust not to lie to us, unless we have friends of the type as MF, and, therefore, are willing to act on their representations. I do not think all of us are quick to make character assassinations, because a woman works around the marines, and has a conversation with men. I do not think that many of us would believe what was said about MF, if there had been just one witness and no tapes. However, some will discredit the witnesses, event though they heard MF's voice on the tapes making the statements he made.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 04:55 PM

I do not recall that testimony. Please post it again or post the message number where you say you posted it.

bobaugust

You don't know whether it was this bag or any other bag, do you?

MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates his testimony.

THE COURT: You may answer.

MR. BAKER: I'm asking a question.

THE COURT: Do you know whether it was this bag?

THE WITNESS: That's not the bag I saw.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Not the bag you saw.

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

A. Five feet, ten feet.

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

A. That's correct.

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

A. Yes, he did.

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

weezer

06-25-2009, 04:57 PM

Simply wondering why some are so quick and so willing to accept unsupported statements. As far as Fuhrman's statements on the screenplay tapes, I've read worse in books and certainly seen/heard worse at the movies.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 04:57 PM

Henry Lee was a good speaker for the defense. He helped them win the case. But his testimony lacked credibility.

His biggest and worst mistake was in saying he had found footprints that belonged to one of the killers, when these were actually old impressions in the cement. One was an old footprint in the cement, a few others were trowel marks. People have defended these mistakes by saying that he was looking at photographs of the crime scene, and that is why he couldn't tell the difference between a crime scene footprint and an old mark in the cement.

That makes a little sense; but if Henry Lee had thought he had found evidence that the prosecution overlooked, I think he should have taken this to the prosecution. I don't know if any criminologist ethical rules encourage or require this, but I think they should. Most people know that the more time passes, the harder it is to catch a criminal. I think Mr. Lee was more interested in helping SImpson beat the rap than in obtaining justice.

I think Mr. Lee didn't take this (false) foot print information to the prosecution (Fung) because if the had the prosecution would have done one of two things: (1) explained to Mr. Lee that he was mistaken or (2) done a better job of embarrassing Mr. Lee in the criminal trial.

I am pretty sure that after the criminal trial Henry Lee has refused to talk about the footprints. I take this to be his way of admitting that he goofed.

I guess the jury found Dr. Henry Lee to be credible and I see you did not respond to how Thompson portrayed MF.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 05:00 PM

weezer

06-25-2009, 05:07 PM

No one is denying that some of the posters here have heard and read worse racial statements than MF uttered. :). The only witness in the trial, who was convicted of lying under oath, was MF. :);):cool:

Heck, I've read worse right here on this board!

Now don't forget that the defense was sanctioned for lying and playing hide and seek with evidence/testimony.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 05:13 PM

LE which is part of the prosecution was admonished for lying but MF was the only one convicted of criminal lying. :)

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 05:19 PM

Heck, I've read worse right here on this board!

Now don't forget that the defense was sanctioned for lying and playing hide and seek with evidence/testimony.

"Heck, I've read worse right here on this board!" I'll bet you have.

GreenIce

06-25-2009, 05:30 PM

Of course they had no sweat suit to compare them to -- OJ Simpson or one of his accomplices made sure of that. I'm curious about something -- you seem to be contradicting yourself -- if LAPD removed the sweats as you claim why wasn't there a sweat suit to compare the fibers with?

TV,

In all honesty, you have fallen into the DA's trap by believing that those fibers found only could have come from a sweat suit. However, there was no testimony comparing the fibers to any type of cloth or garments. Doug Deedrick was very careful to say that be believed they came from the some cloth, but never did he say it was a sweat suit.

While much talk has been made of the expensive and rare items Simpson allegedly wore, are we to believe that if he wore a sweat suit, it would be just as rare or expensive or did the fibers match a cheap sweat suit bought at K-Mart or Wal-Mart.

Kato was vague and he always said that what he thought Simpson was wearing. IMO, Kato did his best to remember and he testified to what he thought Simpson was wearing. However, allegedly according to the DA's theory, Dennis Fung actually picked up the "sweats" from two different locations. How is it that Kato could testify to what he thought Simpson was wearing but Fung did not testify about the clothes he held in his hands?

The DA's, in a very wise move on their part for their case in the court of public opinon saw the opportunity with Kato's thoughts on what he was wearing. They used it well and have many people convinced that he was wearing the sweats and that they were in the washing machine according to to MF, but not according to VA or Lange or Clark. She has the sweats in his clothes hamper.

There was no fiber comparisons to any garment so it is impossible to even suggest those fibers could have come from a sweat suit. IMO.

bobaugust

06-25-2009, 05:38 PM

Perhaps, you are unlike most of America, who refer to the early morning hours as the night before or the hours before day break , if you will. However, just because you do not comprehend it does not make it so.:)

Perhaps you should learn the difference between the night of he murders and the morning after the murders if your want your comments to be clear. There were no crime scene photographs taken on the night of the murders, June 12. All the crime scene photographs were taken on the morning after the murders on June 13.

bobaugust

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 05:48 PM

Perhaps you should learn the difference between the night of he murders and the morning after the murders if your want your comments to be clear. There were no crime scene photographs taken on the night of the murders, June 12. All the crime scene photographs were taken on the morning after the murders on June 13.

bobaugust

Ah, there is nothing wrong with being different. Pay close attention to the use of the word night.:);):cool:

'MR. ROKAHR: Job title is photographer ii and I photograph primarily homicide scenes. At this point, I work from 10:00 o'clock at night till 5:30 in the morning, and that's my--my main job.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you didn't work 10:00 o'clock to 5:00 A.M. last night, did you, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: No, sir, I didn't.

"MR. NEUFELD: And what happens to the film after you shoot the photographs, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: When I return to the office after working usually all night up until the morning, I turn the film in to be processed. If there's nobody there to do it, I do it myself, I do the developing myself.

MR. NEUFELD: Does that developing occur at the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir."

