Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

Mr Rubin the glove expert testified that one would have to pull the gloves off ONE FINGER at a time to get them off. That his tight fitting gloves would not just drop off.

IMO, the killer (OJ Simpson) pulled it off and put it in his pocket so he could get his keys out of his other pocket (that's how the change ended up on the ground). Then he accidentally dropped it at Rockingham. I think it's possible that Ron pulled off the Bundy glove.

[martin II]

My memory was that Ron was not attacked at the indention. As I recall, OJ had walked to the back gate, then turned around presumably because he saw Ron arriving. OJ went back up the walk, his tracks showed that he hesitated at the indention because he left several tracks at that spot on the walkway. He then stepped into the dark indention to hide until Ron had gone by. He followed Ron to the spot where the attack took place.

there were prints showing that the killer did turn around halfway out the back walk but no more than that. if the killer walked back to the gate i would expect to see more backtracking prints.why would ron walk to the indentation at the house and then walk back to the gate.nicole was on the front door steps he would have to almost walk over her body and she was not dead if ron was attacked first.

[martin II]

Maybe the killer (OJ Simpson) pulled it off and put it in his pocket so he could get his keys out of his other pocket (that's how the change ended up on the ground). Then he accidentally dropped it at Rockingham. I think it's possible that Ron pulled off the Bundy glove.

Ron pulled of the Bundy glove ONE FINGER BY ONE FINGER?

[tv]

My memory was that Ron was not attacked at the indention. As I recall, OJ had walked to the back gate, then turned around presumably because he saw Ron arriving. OJ went back up the walk, his tracks showed that he hesitated at the indention because he left several tracks at that spot on the walkway. He then stepped into the dark indention to hide until Ron had gone by. He followed Ron to the spot where the attack took place.

My theory is close to yours. I think he stepped back into the area where he ultimately killed Ron, and attacked him from behind, pulling him into the enclosed area.

[martin II]

My memory was that Ron was not attacked at the indention. As I recall, OJ had walked to the back gate, then turned around presumably because he saw Ron arriving. OJ went back up the walk, his tracks showed that he hesitated at the indention because he left several tracks at that spot on the walkway. He then stepped into the dark indention to hide until Ron had gone by. He followed Ron to the spot where the attack took place.

Are you sure one can see the front gate from the back gate?

[tv]

Ron pulled of the Bundy glove ONE FINGER BY ONE FINGER?

He was fighting for his life, clawing at the hand around his neck. It was a chaotic scene. The glove expert meant that you would remove the gloves finger by finger if the wearer was removing the glove not a man trying deperately to live.

[Lodi]

there were prints showing that the killer did turn around halfway out the back walk but no more than that. if the killer walked back to the gate i would expect to see more backtracking prints.why would ron walk to the indentation at the house and then walk back to the gate.nicole was on the front door steps he would have to almost walk over her body and she was not dead if ron was attacked first.

I'll concede that my memory is flawed. I thought Nicole died first.

[martin II]

My theory is close to yours. I think he stepped back into the area where he ultimately killed Ron, and attacked him from behind, pulling him into the enclosed area.

Well. if ron walked through the front gate and oj was already in the area where nicole was found they would be face to face so how would oj be able to attack him from behind? see the bundy layout.

[tv]

you're not telling us that the jurors based their not guilty verdict on evidence not admitted in the trial are you?

That's exactly what he's saying. :eek:

[weezer]

I don't know the answer to that but i believe she also had what was called defensive wounds. But if not there is still no proof that she was knocked out at any time before she was killed.

I do not recall any testimony that Nicole had defensive wounds. Of course there is evidence that she was knocked out before she was killed. Good grief martin -- a bruise to the brain from a blow to the head, no dirt and/or blood on the bottom of her feet.

[tv]

Well. if ron walked through the front gate and oj was already in the area where nicole was found they would be face to face so how would oj be able to attack him from behind? see the bundy layout.

I looked at it and I still think my theory is plausible. I've heard some other good ones as well -- all involving OJ Simpson.

[martin II]

He was fighting for his life, clawing at the hand around his neck. It was a chaotic scene. The glove expert meant that you would remove the gloves finger by finger if the wearer was removing the glove not a man trying deperately to live.

Think about this;

If oj had ron in a headlock from behind with his left arm around rons neck this would put ojs left fist at rons right ear. not accessable for ron to pull the glove off finger by finger.Remember Rubin talked a lot about how thin his tight fitting gloves were.They were made to fit as a second skin.imo

[martin II]

I looked at it and I still think my theory is plausible. I've heard some other good ones as well -- all involving OJ Simpson.

if they were face to face exactly how did oj grab him from behind BY SURPRISE.

[tv]

if they were face to face exactly how did oj grab him from behind BY SURPRISE.

They didn't have to be face to face. Ron may have bent over Nicole to help her and Simpson leaped out at him. One thing we know for sure, he was killed from behind.

[martin II]

I'll concede that my memory is flawed. I thought Nicole died first.

I was confussed about this issue for a while myself.

[tv]

Think about this;

If oj had ron in a headlock from behind with his left arm around rons neck this would put ojs left fist at rons right ear. not accessable for ron to pull the glove off finger by finger.Remember Rubin talked a lot about how thin his tight fitting gloves were.They were made to fit as a second skin.imo

martin, we've been all through this before. Ron was fighting for his life -- he may have been able to disengage Simpson's hand long enough to pull off the glove. Do you think he just stood there like a mannequin and let Simpson stab him to death nice and neat?

[weezer]

My memory was that Ron was not attacked at the indention. As I recall, OJ had walked to the back gate, then turned around presumably because he saw Ron arriving. OJ went back up the walk, his tracks showed that he hesitated at the indention because he left several tracks at that spot on the walkway. He then stepped into the dark indention to hide until Ron had gone by. He followed Ron to the spot where the attack took place.

I surely don't remember 'several tracks in one spot,' that he stepped into the dark indention, or that he followed Ron. Do you have a link we could read?

[martin II]

martin, we've been all through this before. Ron was fighting for his life -- he may have been able to disengage Simpson's hand long enough to pull off the glove. Do you think he just stood there like a mannequin and let Simpson stab him to death nice and neat?

No i don't think that
When rons left jugular was cut he immediately became weak from the sudden loss of blood. I doubt you have ever been held in a headlock by a person. It is very unlikely that ron pulled that tight fitting glove off finger by finger.imo

[tv]

No i don't think that
When rons left jugular was cut he immediately became weak from the sudden loss of blood. I doubt you have ever been held in a headlock by a person. It is very unlikely that ron pulled that tight fitting glove off finger by finger.imo

I didn't say he pulled it off finger by finger. Haven't you ever removed a glove by pulling all the fingers at one time? martin, you box yourself in with all these little details.