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

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. What was your answer, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct."

bobaugust

06-25-2009, 06:28 PM

Perhaps, you are unlike most of America, who refer to the early morning hours as the night before or the hours before day break , if you will. However, just because you do not comprehend it does not make it so.:)

Perhaps you should learn the difference between the night of the murders and the morning after the murders if you want your comments to be clear. There were no crime scene photographs taken on the night of the murders, June 12. Crime scene photographs were taken the morning after the murders on June 13.

bobaugust

bobaugust

06-25-2009, 06:30 PM

I do see something that supports an inference but nothing stated as a fact as you have claimed. :);):cool:

The transcript I posted was regarding the defense objection to the enlarged crime scene photograph being entered into evidence. After Judge Ito looked at the photograph he overruled the defense objection. Dennis Fung was the expert who then compared the blood stain shown in that June 13 photograph to the blood stain that was shown in the July 3 photograph that was taken before the blood stain was collected.

bobaugust

bobaugust

06-25-2009, 06:33 PM

You don't know whether it was this bag or any other bag, do you?

MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates his testimony.

THE COURT: You may answer.

MR. BAKER: I'm asking a question.

THE COURT: Do you know whether it was this bag?

THE WITNESS: That's not the bag I saw.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Not the bag you saw.

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

A. Five feet, ten feet.

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

A. That's correct.

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

A. Yes, he did.

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

The testimony you posted has absolutely nothing to do with Park telling the police and then consistently testifying that he first saw a white male come from behind the house.

You also failed to post Park’s response to Baker’s questions. Park testified he told Petrocelli and others it wasn’t the bag.

November 20, 1996
Q. Now, Mr. Petrocelli showed you an exhibit of -- a picture of Exhibit 899 in the five hours that you spent with him, didn't he?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Him and others.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?
A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag.
Q. Oh, I see. Fair enough.

bobaugust

martin II

06-25-2009, 06:42 PM

Ah no, the first time the lying Bell claims she encountered Fuhrman was at the recruiting station when she says he offended her so much she fled. Then she ends up with her friend joining him for drinks at some bar.

I personally think she had a thing for him.

IT is dishonest to continue to post something that you have been told is untrue. imo.

bobaugust

06-25-2009, 06:47 PM

Ah, there is nothing wrong with being different. Pay close attention to the use of the word night.:);):cool:

'MR. ROKAHR: Job title is photographer ii and I photograph primarily homicide scenes. At this point, I work from 10:00 o'clock at night till 5:30 in the morning, and that's my--my main job.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you didn't work 10:00 o'clock to 5:00 A.M. last night, did you, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: No, sir, I didn't.

"MR. NEUFELD: And what happens to the film after you shoot the photographs, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: When I return to the office after working usually all night up until the morning, I turn the film in to be processed. If there's nobody there to do it, I do it myself, I do the developing myself.

MR. NEUFELD: Does that developing occur at the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir."

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

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. What was your answer, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct."

You referred to a crime scene photograph taken on the night of the murders. 6:00 in the morning on June 13 is not on the night of the murders and photographs taken when it was still dark outside earlier in the morning on June 13 is not the night of the murders. The night of the murders was on June 12,

bobaugust

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 07:06 PM

The testimony you posted has absolutely nothing to do with Park telling the police and then consistently testifying that he first saw a white male come from behind the house.

You also failed to post Park’s response to Baker’s questions. Park testified he told Petrocelli and others it wasn’t the bag.

November 20, 1996
Q. Now, Mr. Petrocelli showed you an exhibit of -- a picture of Exhibit 899 in the five hours that you spent with him, didn't he?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Him and others.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?
A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag.
Q. Oh, I see. Fair enough.

bobaugust

The testimony I posted had to do with Park's testimony being molded. When one follows the suggestion of another, then it is obvious that his testimony was and could be molded and your quote in your response only shows how successfully Park was at regurgitating the suggestions.

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

A. Yes, he did.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Him and others. "

Park's then responded to a different question, which was "Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?." Park responded with "A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag." This shows Park was ablet to regurgitate his molded response of Petrocelli and those others who told him it wasn't the bag.

martin II

06-25-2009, 07:11 PM

TV,

In all honesty, you have fallen into the DA's trap by believing that those fibers found only could have come from a sweat suit. However, there was no testimony comparing the fibers to any type of cloth or garments. Doug Deedrick was very careful to say that be believed they came from the some cloth, but never did he say it was a sweat suit.

While much talk has been made of the expensive and rare items Simpson allegedly wore, are we to believe that if he wore a sweat suit, it would be just as rare or expensive or did the fibers match a cheap sweat suit bought at K-Mart or Wal-Mart.

Kato was vague and he always said that what he thought Simpson was wearing. IMO, Kato did his best to remember and he testified to what he thought Simpson was wearing. However, allegedly according to the DA's theory, Dennis Fung actually picked up the "sweats" from two different locations. How is it that Kato could testify to what he thought Simpson was wearing but Fung did not testify about the clothes he held in his hands?

The DA's, in a very wise move on their part for their case in the court of public opinon saw the opportunity with Kato's thoughts on what he was wearing. They used it well and have many people convinced that he was wearing the sweats and that they were in the washing machine according to to MF, but not according to VA or Lange or Clark. She has the sweats in his clothes hamper.

There was no fiber comparisons to any garment so it is impossible to even suggest those fibers could have come from a sweat suit. IMO.

When the trail started i remember some testimony that the sweats were in A HAMPER amd that when fung finished looking at them he tossed them in a corner of the room. it was later that it was said they were in some washing machine.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 07:12 PM

You referred to a crime scene photograph taken on the night of the murders. 6:00 in the morning on June 13 is not on the night of the murders and photographs taken when it was still dark outside earlier in the morning on June 13 is not the night of the murders. The night of the murders was on June 12,

bobaugust

Which is what the lawyer and the witness were talking about and the same thing that most of us say as with how did you sleep last, i.e. meaning how did you sleep last night and how did you sleep until midnight last night and the A.M, hours of today until you awakened, without having to so state. As I said there is nothing wrong with you being different and we know that the photographer meant when he said last night that he meant 4:30 in the A.M. when it was dark outside, not six A.M., as you believe.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 07:14 PM

The transcript I posted was regarding the defense objection to the enlarged crime scene photograph being entered into evidence. After Judge Ito looked at the photograph he overruled the defense objection. Dennis Fung was the expert who then compared the blood stain shown in that June 13 photograph to the blood stain that was shown in the July 3 photograph that was taken before the blood stain was collected.

bobaugust

I do see something that supports an inference but nothing stated as a fact as you have claimed.

martin II

06-25-2009, 07:16 PM

Bell never had drinks with furhman at any bar.