[weezer]

Mr Rubin the glove expert testified that one would have to pull the gloves off ONE FINGER at a time to get them off. That his tight fitting gloves would not just drop off.

orenthal proved that wrong didn't he? whipped them suckers right off!

[weezer]

I didn't say he pulled it off finger by finger. Haven't you ever removed a glove by pulling all the fingers at one time? martin, you box yourself in with all these little details.

we should play the video of orenthal removing the glove in the courtroom. yep, yep, yep -- whipped those suckers right off. :eek:;)

[tv]

we should play the video of orenthal removing the glove in the courtroom. yep, yep, yep -- whipped those suckers right off. :eek:;)

LOL, thanks for reminding me. :D

[martin II]

They didn't have to be face to face. Ron may have bent over Nicole to help her and Simpson leaped out at him. One thing we know for sure, he was killed from behind.

The story goes that oj was attacking nicole when ron appeared at the gate and yelled hey hey hey when he saw oj over nicole. That ron entered the gate and some words were exchanged And that this is when oj attacked him.
that sounds like they were face to face.not that oj was behind him when ron was at the gate. the problem with this is how did oj get behind ron to surprise him and put him in the head lock.It does not work.
but if one killer was attacking nicole when ron arrived at the gate and yelled hey hey hey at that killer and the second killer hiding at the mail box grabbed ron by surprise from behind, that works.

there had to be more than one killer as i doubt that one person could control both ron and nicole at the same time and since we know there is no proof that nicole was knocked out she must have been fighting the killer that was attacking her and the second killer was attacking ron.

[martin II]

LOL, thanks for reminding me. :D

If you play it you will see what the world saw,OJ WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THE GLOVES ON so it would be easy to flip them off. if it was.

[martin II]

I didn't say he pulled it off finger by finger. Haven't you ever removed a glove by pulling all the fingers at one time? martin, you box yourself in with all these little details.

no i have never done that but you seem to ignore the glove experts words
Gloves were thin leather
Gloves were made to fit like a second skin
Gloves were made to fit very tight
Gloves,once on, had to be removed finger by finger
Gloves would not just drop off
He may have known a little more about his gloves than you.
Mr Rubin

[martin II]

I didn't say he pulled it off finger by finger. Haven't you ever removed a glove by pulling all the fingers at one time? martin, you box yourself in with all these little details.

tv
i don't think even you could pull a glove off of a closed fist in a fight.

[martin II]

Autopsy report heading of nicoles defensive wounds to her hands. so she was fighting her killer.note they are called defensive wounds.


III. Multiple injuries of hands, including incised wound, ring finger of right hand (defense wound).

III Is from autopsy report. not my words.i thought that was obvious.

[weezer]

The story goes that oj was attacking nicole when ron appeared at the gate and yelled hey hey hey when he saw oj over nicole. That ron entered the gate and some words were exchanged And that this is when oj attacked him.
that sounds like they were face to face.not that oj was behind him when ron was at the gate. the problem with this is how did oj get behind ron to surprise him and put him in the head lock.It does not work. maybe Ron moved forward to bend of Nicole? maybe Ron turned to go for help?
but if one killer was attacking nicole when ron arrived at the gate and yelled hey hey hey at that killer and the second killer hiding at the mail box grabbed ron by surprise from behind, that works.

there had to be more than one killer as i doubt that one person could control both ron and nicole at the same time and since we know there is no proof that nicole was knocked out she must have been fighting the killer that was attacking her and the second killer was attacking ron.

martin, you continue to post that Nicole was fighting with orenthal when he attacked her -- you know that you are being dishonest and making statements that have been proven to be wrong.

[weezer]

If you play it you will see what the world saw,OJ WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THE GLOVES ON so it would be easy to flip them off. if it was.

not according to the jury -- or as you like to say, 'the tryors of fact' :rolleyes:

[weezer]

no i have never done that but you seem to ignore the glove experts words
Gloves were thin leather
Gloves were made to fit like a second skin
Gloves were made to fit very tight
Gloves,once on, had to be removed finger by finger
Gloves would not just drop off
He may have known a little more about his gloves than you.
Mr Rubin

AND, don't forget the most important testimony from him:

1. the gloves matched
2. the gloves fit orenthal

[weezer]

Autopsy report heading of nicoles defensive wounds to her hands. so she was fighting her killer.note they are called defensive wounds.


III. Multiple injuries of hands, including incised wound, ring finger of right hand (defense wound).

how in the world did you get from "incised wound, ring finger of right hand (defense wound)" to Nicole had defensive wounds from fighting orenthal?

[weezer]

tv
i don't think even you could pull a glove off of a closed fist in a fight.

hmmm -- we know that one glove was off at the crime scene -- orenthal's cut finger and dripping blood.

what if it wasn't orenthal that made the noises on kato's wall? what if it was 'something'? something like a bag (?) that was thrown over the fence and hit the wall?

[martin II]

description of 1x1 head bump

8. Blunt force injury to head: On the right side of the scalp, 4 inches above the right external auditory canal there is a scalp bruise; this is revealed after postmortem shaving of the scalp. It measures 1 x 1 inches and is red-violet or purple in color. The skin is smooth, non-abraded or lacerated. Subsequent autopsy discloses fresh deep scalp hemorrhage and fresh dark red-purple subgaleal hemorrhage or bruising measuring 2 x 1 1/4 inches. Inferiorly the bruise extends to the superficial right temporal muscle. There is no associated skull fracture.

Defensive hand wounds.

INJURIES TO HANDS:

Right hand: There is a 5/8 incised wound of the volar surface of the right index finger at the distal knuckle. This 5/8 inch incised wound is tangentially oriented or cut through the skin and dermis with the avulsed skin inferiorly indicating that the direction is from distal to proximal.

Further examination discloses that there is a split or forked end on the ulnar aspect and pointed end on the radial aspect. There is a small amount of dermal hemorrhage.

On the dorsal surface of the right hand, at the base of the ring finger, there is a 1/16 inch punctate abrasion.

Left hand: On the dorsal surface of the left hand, there is a punctate abrasion, red-brown in color at the base of the ring finger.

There is a 1/2 inch superficial incised skin cut, 1/2 inch in length, diagonally oriented, on the top of the left hand, midportion.

[weezer]

description of 1x1 head bump

8. Blunt force injury to head: On the right side of the scalp, 4 inches above the right external auditory canal there is a scalp bruise; this is revealed after postmortem shaving of the scalp. It measures 1 x 1 inches and is red-violet or purple in color. The skin is smooth, non-abraded or lacerated. Subsequent autopsy discloses fresh deep scalp hemorrhage and fresh dark red-purple subgaleal hemorrhage or bruising measuring 2 x 1 1/4 inches. Inferiorly the bruise extends to the superficial right temporal muscle. There is no associated skull fracture.