06-25-2009, 07:49 PM

TV,

In all honesty, you have fallen into the DA's trap by believing that those fibers found only could have come from a sweat suit. However, there was no testimony comparing the fibers to any type of cloth or garments. Doug Deedrick was very careful to say that be believed they came from the some cloth, but never did he say it was a sweat suit.

While much talk has been made of the expensive and rare items Simpson allegedly wore, are we to believe that if he wore a sweat suit, it would be just as rare or expensive or did the fibers match a cheap sweat suit bought at K-Mart or Wal-Mart.

Kato was vague and he always said that what he thought Simpson was wearing. IMO, Kato did his best to remember and he testified to what he thought Simpson was wearing. However, allegedly according to the DA's theory, Dennis Fung actually picked up the "sweats" from two different locations. How is it that Kato could testify to what he thought Simpson was wearing but Fung did not testify about the clothes he held in his hands?

The DA's, in a very wise move on their part for their case in the court of public opinon saw the opportunity with Kato's thoughts on what he was wearing. They used it well and have many people convinced that he was wearing the sweats and that they were in the washing machine according to to MF, but not according to VA or Lange or Clark. She has the sweats in his clothes hamper.

There was no fiber comparisons to any garment so it is impossible to even suggest those fibers could have come from a sweat suit. IMO.

I haven't fallen into any trap. You've fallen into the trap that Johnnie set 15 years ago. You make everything the prosecution said and did sound devious. What is unusual about them wanting to test the sweats after Kato gave his description of what Simpson was wearing right before the murders? What is wrong with them wondering why Simpson can't produce the sweats that were in the machine or the ones that he wore in the exercise video? They would be derelict in their duty if they didn't follow that line of inquiry. I think he wore the sweats that were in the video, washed them or got an accomplice to wash them and then got rid of them. I don't if the fibers would have matched anything from Kmart but since his washing machine was rusty nothing would surprise me. You may or may not know that there are picture of Simpson wearing a sweat suit with a white or silver zipper in the front even though I'm sure you'll say it was faked.

06-25-2009, 07:50 PM

06-25-2009, 07:52 PM

IT is dishonest to continue to post something that you have been told is untrue. imo.

You've been told lots of times that you're posting things that are untrue but you're still posting them.

06-25-2009, 07:54 PM

Heck, I've read worse right here on this board!

Now don't forget that the defense was sanctioned for lying and playing hide and seek with evidence/testimony.

Like the Rosa Lopez interview. Why did they hide that? Credibility issues?

weezer

06-25-2009, 09:32 PM

TV,

In all honesty, you have fallen into the DA's trap by believing that those fibers found only could have come from a sweat suit. However, there was no testimony comparing the fibers to any type of cloth or garments. Doug Deedrick was very careful to say that be believed they came from the some cloth, but never did he say it was a sweat suit. you're right -- Deedrick wasn't comparing sweatsuits --he wasn't asked to. Deedrick DID compare fibers and testified that the same fibers were found at the murder scene, bronco, and rockingham.

While much talk has been made of the expensive and rare items Simpson allegedly wore, are we to believe that if he wore a sweat suit, it would be just as rare or expensive or did the fibers match a cheap sweat suit bought at K-Mart or Wal-Mart. forget sweatsuit -- think 'FIBERS'

Kato was vague and he always said that what he thought Simpson was wearing. IMO, Kato did his best to remember and he testified to what he thought Simpson was wearing. However, allegedly according to the DA's theory, Dennis Fung actually picked up the "sweats" from two different locations. :no: this was never said How is it that Kato could testify to what he thought Simpson was wearing but Fung did not testify about the clothes he held in his hands? :shrug:

The DA's, in a very wise move on their part for their case in the court of public opinon saw the opportunity with Kato's thoughts on what he was wearing. They used it well and have many people convinced that he was wearing the sweats and that they were in the washing machine according to to MF, but not according to VA or Lange or Clark. post a link to VA, Lange, or Clark making any statement(s) that the sweats were not in the washing machine. She has the sweats in his clothes hamper.

There was no fiber comparisons to any garment so it is impossible to even suggest those fibers could have come from a sweat suit. IMO.

There is no reason that the fibers had to be compared to a 'garment'. In fact, some of the fibers were from the bronco.

weezer

06-25-2009, 09:34 PM

When the trail started i remember some testimony that the sweats were in A HAMPER amd that when fung finished looking at them he tossed them in a corner of the room. it was later that it was said they were in some washing machine.

then your memory is wrong. The sweats were always in the washing machine and a dark bath towel was in the hamper.

weezer

06-25-2009, 09:35 PM

Bell never had drinks with furhman at any bar.

you're right -- maybe that's what pizzed her off? He was there with another woman.

06-25-2009, 09:45 PM

you're right -- maybe that's what pizzed her off? He was there with another woman.

Maybe that's when she really started crying and fled. :rolleyes:

weezer

06-25-2009, 09:48 PM

Maybe that's when she really started crying and fled. :rolleyes:

I just think it's so weird: she was so offended by his language that she fled the room; she wanted to introduce him to her friend; she didn't walk to the table at the bar to say something but the friend who never heard him say anything did. :shrug:

06-25-2009, 09:52 PM

I just think it's so weird: she was so offended by his language that she fled the room; she wanted to introduce him to her friend; she didn't walk to the table at the bar to say something but the friend who never heard him say anything did. :shrug:

It's just not logical...imo, she's just another drama queen.

06-25-2009, 09:58 PM

then your memory is wrong. The sweats were always in the washing machine and a dark bath towel was in the hamper.

Just thought I'd post this still from the LAPD evidence video again. It has the timestamp on it and the abc logo in the bottom right hand corner. Hopefully this will satisfy the claims of some posters that imagine sweats in the hamper, thrown in the corner and other untrue scenarios.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e90/aneera/sweats1.jpg

weezer

06-25-2009, 10:00 PM

Just thought I'd post this still from the LAPD evidence video again. It has the timestamp on it and the abc logo in the bottom right hand corner. Hopefully this will satisfy the claims of some posters that imagine sweats in the hamper, thrown in the corner and other untrue scenarios.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e90/aneera/sweats1.jpg

:beer::beer:

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 10:25 PM

Ridiculous.