Defensive hand wounds.

INJURIES TO HANDS:

Right hand: There is a 5/8 incised wound of the volar surface of the right index finger at the distal knuckle. This 5/8 inch incised wound is tangentially oriented or cut through the skin and dermis with the avulsed skin inferiorly indicating that the direction is from distal to proximal.

Further examination discloses that there is a split or forked end on the ulnar aspect and pointed end on the radial aspect. There is a small amount of dermal hemorrhage.

On the dorsal surface of the right hand, at the base of the ring finger, there is a 1/16 inch punctate abrasion.

Left hand: On the dorsal surface of the left hand, there is a punctate abrasion, red-brown in color at the base of the ring finger.

There is a 1/2 inch superficial incised skin cut, 1/2 inch in length, diagonally oriented, on the top of the left hand, midportion.

wow -- so she knew he was there to kill her and tried to fight! I hope he roasts in hell -- :cuss:

[martin II]

The autopsy report did not indicate any injury or damage to the brain or skull as suggested by another post.The report indicated that the hand wounds were defensive in nature.I take this to mean that she was defending herself.The wounds on rons hands were also called defensive wounds.

[martin II]

i don't think a bag tossed against a house wall would shake a wall but if it did why didn't furhman find that bag?

[weezer]

The autopsy report did not indicate any injury or damage to the brain or skull as suggested by another post.The report indicated that the hand wounds were defensive in nature.I take this to mean that she was defending herself.The wounds on rons hands were also called defensive wounds.

boy-oh-boy, I'm having a kinda sick to my stomach feeling realizing that she knew he was going to kill her. I guess I had always thought (hoped) that he came from behind and she didn't know.

[martin II]

Well we know she had defensive wounds contrary to what some had thought
so i guess she did see her killers and tried to fight or did fight.i assume she was at some time standing erect.imo

[GreenIce]

Riske used the phone because he didn't want to broadcast the murders over the police radio because he knew it would bring the media immediately to the scene. LE didn't call 'daddy' because they wanted to make the notification in person as a courtesy because of Simpson's celebrity status.

TV,

The only way the LAPD was going to be able to see Simpson face to face was by contacting him before hand. Remember, ringing the buzzer for the gate? They were going to indentify themselves and tell them they needed to seem face to face.

Another point, Vanatter got upset with one of the Westec Guys because he wouldn't give out Simpson's phone number. So why didn't VA go back to Bundy and push the "daddy button". Again, if they reached Simpson by phone it would have been the same thing, Mr. Simpson we are outside your gates, we need to see you".

IMO, every single member of the LAPD who responded Bundy was thinking what I was, "where's OJ". For the LAPD to allow those 4 detectives to lie about that just makes no sense. IMO, their testimony about his and VA's lies on the search warrant, IMO, really destroyed their case. It was a taint that never went away and kept getting larger and larger and larger. The DA's mountain of evidence was not even a slight slope let alone a mountain.

I don't know why 4 lead detectives with over a hundred years of experience would deny that Simpson was a suspect. Especially when their actions, like not ordering a rape kit or putting a blanket on Nicole, IMO, clearly shows they believed they had their suspect and their case was tight. IMO, they knew the case was over, one way or the other.

[GreenIce]

My memory was that Ron was not attacked at the indention. As I recall, OJ had walked to the back gate, then turned around presumably because he saw Ron arriving. OJ went back up the walk, his tracks showed that he hesitated at the indention because he left several tracks at that spot on the walkway. He then stepped into the dark indention to hide until Ron had gone by. He followed Ron to the spot where the attack took place.

Lodi,

Ron had lipstick on his cheek, so it was a assumed that Ron and Nicole exchanged a greetings, Nicole kissed him and then they were attacked at the same time. Don't forget, Nicole left her garage door open which led into the condo. I sincerely doubt that Ron would have used the front gate to drop of the glasses---unless he pulled up, let the car run and just basically did a hand off.

I don't know why it is assumed that Ron did use the front gate.

Also there was some of Nicole's blood on Ron's boots I think and that is why some believe that Nicole was killed first. Plus Ron had "control" wounds or torture wounds on his cheek or neck---Nicole did not.

Both of them would have been able to scream out but neither apparently did. There is the rumor that someone heard a scream, however, that was never testified to. The scream would have hurt the DA's timeline.

There was jean jacket that was seen on the back of a kitchen chair. I think Riske said that he was talking to MF about it and who's jacket it could be after that, I never heard anything about it.

[martin II]

Lodi,

Ron had lipstick on his cheek, so it was a assumed that Ron and Nicole exchanged a greetings, Nicole kissed him and then they were attacked at the same time. Don't forget, Nicole left her garage door open which led into the condo. I sincerely doubt that Ron would have used the front gate to drop of the glasses---unless he pulled up, let the car run and just basically did a hand off.

I don't know why it is assumed that Ron did use the front gate.

Also there was some of Nicole's blood on Ron's boots I think and that is why some believe that Nicole was killed first. Plus Ron had "control" wounds or torture wounds on his cheek or neck---Nicole did not.

Both of them would have been able to scream out but neither apparently did. There is the rumor that someone heard a scream, however, that was never testified to. The scream would have hurt the DA's timeline.

There was jean jacket that was seen on the back of a kitchen chair. I think Riske said that he was talking to MF about it and who's jacket it could be after that, I never heard anything about it.

if Ron was simply comming to do a hand off he would have parked on Bundy
and given the glasses to nicole. he didn't. he parked around the corner on Dorothy and walked back to her condo.This indicates that he planned to stay longer. This is supported by Fays comments to Cora that Nicole told her that Ron was comming over and that she, nicole planned to try him out that night.

The jean jacket on the chair that Riske saw just dissapeared and the only people there was le. So what happened to the jacket?imo

[martin II]

Lodi,

Ron had lipstick on his cheek, so it was a assumed that Ron and Nicole exchanged a greetings, Nicole kissed him and then they were attacked at the same time. Don't forget, Nicole left her garage door open which led into the condo. I sincerely doubt that Ron would have used the front gate to drop of the glasses---unless he pulled up, let the car run and just basically did a hand off.

I don't know why it is assumed that Ron did use the front gate.

Also there was some of Nicole's blood on Ron's boots I think and that is why some believe that Nicole was killed first. Plus Ron had "control" wounds or torture wounds on his cheek or neck---Nicole did not.

Both of them would have been able to scream out but neither apparently did. There is the rumor that someone heard a scream, however, that was never testified to. The scream would have hurt the DA's timeline.

There was jean jacket that was seen on the back of a kitchen chair. I think Riske said that he was talking to MF about it and who's jacket it could be after that, I never heard anything about it.

The prosecution was lost using Clarks 10;20 killing time when the defence put
heidstra on. They used the hey hey hey to say, lets just say that was Ron and that is how the ron at the gate story was created.

[martin II]

TV,

The only way the LAPD was going to be able to see Simpson face to face was by contacting him before hand. Remember, ringing the buzzer for the gate? They were going to indentify themselves and tell them they needed to seem face to face.

Another point, Vanatter got upset with one of the Westec Guys because he wouldn't give out Simpson's phone number. So why didn't VA go back to Bundy and push the "daddy button". Again, if they reached Simpson by phone it would have been the same thing, Mr. Simpson we are outside your gates, we need to see you".

IMO, every single member of the LAPD who responded Bundy was thinking what I was, "where's OJ". For the LAPD to allow those 4 detectives to lie about that just makes no sense. IMO, their testimony about his and VA's lies on the search warrant, IMO, really destroyed their case. It was a taint that never went away and kept getting larger and larger and larger. The DA's mountain of evidence was not even a slight slope let alone a mountain.

I don't know why 4 lead detectives with over a hundred years of experience would deny that Simpson was a suspect. Especially when their actions, like not ordering a rape kit or putting a blanket on Nicole, IMO, clearly shows they believed they had their suspect and their case was tight. IMO, they knew the case was over, one way or the other.

To allow the two lead detectives to leave the major active crime scene to make a simple notification was worse.They did not call the coroner until 12 hours. this was against protocol

[martin II]

I didn't say he pulled it off finger by finger. Haven't you ever removed a glove by pulling all the fingers at one time? martin, you box yourself in with all these little details.

Ignore the details and you will not get close to the truth.

[tv]

TV,

The only way the LAPD was going to be able to see Simpson face to face was by contacting him before hand. Remember, ringing the buzzer for the gate? They were going to indentify themselves and tell them they needed to seem face to face. I don't get your point.

Another point, Vanatter got upset with one of the Westec Guys because he wouldn't give out Simpson's phone number. So why didn't VA go back to Bundy and push the "daddy button". Again, if they reached Simpson by phone it would have been the same thing, Mr. Simpson we are outside your gates, we need to see you". Why go back to Bundy? The Westec guy gave him the number.

IMO, every single member of the LAPD who responded Bundy was thinking what I was, "where's OJ". For the LAPD to allow those 4 detectives to lie about that just makes no sense. IMO, their testimony about his and VA's lies on the search warrant, IMO, really destroyed their case. It was a taint that never went away and kept getting larger and larger and larger. The DA's mountain of evidence was not even a slight slope let alone a mountain. I disagree that they lied.

I don't know why 4 lead detectives with over a hundred years of experience would deny that Simpson was a suspect. There were only two lead detectives. Dets. Fuhrman and Roberts were replaced by Vannatter and Lange. Especially when their actions, like not ordering a rape kit or putting a blanket on Nicole, IMO, clearly shows they believed they had their suspect and their case was tight. IMO, they knew the case was over, one way or the other. We have been over this so many times. Lange realized putting a blanket from the house over Nicole wasn't the wisest thing to do but he was trying to shield her body. The rape kit wasn't used because there were no signs of trauma that could have been the result of rape and her clothing wasn't in disarray. On the one hand you say they had their suspect. On the other you say they knew the case was over 'one way or the other.':shrug:

[tv]

Ignore the details and you will not get close to the truth.

I didn't say ignore the details. My point is that you're not flexible on any part of the crime that you've got in your head happened a certain way. I have my own idea on what happened but doesn't mean every detail of my scenario is right. I don't know how you can say Simpson's fist was clenched while he held Ron. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The forensic evidence doesn't show us that.

[tv]

To allow the two lead detectives to leave the major active crime scene to make a simple notification was worse.They did not call the coroner until 12 hours. this was against protocol

They did not 'allow' them. They were told to make the notification in person by Commander Bushey. The coroner investigator arrived at 9:10 AM. Vannatter arrived at the scene at 4:05, Lange at 4:25 so it was roughly five hours before anyone arrived from the coroner's office not twelve hours.

[tv]

if Ron was simply comming to do a hand off he would have parked on Bundy
and given the glasses to nicole. he didn't. he parked around the corner on Dorothy and walked back to her condo.This indicates that he planned to stay longer. This is supported by Fays comments to Cora that Nicole told her that Ron was comming over and that she, nicole planned to try him out that night.

The jean jacket on the chair that Riske saw just dissapeared and the only people there was le. So what happened to the jacket?imo

martin, how can you know what was in Ron's mind? Did it ever occur to you that he didn't want a repeat of being confronted by OJ Simpson so he parked in a more inconspicuous place? Even if he planned to stay longer, so what? What does that prove?

[tv]

Lodi,

Ron had lipstick on his cheek, so it was a assumed that Ron and Nicole exchanged a greetings, Nicole kissed him and then they were attacked at the same time. Don't forget, Nicole left her garage door open which led into the condo. I sincerely doubt that Ron would have used the front gate to drop of the glasses---unless he pulled up, let the car run and just basically did a hand off.

I don't know why it is assumed that Ron did use the front gate.

Also there was some of Nicole's blood on Ron's boots I think and that is why some believe that Nicole was killed first. Plus Ron had "control" wounds or torture wounds on his cheek or neck---Nicole did not.

Both of them would have been able to scream out but neither apparently did. There is the rumor that someone heard a scream, however, that was never testified to. The scream would have hurt the DA's timeline.

There was jean jacket that was seen on the back of a kitchen chair. I think Riske said that he was talking to MF about it and who's jacket it could be after that, I never heard anything about it.

This is the first time I've heard this. Do you have a link to the source?

[martin II]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9201143]martin, how can you know what was in Ron's mind? Did it ever occur to you that he didn't want a repeat of being confronted by OJ Simpson so he parked in a more inconspicuous place? Even if he planned to stay longer, so what? What does that prove?[/QUOTE

Parking on Dorothy indictes intent to stay longer than pareking on Bundy.i don't need to read his mind to understand that. His planning to stay longer shoots down the claim that He was only a casual waiter friend of Nicoles and that his plans for the night was to meet his friends for a night out unless he changed his mind before arriving at Nicoles.

[martin II]

They did not 'allow' them. They were told to make the notification in person by Commander Bushey. The coroner investigator arrived at 9:10 AM. Vannatter arrived at the scene at 4:05, Lange at 4:25 so it was roughly five hours before anyone arrived from the coroner's office not twelve hours.