Yes, and I am glad you can see it. Park said Petro and others told him his testimony was wrong in regard to the back and he told all that his testimony was wrong in regard to the bag. Park ridiculously regurgitated to all others what Petro and others told him.

William Anthony

06-25-2009, 10:31 PM

Maybe that's when she really started crying and fled. :rolleyes:

I think that Ms. Bell wasn't from the south:);):cool:. I think that she found MF to be one of the most scary and despicable people she had encountered after he opened that fat trap of his. However, not being Caucasian and not spending any significant amount of time around them when they were not aware of presence, I will defer to your understanding that it was hard for a Caucasian woman to cry and flee when she heard the vile and despicable statement MF made.

GreenIce

06-25-2009, 10:37 PM

You referred to a crime scene photograph taken on the night of the murders. 6:00 in the morning on June 13 is not on the night of the murders and photographs taken when it was still dark outside earlier in the morning on June 13 is not the night of the murders. The night of the murders was on June 12,

bobaugust

William,

I have been reading Rokhar's testimony, I haven't finished it but I tried to find where he was directed to the back the fence. What is interesting is that MF never took him to the back gate to get a picture of the bloody fingerprint. If I am reading his testimony right, Fuhrman did direct him to take some pictures of the evidence.

What also is noteworthy, IMO, Rokhar should have been a DA's witness, not a defense witness. It seems to me the most critical witnesses or experts for the state were never called by the state. Roger Martz, Michelle Kestler and no Rokhar.

06-25-2009, 10:49 PM

I think that Ms. Bell wasn't from the south:);):cool:. I think that she found MF to be one of the most scary and despicable people she had encountered after he opened that fat trap of his. However, not being Caucasian and not spending any significant amount of time around them when they were not aware of presence, I will defer to your understanding that it was hard for a Caucasian woman to cry and flee when she heard the vile and despicable statement MF made.

I didn't say caucasian woman -- I said anyone that heard a racial slur. Twist what I said all you want. Most regular posters on this forum realize that twisting other's statements is your greatest contribution to this board.

GreenIce

06-25-2009, 10:56 PM

You can't prove all the spoons were still there but it doesn't mean anyone took them.

If they tested the sweats and they didn't match the fibers they would have said that. They would have been no worse off then not being able to introduce the sweats at all because they were missing.

I'm not pretending they were there. There is a picture to prove that they were there and no one in the household ever reported them missing. You come up with any theory except what really happened. OJ Simpson made sure they were washed and then got rid of them because he knew that Kato was going to say he was wearing sweats. What cop would take a pair of soggy sweats for himself when there were so many other things in the house he could take if he wanted a souvenier?

TV,

You nailed it! If any fiber comparisons were done on any of the garments, the DA's would have had to turn the results over to the Defense. Which is why none were done. Many G's have very harsh comments about the DA's in this case, however, IMO, they did a great job, at least for the court of public opinon.

The fibers were described as being blue-black cotton fibers. How many garments are made of blue-black cotton fibers? What would have happened if the fibers found were compared to the Bugle Boy Pants that Simpson always wore but Kato already testified about him wearing a sweat suit. Wouldn't you then say that Kato simply made a mistake?

Another important factor, no one ever testified to what the dark clothing was in the washing machine. The only one we know who has said to have handled them was Dennis Fung. However, he never testified about them, he never described what the garments were. He was never asked direct questions about them.

And how do you explain Clark's comments about them being in the clothes hamper upstairs?

Your comments about Simpson making sure the "sweats" were washed because Kato saw him wearing them makes no sense, IMO. If that was the case, Simpson would not have worn the same clothes that Kato could identify. Also, blood is not easy to get out, it makes no sense that Simpson would think washing them would get all the blood out as well as not shed any fibers inside the washing machine.

GreenIce

06-25-2009, 11:15 PM

I didn't say caucasian woman -- I said anyone that heard a racial slur. Twist what I said all you want. Most regular posters on this forum realize that twisting other's statements is your greatest contribution to this board.

TV,

Kathleen Bell believed Simpson was guilty. When she saw MF testify in the prelim hearing, she contacted the DA's first with her information. She explained why she did come forward.

By the time she was called to testify, she had nothing to gain by her testimony. However, you are forgetting a very important factor, MF said that if anyone testified to his using the n-word, every one would be the liar but him. No one forced MF to lie about this.

It was not surprising to me that Natalie Singer and Kathleen Bell were visiably upset by hearing MF's talk. First of all, it was his profession and second of all, there is a age factor. Didn't MF say that he would say stuff like this for the shock value---well he did shock them, IMO.

06-25-2009, 11:23 PM

TV,

You nailed it! If any fiber comparisons were done on any of the garments, the DA's would have had to turn the results over to the Defense. Which is why none were done. Do you have ANYTHING to back up this statement? If not, I'll just dismiss it as wishful thinking. Many G's have very harsh comments about the DA's in this case, however, IMO, they did a great job, at least for the court of public opinon.

The fibers were described as being blue-black cotton fibers. How many garments are made of blue-black cotton fibers? What would have happened if the fibers found were compared to the Bugle Boy Pants that Simpson always wore but Kato already testified about him wearing a sweat suit. Wouldn't you then say that Kato simply made a mistake? Since Simpson or one of his accomplices disposed of the sweats we'll never know.

Another important factor, no one ever testified to what the dark clothing was in the washing machine. The only one we know who has said to have handled them was Dennis Fung. However, he never testified about them, he never described what the garments were. He was never asked direct questions about them. They were sweats. No one ever disputed this except some of the wild speculators on this forum.

And how do you explain Clark's comments about them being in the clothes hamper upstairs? I'd have to see this statement to comment on it.

Your comments about Simpson making sure the "sweats" were washed because Kato saw him wearing them makes no sense, IMO. If that was the case, Simpson would not have worn the same clothes that Kato could identify. We know he changed his shoes. Also, blood is not easy to get out, it makes no sense that Simpson would think washing them would get all the blood out as well as not shed any fibers inside the washing machine. He didn't realize that LE would be in his house as soon as they were. We don't know if all the blood washed out because the sweats were never tested. If you think you can see blood with the naked eye on dark sweats after being washed your are mistaken. You act as if Simpson was a forensic expert and knew what to do with bloody clothes after committing a murder when he was already rushed to get to the airport.