When a dead body is found the coroner is called immediately to be able to set the time of death before riga sets in and to take control of the body.

[martin II]

I didn't say ignore the details. My point is that you're not flexible on any part of the crime that you've got in your head happened a certain way. I have my own idea on what happened but doesn't mean every detail of my scenario is right. I don't know how you can say Simpson's fist was clenched while he held Ron. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The forensic evidence doesn't show us that.

I doubt a man holding another in a head lock would do so with a open hand.it is a natural reaction to close ones fist in a fight.imo

[martin II]

I didn't say ignore the details. My point is that you're not flexible on any part of the crime that you've got in your head happened a certain way. I have my own idea on what happened but doesn't mean every detail of my scenario is right. I don't know how you can say Simpson's fist was clenched while he held Ron. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The forensic evidence doesn't show us that.

i have looked at a lot of info on the possibilities of how ron was killed and have come to conclusion based of the details of others investigations and opinions. The more details you get the closer to the truth you will be.many believe that ron stood face to face with his killer putting up a nig fight but the blood on his jeans indicates that he was controlled by the headlock from behind and forced to a sitting position where the balance of his wounds were inflicted before his body was tossed to where it was found.

There is no evidence that Ron pulled off any glove from his killer.Based on the fit of the gloves it is unlikely that he did.

[martin II]

They did not 'allow' them. They were told to make the notification in person by Commander Bushey. The coroner investigator arrived at 9:10 AM. Vannatter arrived at the scene at 4:05, Lange at 4:25 so it was roughly five hours before anyone arrived from the coroner's office not twelve hours.

When furhman was relieved of his duty he should have just gone home or to a bar for a drink. He refused to leave.

[tv]

When furhman was relieved of his duty he should have just gone home or to a bar for a drink. He refused to leave.

He did not refuse to leave. Do you think his superiors would have tolerated that? He stayed to help the lead detectives at their request. Please stop telling this tall tale.

[tv]

i have looked at a lot of info on the possibilities of how ron was killed and have come to conclusion based of the details of others investigations and opinions. The more details you get the closer to the truth you will be.many believe that ron stood face to face with his killer putting up a nig fight but the blood on his jeans indicates that he was controlled by the headlock from behind and forced to a sitting position where the balance of his wounds were inflicted before his body was tossed to where it was found.

There is no evidence that Ron pulled off any glove from his killer.Based on the fit of the gloves it is unlikely that he did.

This is all leading up to your belief that the glove at Bundy was placed where it was found. I think it's very possible Ron pulled the glove off OJ Simpson in his struggle to survive. How do you know your fictional 'real killer' didn't have small hands?

[tv]

I doubt a man holding another in a head lock would do so with a open hand.it is a natural reaction to close ones fist in a fight.imo

The fist could have been closed but it doesn't mean it was closed the entired time. There's no way you could know all these details for sure.

[tv]

When a dead body is found the coroner is called immediately to be able to set the time of death before riga sets in and to take control of the body.

Lange asked Phillips to make the first call at 6:49 to place the Coroner's office on notice so they would be ready for the second call when he was ready for them. The crime scene had to be reviewed and documented before the bodies were moved.

Rigor mortis doesn't set in for hours and there are other ways to determine cause of death such as lividity, temperature and stomach contents. (Yes, I know Nicole's got thrown out.) As for the coroner needing to 'take control' of the body -- it's up to the detectives when they're ready to release the bodies. Ron and Nicole certainly weren't going anywhere after OJ Simpson was done with his night's work.

[martin II]

Lange asked Phillips to make the first call at 6:49 to place the Coroner's office on notice so they would be ready for the second call when he was ready for them. The crime scene had to be reviewed and documented before the bodies were moved.

Rigor mortis doesn't set in for hours and there are other ways to determine cause of death such as lividity, temperature and stomach contents. (Yes, I know Nicole's got thrown out.) As for the coroner needing to 'take control' of the body -- it's up to the detectives when they're ready to release the bodies. Ron and Nicole certainly weren't going anywhere after OJ Simpson was done with his night's work.

Well if the lead detectives had not been screwing around at rockingham they could have fiunished their work at bundy and calledthe coroner as required.

[martin II]

The fist could have been closed but it doesn't mean it was closed the entired time. There's no way you could know all these details for sure.

I am not sure as you may have more experience in fist fights than me :)but from my experience most men fight with closed fist. however it may be true that women fight with open hand.:) which may lead you to believe that the killer faught with open hand.But we all think the killer was a man.

[tv]

Well if the lead detectives had not been screwing around at rockingham they could have fiunished their work at bundy and calledthe coroner as required.

I don't know if I'd call it screwing around but I agree there was a lot at Rockingham that added time to the investigation.

[martin II]

This is all leading up to your belief that the glove at Bundy was placed where it was found. I think it's very possible Ron pulled the glove off OJ Simpson in his struggle to survive. How do you know your fictional 'real killer' didn't have small hands?

Are you suggesting that the killer had small hands and purchased and wore xlarge gloves?
Ron didn't have a chance to focus on pulling a glove off the killers hand, he was trying to get free of the headlock from behind so he cfould then try to make a fair fight of it.He was outnumbered by the two killers.

[martin II]

tv

i don't accept the idea that a old football player with worn out hands,knees and ankles from injuries and operations would be able to kill two people that were known to be in great physical shape in 90 minutes at the same time.
That does not work for me.imo:cool:

[martin II]

I don't know if I'd call it screwing around but I agree there was a lot at Rockingham that added time to the investigation.

the major crime scene was Bundy.That is where they should have been looking for alternatives to their first conclusion.When furhman first pointed them to oj they just forgot about everything else.everyone pilled into cars and went after their suspect.

[martin II]

I don't know if I'd call it screwing around but I agree there was a lot at Rockingham that added time to the investigation.

There must have beem many second in command cops they could have left at Rockingham while they processed the major crime scene.But their focus on catching oj was up front.

[martin II]

Lange asked Phillips to make the first call at 6:49 to place the Coroner's office on notice so they would be ready for the second call when he was ready for them. The crime scene had to be reviewed and documented before the bodies were moved.

Rigor mortis doesn't set in for hours and there are other ways to determine cause of death such as lividity, temperature and stomach contents. (Yes, I know Nicole's got thrown out.) As for the coroner needing to 'take control' of the body -- it's up to the detectives when they're ready to release the bodies. Ron and Nicole certainly weren't going anywhere after OJ Simpson was done with his night's work.

i think when le saw the foot prints they thought we got him. now lets go find the shoes over at ojs house.Forget any possible other evidence that may be here.Then a few days later they told LOU wash the crime scene down with water.

[martin II]

Lange asked Phillips to make the first call at 6:49 to place the Coroner's office on notice so they would be ready for the second call when he was ready for them. The crime scene had to be reviewed and documented before the bodies were moved.

Rigor mortis doesn't set in for hours and there are other ways to determine cause of death such as lividity, temperature and stomach contents. (Yes, I know Nicole's got thrown out.) As for the coroner needing to 'take control' of the body -- it's up to the detectives when they're ready to release the bodies. Ron and Nicole certainly weren't going anywhere after OJ Simpson was done with his night's work.

If vanhatter was present when the sweat suite was found and he had been looking for the killers clothes, why didn't he tell fung to just collect it and test it to see if these are the clothes we are looking for.

In your profession you deal with blood.How long do you believe it would take for the blood near nicoles body to have the correct viscosity for a foot print like those found at bundy to be formed.?

[martin II]

I don't know if I'd call it screwing around but I agree there was a lot at Rockingham that added time to the investigation.

one issue

If Vanhatter had received ojs blood from the nurse and walked across the street and deposited it to SID, the blood would have been in the proper place.
He didn't, he carried it around in his pocket for some time and then put the spotlight on Fung by claiming he gave the blood to him.Fung was surprised and said no one had ever brought blood to him at a crime scene.i took that to mean there was no valid or urgent need for Vanhatter to do this.Remember other blood samples were in the driveway and it had not been determined who they belonged to.Why did Vanhater need to do this?
imo

[weezer]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9201143]martin, how can you know what was in Ron's mind? Did it ever occur to you that he didn't want a repeat of being confronted by OJ Simpson so he parked in a more inconspicuous place? Even if he planned to stay longer, so what? What does that prove?[/QUOTE

Parking on Dorothy indictes intent to stay longer than pareking on Bundy.i don't need to read his mind to understand that. His planning to stay longer shoots down the claim that He was only a casual waiter friend of Nicoles and that his plans for the night was to meet his friends for a night out unless he changed his mind before arriving at Nicoles.

hmmm -- do I remember something about the road in front of Nicole's was no parking?

[martin II]

if Ron was comming just to drop off the glasses there would be no need to park on Bundy.Nicole could just come out to his car and receive them.The fact that he parked around the corner indicates that nicole had suggested that he come to stay or he decided to do so on his own.
If Fays comment is correct that Nicole told her that Ron had been making intimate comments to her and that she had decided to try him out that night
it may be that Nicole had asked him to come prepared to stay.imo

[weezer]

if Ron was comming just to drop off the glasses there would be no need to park on Bundy.Nicole could just come out to his car and receive them.The fact that he parked around the corner indicates that nicole had suggested that he come to stay or he decided to do so on his own.
If Fays comment is correct that Nicole told her that Ron had been making intimate comments to her and that she had decided to try him out that night
it may be that Nicole had asked him to come prepared to stay.imo

cherry picking testimony again? faye also said orenthal murdered nicole. we do know that orenthal at least thought Ron was there to 'see' Nicole don't we? popular opinion is that's what drove orenthal james simpson to butcher Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. :eek:

[weezer]

SNIPPED***. . .Ron had lipstick on his cheek. . .

you know, that lipstick could have come from orenthal! :eek: there were panties in the washer with his sweatsuit and then of course there was the james woods incident!;)

maybe that's what the 'hey, hey, hey' was about -- Ron trying to get away from orenthal wearing panties and lipstick!

[tv]

you know, that lipstick could have come from orenthal! :eek: there were panties in the washer with his sweatsuit and then of course there was the james woods incident!;)

maybe that's what the 'hey, hey, hey' was about -- Ron trying to get away from orenthal wearing panties and lipstick!

LOL, maybe Nicole and Ron weren't the only ones that had lovin' on their minds. :eek:

[tv]

if Ron was comming just to drop off the glasses there would be no need to park on Bundy.Nicole could just come out to his car and receive them.The fact that he parked around the corner indicates that nicole had suggested that he come to stay or he decided to do so on his own.
If Fays comment is correct that Nicole told her that Ron had been making intimate comments to her and that she had decided to try him out that night
it may be that Nicole had asked him to come prepared to stay.imo

What do Ron's intentions for that night have to do with anything? I think this is just an opportunity for you to put Nicole in a bad light.

[weezer]

LOL, maybe Nicole and Ron weren't the only ones that had lovin' on their minds. :eek:

you mean like a 'lovelock' -- ;):D

[weezer]

What do Ron's intentions for that night have to do with anything? I think this is just an opportunity for you to put Nicole in a bad light.

my gosh -- martin describes orenthal as "that (a) old football player with worn out hands, knees and ankles" -- no wonder Nicole was attracted to kind, young, handsome, in shape guy. :shrug:

[tv]

one issue

If Vanhatter had received ojs blood from the nurse and walked across the street and deposited it to SID, the blood would have been in the proper place.
He didn't, he carried it around in his pocket for some time and then put the spotlight on Fung by claiming he gave the blood to him.Fung was surprised and said no one had ever brought blood to him at a crime scene.i took that to mean there was no valid or urgent need for Vanhatter to do this.Remember other blood samples were in the driveway and it had not been determined who they belonged to.Why did Vanhater need to do this?
imo

Vannatter was alone with Simpson's black bag as well as the blood but yet we're supposed to believe that one of the twins of deception didn't take that opportunity to plant some blood in it?

He didn't just 'claim' to give the envelope containing the blood vial to Fung -- that action was recorded on video as you well know.

[tv]

my gosh -- martin describes orenthal as "that (a) old football player with worn out hands, knees and ankles" -- no wonder Nicole was attracted to kind, young, handsome, in shape guy. :shrug:

I'm willing to bet Ron never called her a 'fat pig' or 'wrassled' her out of a room. ;)

[tv]

you mean like a 'lovelock' -- ;):D

Haha...exactly! :beer:

[tv]

There must have beem many second in command cops they could have left at Rockingham while they processed the major crime scene.But their focus on catching oj was up front.

The commander's order to notify in person is what it is. OJ Simpson had been pampered by LE for years and June 13th was no different.

[tv]

i think when le saw the foot prints they thought we got him. now lets go find the shoes over at ojs house.Forget any possible other evidence that may be here.Then a few days later they told LOU wash the crime scene down with water.

Why would seeing the footprints make LE think 'we got him'? There was nothing wrong with Lou Brown washing down the crime scene. The investigators were finished with it and he wanted his daughter's blood removed as would any loving father.