These conspiracy theories are entirely without merit.:shrug:

06-25-2009, 11:26 PM

TV,

Kathleen Bell believed Simpson was guilty. When she saw MF testify in the prelim hearing, she contacted the DA's first with her information. She explained why she did come forward.

By the time she was called to testify, she had nothing to gain by her testimony. However, you are forgetting a very important factor, MF said that if anyone testified to his using the n-word, every one would be the liar but him. No one forced MF to lie about this.

It was not surprising to me that Natalie Singer and Kathleen Bell were visiably upset by hearing MF's talk. First of all, it was his profession and second of all, there is a age factor. Didn't MF say that he would say stuff like this for the shock value---well he did shock them, IMO.

She got her 15 minutes of fame. :shrug:

GreenIce

06-25-2009, 11:29 PM

When the trail started i remember some testimony that the sweats were in A HAMPER amd that when fung finished looking at them he tossed them in a corner of the room. it was later that it was said they were in some washing machine.

Martin,

What I find interesting is that Fung collected the socks because they looked out of place. The detectives did not tell him to collect them, he just did it. He collected them because he obviously thought that these socks could have been worn by Simpson while killing Ron and Nicole. Yet, the socks were never given any importance until August--makes no sense.

Nor does it make sense Fung would collect the socks without seeing blood on them, yet he tosses the clothes back because he didn't blood on them?

What also is interesting is that the DA's said the video of Simpson's room was taken for insurance purposes only, if that is true, then why did they video tape the inside of the washer machine? How is that video of the bedroom is discounted because of the reason it was being done but not the contents of the washing machine?

GreenIce

06-25-2009, 11:40 PM

These conspiracy theories are entirely without merit.:shrug:

TV,

Doug Deedrick never testified that the blue-black fibers come from or could have come from a sweat suit. His testimony was that he believed the fibers all came from the same cloth.

Mr. August posted a while ago that no fiber comparisons were done.

Clark's comments about the hamper came from her book.

No one testified about seeing sweats in the washing machine. No one testifed to the description of the garments.

It wasn't me who said it was possible to see blood on dark items in a washing machine--but Fung felt he could--as well as VA and Lange.

Who testified the dark clothing in the washing machine were sweats?

06-26-2009, 12:48 AM

TV,

Doug Deedrick never testified that the blue-black fibers come from or could have come from a sweat suit. His testimony was that he believed the fibers all came from the same cloth.

Mr. August posted a while ago that no fiber comparisons were done.

Clark's comments about the hamper came from her book.

No one testified about seeing sweats in the washing machine. No one testifed to the description of the garments.

It wasn't me who said it was possible to see blood on dark items in a washing machine--but Fung felt he could--as well as VA and Lange.

Who testified the dark clothing in the washing machine were sweats?

It was Deedricks testimony that the blue black fibers were cotton. He has no way of knowing what garment they came from. The important thing is that they were 'dark blue or black like cotton' just as Kato testified to. Lange and Vannatter said in their book that the sweats were in the machine, the video shows them in the machine and no one on the defense side disputed that the items in the machine included the sweats. Did Fung testifiy that he could see blood on dark wet clothing?

William Anthony

06-26-2009, 04:30 AM

I didn't say caucasian woman -- I said anyone that heard a racial slur. Twist what I said all you want. Most regular posters on this forum realize that twisting other's statements is your greatest contribution to this board.

I am sorry, if I did not spell it out completely for you. I know that Black women will run and cry if they hear such words, as burning the entire Black race, spoken by a Caucasian male. There is no reason to twist as Ms. Bell is a Caucasian woman and you doubted her reactions to such words. I defer to your feelings as to how Caucasian women would feel at hearing such words but noted that Ms. Bell was not from the south and posters can make of those facts what they will.

William Anthony

06-26-2009, 04:36 AM

William,

I have been reading Rokhar's testimony, I haven't finished it but I tried to find where he was directed to the back the fence. What is interesting is that MF never took him to the back gate to get a picture of the bloody fingerprint. If I am reading his testimony right, Fuhrman did direct him to take some pictures of the evidence.

What also is noteworthy, IMO, Rokhar should have been a DA's witness, not a defense witness. It seems to me the most critical witnesses or experts for the state were never called by the state. Roger Martz, Michelle Kestler and no Rokhar.

Rokhar is interesting. To those that want to place me in their prayers, I am having major surgery this morning but expecting a miracle. In any event, I will appreciate all those, who place me in prayer and I hope to return to the board with all those with whom I have had disagreements and agreements previously. :) I will miss you all and will return as soon as I am able. To my opponents, yes, you can count on it. Love to all and hope to see you soon.

GreenIce

06-26-2009, 06:09 AM

Rokhar is interesting. To those that want to place me in their prayers, I am having major surgery this morning but expecting a miracle. In any event, I will appreciate all those, who place me in prayer and I hope to return to the board with all those with whom I have had disagreements and agreements previously. :) I will miss you all and will return as soon as I am able. To my opponents, yes, you can count on it. Love to all and hope to see you soon.

William,

Please, please come back soon.

GreenIce

06-26-2009, 06:42 AM

It was Deedricks testimony that the blue black fibers were cotton. He has no way of knowing what garment they came from. The important thing is that they were 'dark blue or black like cotton' just as Kato testified to. Lange and Vannatter said in their book that the sweats were in the machine, the video shows them in the machine and no one on the defense side disputed that the items in the machine included the sweats. Did Fung testifiy that he could see blood on dark wet clothing?

TV,

Who testified in the trial that the clothes in the washing machine included a sweat suit? Who testified that they took those clothes out of the washing machine and examined them? Who testified that these clothes were examined and since they could not see any blood on them, they put them right back where they got them and in fact, made sure they were exact same position as when they were first seen.

If the contents of the washing machine was video taped for the purpose of getting this "evidence" on tape, then why is there no video tape of the clothes being taken out of the washing machine and being displayed in such a manner there could be no doubt to what these dark clothes were?

It appears to me that when the video tape was taken, it was done before anyone touched the contents. It looks like the clothes were the same position they would have been in after the spin cycle of the washing machine.