[tv]

If vanhatter was present when the sweat suite was found and he had been looking for the killers clothes, why didn't he tell fung to just collect it and test it to see if these are the clothes we are looking for.

In your profession you deal with blood.How long do you believe it would take for the blood near nicoles body to have the correct viscosity for a foot print like those found at bundy to be formed.?

IMO, if blood is wet you can make footprints if you step in it.

[weezer]

Why would seeing the footprints make LE think 'we got him'? There was nothing wrong with Lou Brown washing down the crime scene. The investigators were finished with it and he wanted his daughter's blood removed as would any loving father.

I guess orenthal's blood at rockingham wasn't cleaned up until after the trial? :eek:

[tv]

I guess orenthal's blood at rockingham wasn't cleaned up until after the trial? :eek:

Do you think the maid used WATER to clean it up? omg. :eek:

[martin II]

IMO, if blood is wet you can make footprints if you step in it.

That is a simple answer.I am talking about a defined print like what was found at Bundy.Think about it a little. If the blood was say a minute fresh more of a smudge would be the results.After about 10 minutes or more it would be thicker and a more defined print would show imo

[weezer]

That is a simple answer.I am talking about a defined print like what was found at Bundy.Think about it a little. If the blood was say a minute fresh more of a smudge would be the results.After about 10 minutes or more it would be thicker and a more defined print would show imo

that is the silliest interpretation of footprints I have heard.

[martin II]

Why would seeing the footprints make LE think 'we got him'? There was nothing wrong with Lou Brown washing down the crime scene. The investigators were finished with it and he wanted his daughter's blood removed as would any loving father.

They were finished with the blood on the back gate. right?or maby there was no blood on the gate when LOU did his clean.Wonder how much other evidence they missed that he washed away.

[weezer]

They were finished with the blood on the back gate. right?or maby there was no blood on the gate when LOU did his clean.Wonder how much other evidence they missed that he washed away.

:no::no::no: now you're not forgetting about the picture that shows the blood on the back gate the night of the murders are you?

[weezer]

hey -- I just realized -- next week is orenthal's birthday. wonder if he'll get anything 'special'?

[martin II]

tv

the coversation has gone back into the toilet again
see you tomorrow.:cool:

[GreenIce]

martin, how can you know what was in Ron's mind? Did it ever occur to you that he didn't want a repeat of being confronted by OJ Simpson so he parked in a more inconspicuous place? Even if he planned to stay longer, so what? What does that prove?

TV,

When was Ron ever confronted by OJ Simpson? Nicole knew Simpson was going to Chicago, it is obvious that she had no worries about Simpson. She was expecting guests that night, not just Ron. The problem is that the DA's and the defense seemed to believe that Ron was just doing a good deed. Nicole and Ron were not friends, only people who knew each other to say hi. According to the families, they were not romantically involved. The only person who claimed that Ron was going over to Nicole's that night and that Nicole planned to "do him" was from Faye. Of course Faye also said that Nicole was going to see Marcus Allen that night as well.

I tell you, for one strung out addict, she knew the details of Nicole's love life. However, the problem with this is that if Faye is telling the truth, then she could not have known that Ron was coming over that night. I am not even sure that Nicole ever called her mother back to tell her that Ron was bring the glasses over after he got out of work.

[GreenIce]

He did not refuse to leave. Do you think his superiors would have tolerated that? He stayed to help the lead detectives at their request. Please stop telling this tall tale.

TV,

When was Fuhrman asked to stay by the Lange and Vanatter? We know MF was on call that night, yet Phillips called him and asked him for help. Why did Phillips call MF, a junior detective who was not on call?

I agree with you that the detectives needed him, however, they denied this and they never explained why they needed him. I bet you could give 5 reasons why they need him---so why did they deny it?

[martin II]

TV,

When was Ron ever confronted by OJ Simpson? Nicole knew Simpson was going to Chicago, it is obvious that she had no worries about Simpson. She was expecting guests that night, not just Ron. The problem is that the DA's and the defense seemed to believe that Ron was just doing a good deed. Nicole and Ron were not friends, only people who knew each other to say hi. According to the families, they were not romantically involved. The only person who claimed that Ron was going over to Nicole's that night and that Nicole planned to "do him" was from Faye. Of course Faye also said that Nicole was going to see Marcus Allen that night as well.

I tell you, for one strung out addict, she knew the details of Nicole's love life. However, the problem with this is that if Faye is telling the truth, then she could not have known that Ron was coming over that night. I am not even sure that Nicole ever called her mother back to tell her that Ron was bring the glasses over after he got out of work.


on 6/12 Fayes head was still full of truths and untruths.At one time she calimed that she and nicole talked for 30 minutes. but during this time nicole talked to her mother twice,Ron once and oj called once and i believe the Doctor that came to pick up his daughter was there.

[tv]

TV,

When was Fuhrman asked to stay by the Lange and Vanatter? We know MF was on call that night, yet Phillips called him and asked him for help. Why did Phillips call MF, a junior detective who was not on call?

I agree with you that the detectives needed him, however, they denied this and they never explained why they needed him. I bet you could give 5 reasons why they need him---so why did they deny it?

GreenIce, where do you get your information that Fuhrman and Roberts weren't on call that night? Phillips didn't call him to ask him for 'help' -- he called him because it was Fuhrman and Roberts turn to take the next case. Lange and Vannatter asked Fuhrman and Phillips to go with them to Rockingham to make the notification and then they could stay with Simpson and assist him in getting his children back while they returned to Bundy to handle the crime scene. When did they deny asking him to stay and help?

[tv]

TV,

When was Ron ever confronted by OJ Simpson? Nicole knew Simpson was going to Chicago, it is obvious that she had no worries about Simpson. She was expecting guests that night, not just Ron. The problem is that the DA's and the defense seemed to believe that Ron was just doing a good deed. Nicole and Ron were not friends, only people who knew each other to say hi. According to the families, they were not romantically involved. The only person who claimed that Ron was going over to Nicole's that night and that Nicole planned to "do him" was from Faye. Of course Faye also said that Nicole was going to see Marcus Allen that night as well.

I tell you, for one strung out addict, she knew the details of Nicole's love life. However, the problem with this is that if Faye is telling the truth, then she could not have known that Ron was coming over that night. I am not even sure that Nicole ever called her mother back to tell her that Ron was bring the glasses over after he got out of work.

GreenIce, I don't believe half of what you claim that Faye said but since I don't have either of her books I can't dispute it. Who were the guests that Nicole was expecting?

[martin II]

GreenIce, I don't believe half of what you claim that Faye said but since I don't have either of her books I can't dispute it. Who were the guests that Nicole was expecting?

see fays testimony civil trial.

[tv]

see fays testimony civil trial.