It would be impossible to determine what the garments were at that time.

There is no scientific evidence to support that those fibers could have come from a sweat suit.

weezer

06-26-2009, 07:56 AM

Yes, and I am glad you can see it. Park said Petro and others told him his testimony was wrong in regard to the back and he told all that his testimony was wrong in regard to the bag. Park ridiculously regurgitated to all others what Petro and others told him.

LOL -- do you remember when the defense brought in the bag that they tried to pass off as the missing one EXCEPT they forgot to take the price tag off! :punch:

weezer

06-26-2009, 08:15 AM

weezer

06-26-2009, 08:35 AM

TV,

You nailed it! If any fiber comparisons were done on any of the garments, the DA's would have had to turn the results over to the Defense. Which is why none were done. think FIBERS! Many G's have very harsh comments about the DA's in this case, however, IMO, they did a great job, at least for the court of public opinon. I think a more accurate word would be 'some'

The fibers were described as being blue-black cotton fibers. How many garments are made of blue-black cotton fibers? What would have happened if the fibers found were compared to the Bugle Boy Pants that Simpson always wore but Kato already testified about him wearing a sweat suit. Wouldn't you then say that Kato simply made a mistake? think "FIBERS" not garment. The fact that Kato recalled orental wearing dark clothing that night only adds to the things that make you go 'hmmm'

Another important factor, no one ever testified to what the dark clothing was in the washing machine. (not exactly accurate or true) The only one we know who has said to have handled them was Dennis Fung. However, he never testified about them, he never described what the garments were. He was never asked direct questions about them.

And how do you explain Clark's comments about them being in the clothes hamper upstairs?

Your comments about Simpson making sure the "sweats" were washed because Kato saw him wearing them makes no sense, IMO. If that was the case, Simpson would not have worn the same clothes that Kato could identify. Also, blood is not easy to get out, it makes no sense that Simpson would think washing them would get all the blood out as well as not shed any fibers inside the washing machine.

obviously orenthal was also afraid the blood didn't come out -- the sweatsuit disappeared. :eek:

weezer

06-26-2009, 08:40 AM

TV,

Kathleen Bell believed Simpson was guilty. When she saw MF testify in the prelim hearing, she contacted the DA's first with her information. She explained why she did come forward. ahh yes - ms bell was SO offended by the talk that she wanted to hook Fuhrman up with her girlfriend.

By the time she was called to testify, she had nothing to gain by her testimony. However, you are forgetting a very important factor, MF said that if anyone testified to his using the n-word, every one would be the liar but him. No one forced MF to lie about this. this is where I do give credit to flee -- his manipulation and twisting of the language in the question

It was not surprising to me that Natalie Singer and Kathleen Bell were visiably upset by hearing MF's talk. First of all, it was his profession and second of all, there is a age factor. WTF? what age factor? bell wanted to hook Fuhrman up with her girlfriend! Didn't MF say that he would say stuff like this for the shock value---well he did shock them, IMO.

IIRC, Fuhrman did say that while working on the screenplay tapes he did say things for shock value -- just as LHM requested.

weezer

06-26-2009, 08:46 AM

TV,

Doug Deedrick never testified that the blue-black fibers come from or could have come from a sweat suit. His testimony was that he believed the fibers all came from the same cloth. right!

Mr. August posted a while ago that no fiber comparisons were done. Mr. August posted did in fact post no fiber comparisons were done with garments.

Clark's comments about the hamper came from her book.

No one testified about seeing sweats in the washing machine. No one testifed to the description of the garments. incorrect. photos of the washer/sweats were entered into evidence.

It wasn't me who said it was possible to see blood on dark items in a washing machine--but Fung felt he could--as well as VA and Lange. Thought you said no one testified about seeing the sweats in the washer? so what was Fung doing testifying about blood, dark items, and washing machines?

Who testified the dark clothing in the washing machine were sweats?

hmmm -- according to you, no one. The rest of us heard, read, and saw the testimony and the pictures of the sweats in the washer. ;)

weezer

06-26-2009, 08:58 AM

TV,

Who testified in the trial that the clothes in the washing machine included a sweat suit? Who testified that they took those clothes out of the washing machine and examined them? Who testified that these clothes were examined and since they could not see any blood on them, they put them right back where they got them I know, I know! FUNG! and in fact, made sure they were exact same position as when they were first seen. now this last statement, I don't believe, can be supported. Did you get a little carried away?

If the contents of the washing machine was video taped for the purpose of getting this "evidence" on tape, then why is there no video tape of the clothes being taken out of the washing machine and being displayed in such a manner there could be no doubt to what these dark clothes were? uh -- there was.

It appears to me that when the video tape was taken, it was done before anyone touched the contents. It looks like the clothes were the same position they would have been in after the spin cycle of the washing machine. yep -- now look at the rest of the pics.

It would be impossible to determine what the garments were at that time. yep -- that's why they were lifted up.

There is no scientific evidence to support that those fibers could have come from a sweat suit.

forget garmet -- think "FIBERS"

06-26-2009, 11:56 AM

TV,

Who testified in the trial that the clothes in the washing machine included a sweat suit? Who testified that they took those clothes out of the washing machine and examined them? Who testified that these clothes were examined and since they could not see any blood on them, they put them right back where they got them and in fact, made sure they were exact same position as when they were first seen.

If the contents of the washing machine was video taped for the purpose of getting this "evidence" on tape, then why is there no video tape of the clothes being taken out of the washing machine and being displayed in such a manner there could be no doubt to what these dark clothes were?

It appears to me that when the video tape was taken, it was done before anyone touched the contents. It looks like the clothes were the same position they would have been in after the spin cycle of the washing machine.

It would be impossible to determine what the garments were at that time.

There is no scientific evidence to support that those fibers could have come from a sweat suit.

The fibers are cotton. If you can't make the connection I can't help you.

06-26-2009, 12:12 PM

:shrug:

You're wasting your time asking. :shrug:

weezer

06-26-2009, 12:21 PM

You're wasting your time asking. :shrug:

I know -- it's just that she's so confused and I want to help if I can. :rolleyes:

06-26-2009, 12:26 PM

I know -- it's just that she's so confused and I want to help if I can. :rolleyes:

That is so kind of you. :)

serpentsfall

06-26-2009, 01:41 PM

martin II

06-26-2009, 03:46 PM

martin II

06-26-2009, 03:56 PM

I haven't fallen into any trap. You've fallen into the trap that Johnnie set 15 years ago. You make everything the prosecution said and did sound devious. What is unusual about them wanting to test the sweats after Kato gave his description of what Simpson was wearing right before the murders? What is wrong with them wondering why Simpson can't produce the sweats that were in the machine or the ones that he wore in the exercise video? They would be derelict in their duty if they didn't follow that line of inquiry. I think he wore the sweats that were in the video, washed them or got an accomplice to wash them and then got rid of them. I don't if the fibers would have matched anything from Kmart but since his washing machine was rusty nothing would surprise me. You may or may not know that there are picture of Simpson wearing a sweat suit with a white or silver zipper in the front even though I'm sure you'll say it was faked.

I guess there is no proof that the sweats were in the house when the last cop left.

martin II

06-26-2009, 04:06 PM

Rip mj

weezer

06-26-2009, 04:37 PM

I guess there is no proof that the sweats were in the house when the last cop left.

LOL -- and that would be because someone in LE wanted a wet sweatsuit and women's lingerie?

06-26-2009, 05:23 PM

I guess there is no proof that the sweats were in the house when the last cop left.Why didn't the owner of the sweats file a complaint because the sweats and lingerie were missing?

bobaugust

06-26-2009, 06:13 PM

The testimony I posted had to do with Park's testimony being molded. When one follows the suggestion of another, then it is obvious that his testimony was and could be molded and your quote in your response only shows how successfully Park was at regurgitating the suggestions.

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

A. Yes, he did.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Him and others. "

Park's then responded to a different question, which was "Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?." Park responded with "A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag." This shows Park was ablet to regurgitate his molded response of Petrocelli and those others who told him it wasn't the bag.

You seem to think that Park’s testimony concerning the mystery bag is evidence that Petrocelli told Park what to say when in fact Park testified in the civil trial to the same thing he testified to in the criminal trail regarding the bag he was shown. And then after Park said, "No, I told them that it wasn't the bag." Baker said, “Oh, I see. Fair enough.” The fact is there is no evidence that Park’s testimony was molded and Baker never said there was.

bobaugust

bobaugust

06-26-2009, 06:14 PM

Which is what the lawyer and the witness were talking about and the same thing that most of us say as with how did you sleep last, i.e. meaning how did you sleep last night and how did you sleep until midnight last night and the A.M, hours of today until you awakened, without having to so state. As I said there is nothing wrong with you being different and we know that the photographer meant when he said last night that he meant 4:30 in the A.M. when it was dark outside, not six A.M., as you believe.

This has nothing to do with what Rokahr said referring to “night time” nor does it have to do with anyone referring to the early morning hours after midnight as “last night,’ it has to with your incorrect misleading comment that there was a photograph taken “on the night of the murders.” The night of the murders was June 12 and Rokahr never took any photographs then. Rokahr did take some overall street shots the morning after the murders when it was still night time on June 13. And he took the crime scene photograph that proved the defense gate blood planting theory false as well as the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove under the plant foliage later in the morning after Fuhrman returned from Rockingham. Once again it seems you will dream up any excuse no matter how ridiculous to avoid admitting something you said is incorrect.

You previously did it with your incorrect comment that an unidentified hair was found inside the Rockingham glove which you still haven’t admitted was incorrect. And now you are doing again trying to defend your incorrect comment that a photograph was taken on the night of the murders.

bobaugust

bobaugust

06-26-2009, 06:14 PM

I do see something that supports an inference but nothing stated as a fact as you have claimed.

The fact is that a crime scene photograph was taken the morning after murders hours before Simpson gave his blood sample, shows a blood stain on the rear gate that was photographed and collected about three weeks later and identified as Simpson’s blood.

April 4, 1995

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, YOU MAY CONTINUE. PEOPLE'S 166.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 166 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY HERE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU LOOK AT IT WITH A MAGNIFYING GLASS?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE 16TH OF JUNE? I MEAN THE 13TH OF JUNE. SORRY.
A 13TH OF JUNE, YES.
Q DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE THAT PHOTOGRAPH TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH WERE TAKEN ON JULY THE 3RD AT THE TIME THAT YOU COLLECTED 15, 16 AND 17 -- 115, 116 AND 117?
A YES.
Q DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AND THE SAME CONFIGURATION AS THE STAIN THAT WAS COLLECTED ON THE 13TH?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: EXCUSE ME. ON THE 13TH?
THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: I MEAN, DOES THE STAIN IN THE 13TH PHOTOGRAPH APPEAR TO BE IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION AND SAME LOCATION AS THE STAIN THAT WAS COLLECTED ON JULY THE 3RD?
A YES.

bobaugust

martin II

06-26-2009, 08:37 PM

Why didn't the owner of the sweats file a complaint because the sweats and lingerie were missing?

tv

Was there ever a picture of fung holding the sweats shown to the jury in the trial.if so who was testifying when it was presented. i cannot ever remember ever seeing a picture.

weezer

06-26-2009, 08:44 PM

tv

Was there ever a picture of fung holding the sweats shown to the jury in the trial.if so who was testifying when it was presented. i cannot ever remember ever seeing a picture.

check the evidence admitted in the criminal trial. ;)

martin II

06-26-2009, 09:20 PM

weezer

06-26-2009, 10:48 PM

GreenIce

06-26-2009, 11:44 PM

The fibers are cotton. If you can't make the connection I can't help you.

TV,

Are all sweat suits made of cotton? How can you tell by looking at the contents of the washing machine that the dark clothes were sweats and they were made of cotton?

Also, you have made it clear that Doug Deedrick could not determine the source of the fibers---well didn't he look at the pictures of the contents of the washing machine?

I do not know the answer to this but I think you posted about some of the items in the washing machine. I believe Arnelle said they were hers, was she ever asked what the dark clothes were? Was she ever asked if she separated her clothes when preparing to laundry, as in darks in one pile and whites in another?

Again, according to you there was proof the dark clothes in the washing machine was the sweats, I am only asking who testified to this?

If Fung or any one else who claimed to have handled the sweats and described them, then the defense would have had to have dealt with that. However, since there was no testimony about the dark clothes in the washing machine and the pictures and/or the video tape of the contents of the tape were not entered into evidence--then the defense did not have to worry about the contents of the washing machine, IMO.

IMO, Lange and Vanatter knew that someone handled the sweats, how else would they knew that rust stains were found on the clothes? Yet, then there is the issue of could rust form and stain a garment in less then 24 hours.

I find odd that Lange and VA claimed the dark spots on these clothes were rust stains and yet some say that rust sports were found on the washing machine--so which one is true?

GreenIce

06-26-2009, 11:56 PM

The detectives told fung what evidence to collect.They searched his house looking for shoes ,knife etc.i am sure they searched his clothes closet. fUNG sees some sweats in a washing machine see no blood and puts them back.

A small brain would tell him that the sweats could very well be the murder clothes since they had nothing else. Why would he and the detectives not think that those were the murder clothes being washed by oj and just take them at that time.he said he looked at the sweats and saw no blood but he knew blood could be there and he could not see it with the naked eye. He looked at the socks and saw no blood but he took them.sweats in a washing machine in a suspects house right after a murder would be more suspect than socks on the bedroom floor by a bed.
So why didn't fung take the sweats.

Martin,

IMO, I think is very likely that Fung or someone else did look as this clothing but they were not collected for another reason--such as perhaps it was a woman's sweat suit or dark clothes or that the size of the sweat suit eliminated them from being Simpson's---thus---these could not be the "murder clothes".

IMO, a most interesting questions would be if Simpson did throw the "murder clothes in the wash", could Kato have heard it when Simpson was trying to help him find a flashlight?

The theory of Arnelle being the person to have done this makes no sense, does anyone believe that Simpson called her to do this and she would not ask questions on why he wanted this done?

What I find interesting is that Arnelle to the detectives she knew her father was out of town but she did not know where he was. Isn't this a conflict with the detectives' story that Arnelle made said that Simpson should have been in the house? Isn't this in direct conflict with Arnelle being an accomplice?

06-27-2009, 12:14 AM

TV,

Are all sweat suits made of cotton? I would say most are. How can you tell by looking at the contents of the washing machine that the dark clothes were sweats and they were made of cotton? The garments were removed from the machine and looked at. I don't know if anyone looked at the label regarding fiber content.

Also, you have made it clear that Doug Deedrick could not determine the source of the fibers---well didn't he look at the pictures of the contents of the washing machine? How in heaven's name do you expect Deedrick to be able to say whether or not fibers came from clothing he's looking at in a picture?

I do not know the answer to this but I think you posted about some of the items in the washing machine. I believe Arnelle said they were hers, was she ever asked what the dark clothes were? Was she ever asked if she separated her clothes when preparing to laundry, as in darks in one pile and whites in another? I don't know but a better question would be to ask her if the sweats belonged to her.

Again, according to you there was proof the dark clothes in the washing machine was the sweats, I am only asking who testified to this? I'm not answering this again.

If Fung or any one else who claimed to have handled the sweats and described them, then the defense would have had to have dealt with that. However, since there was no testimony about the dark clothes in the washing machine and the pictures and/or the video tape of the contents of the tape were not entered into evidence--then the defense did not have to worry about the contents of the washing machine, IMO. Check the evidence admitted in the trial.

IMO, Lange and Vanatter knew that someone handled the sweats, how else would they knew that rust stains were found on the clothes? Yet, then there is the issue of could rust form and stain a garment in less then 24 hours. There was rust on the machine itself. Fung is the one that determined this and Lange and Vannatter were aware of this. I thought you read Lange and Vannatter's book?

I find odd that Lange and VA claimed the dark spots on these clothes were rust stains and yet some say that rust sports were found on the washing machine--so which one is true? It's my understanding that the rust was on the machine and that Lange and Vannatter said this in their book.
GreenIce, you're beating the sweats in the machine to death. The only mystery involving the sweats is what happened to them after being seen in the washer. It's a fact that they were in the washer and videoed, it's a fact that there was rust on the machine, it's a fact that they were never seen again.

GreenIce

06-27-2009, 12:15 AM

This has nothing to do with what Rokahr said referring to “night time” nor does it have to do with anyone referring to the early morning hours after midnight as “last night,’ it has to with your incorrect misleading comment that there was a photograph taken “on the night of the murders.” The night of the murders was June 12 and Rokahr never took any photographs then. Rokahr did take some overall street shots the morning after the murders when it was still night time on June 13. And he took the crime scene photograph that proved the defense gate blood planting theory false as well as the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove under the plant foliage later in the morning after Fuhrman returned from Rockingham. Once again it seems you will dream up any excuse no matter how ridiculous to avoid admitting something you said is incorrect.

You previously did it with your incorrect comment that an unidentified hair was found inside the Rockingham glove which you still haven’t admitted was incorrect. And now you are doing again trying to defend your incorrect comment that a photograph was taken on the night of the murders.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You leave a critical part of Rokhar's testimony, he also took "escape" route pictures. It is this picture that the DA's found with a blown a picture.

It is clear in his testimony that he was ever directed by MF to take a picture of the back gate or anyone else for that matter.

MF presents another problem with your claims. How could MF not have told him about the bloody finger print or smudge on the back fence?

Wasn't that bloody fingerprint the most important evidence at Bundy? How can you explain away your fingerprint in blood?

According to MF's book and in his interviews that the bloody fingerprint was the ultimate piece of evidence? Yet he makes no arrangments to have this photograph and never shows Lange and VA this ?

Another point, the hat and glove were seen by MF even before Lange and VA got there. Why wouldn't MF point this out to Rokhar right way? Why should have mattered when the photo was taken or when MF pointed to this evidence?

Was he breaking a rule, was his pointing considered a source of contamination?

Rokhar was there to take crime scene photos and taking a picture of the hat and gloves would have been an obvious picture to take as well as it being one of the first pictures he took.

The problem with the detectives' story is that they only ordered the pictures after they found the Rockingham glove. That makes no sense--unless they are trying to hide something, IMO.

Another important issue, the gloves being a "pair" means nothing. If the gloves were two separate gloves in make and model, does that mean Simpson is innocent?