I don't see anything in her deposition about Nicole expecting a guest that night but maybe I missed it. Can you direct me to it?

[martin II]

GreenIce, where do you get your information that Fuhrman and Roberts weren't on call that night? Phillips didn't call him to ask him for 'help' -- he called him because it was Fuhrman and Roberts turn to take the next case. Lange and Vannatter asked Fuhrman and Phillips to go with them to Rockingham to make the notification and then they could stay with Simpson and assist him in getting his children back while they returned to Bundy to handle the crime scene. When did they deny asking him to stay and help?

What i remember was that furhman was not on call but phillips called him anyway.Vanhatter said he did not know where Rockingham was and Furhman said he did and he would take them there. Vanhatter had 30 years working in lapd and didn't know where Rockingham was is not believable. Usually the lapd commjunity service people were the ones that made these notifications so i don't know why these lead detectives had to do it in this case.Especially since they had a major crime scene to process with two dead bodies. that part makes no sence.

[martin II]

I don't see anything in her deposition about Nicole expecting a guest that night but maybe I missed it. Can you direct me to it?

i did not post about guest nicole was expecting i was talking about fays many claims.

[weezer]

on 6/12 Fayes head was still full of truths and untruths.At one time she calimed that she and nicole talked for 30 minutes. but during this time nicole talked to her mother twice,Ron once and oj called once and i believe the Doctor that came to pick up his daughter was there.

and she said orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole, yet out of all of what she said, the one thing you post as truth is her claim about Nicole's plans for Ron. geez. :punch:

[martin II]

The issue being discussed is why did ron park on Dorothy as opposed to Bundy. i believe he parked on Dorothy because he planned to spend more time with Nicole than he would if he was only there to drop off the galsses.
Faye claimed that nicole told her that she was going to try ron out that night.
if she did intend to do this it was not really anything new as she had previously had many boyfriends. She was a grown woman she could do as many as she wanted to.I think it was Faye or Cora that listed 7 different boyfriends that nicole had so Ron may have just been another one.
imo

[weezer]

The issue being discussed is why did ron park on Dorothy as opposed to Bundy. i believe he parked on Dorothy because he planned to spend more time with Nicole than he would if he was only there to drop off the galsses.
Faye claimed that nicole told her that she was going to try ron out that night.
if she did intend to do this it was not really anything new as she had previously had many boyfriends. She was a grown woman she could do as many as she wanted to.I think it was Faye or Cora that listed 7 different boyfriends that nicole had so Ron may have just been another one.
imo

and I think he parked around the corner because 1) he wasn't sure which house was hers and/or 2) there was no parking on Bundy.

you're the one that said faye was still full of half-truths -- :shrug:

maybe that's what drove orenthal to butcher Ron and Nicole. he knew she could and here he'd been dumped by Paula AND couldn't even hook up with a call girl! :o

[martin II]

It seemed that fay had much to say but three issue stand out
1. oj killed nicole and ron
2. she did not have such a bad freebasing habit
3. Nicole did some funky stuff.

ps
ron parked around the corner from nicoles house because he needed more time to do what he planned to do and he could not park on Bundy where overnight parking was not allowed.He must have visited her before otherwise how would he know parking was not allowed on Bundy.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .He must have visited her before otherwise how would he know parking was not allowed on Bundy.

PSST -- maybe there were signs? :shrug:

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, where do you get your information that Fuhrman and Roberts weren't on call that night? Phillips didn't call him to ask him for 'help' -- he called him because it was Fuhrman and Roberts turn to take the next case. Lange and Vannatter asked Fuhrman and Phillips to go with them to Rockingham to make the notification and then they could stay with Simpson and assist him in getting his children back while they returned to Bundy to handle the crime scene. When did they deny asking him to stay and help?

TV,

It was in Fuhrman's book. He said he was not on call and that he knew if that if Ron called him, then Ron needed him.

According to Vanatter, he said he did not need MF to lead him to Rockingham. Lange and Vanatter both maintain that MF was off the case long before they went to Rockingham.

However, what was never made clear is that Phillips got the order to find and notify Simpson at 2:30 a.m. by Commander Bushey. According to Shapiro's book, around that same time, Phillips called the station to find for them to ask the kids where there father was.

During the trial, I don't ever remember it being made clear that Bushey gave the order while Phillips was still the lead detective on the case. Bushey never testified until the DA's rebuttal case. He testified that while Phillips and MF were taken off the case of the case, Phillips and MF were basically still under orders to carry out the notification. His testimony is clear as mud on this topic.

By Bushey giving that order to Phillips and MF, there was no reason for them not to go to Bundy at that time. After all, they were given an order and as we know, MF was called into this case just like Marcia Clark was. I find that odd, don't you?

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, I don't believe half of what you claim that Faye said but since I don't have either of her books I can't dispute it. Who were the guests that Nicole was expecting?

TV,

Faye's book said that she was saw Marcus Allen that day and/or she was planning to see him that night. That was one of the reasons she called.

In Shelia Weller's book, she writes that Nicole was expecting someone else but no one knows who it was. When the Brown sister's went on TV right after the murders, they described the scene as classic Nicole for when she was expecting a guest. However, they later claimed that she did that when she was trying to relax.

MF is convinced that Nicole and Ron were lovers and were going to be again that night and Simpson knew this and that is why he killed them.

There was at least one witness who testified that he saw 4 men around Nicole's condo that night and he saw Nicole hug a man while wearing a white bath robe, I do not know if his testimony was ever questioned. I think his name was Tom Lange.

The problem with Faye's claims is that she could not have known that Ron was coming over to drop off the glasses----she burned her self and had to keep changing the times of her phone call to Nicole. When she realized that she could not know have known that Ron was coming over because of the glasses, she had to come up with something else.

I think she made these comments to Cora F during the limo ride either to or from Nicole funeral. Faye didn't go to the wake because she needed to get hair done and apparently had to fix that her hair turned green the first time it was dyed or highlighted or whatever.

Be honest, you don't believe anything I claim:) But that is okay, our people are still residing in peace and the world is a better place for this! (However, I am still right and you are still wrong and your people tell my people they just let you think you are right because they are afraid of you---but no worries:))

[tv]

TV,

It was in Fuhrman's book. He said he was not on call and that he knew if that if Ron called him, then Ron needed him.

According to Vanatter, he said he did not need MF to lead him to Rockingham. Lange and Vanatter both maintain that MF was off the case long before they went to Rockingham.

However, what was never made clear is that Phillips got the order to find and notify Simpson at 2:30 a.m. by Commander Bushey. According to Shapiro's book, around that same time, Phillips called the station to find for them to ask the kids where there father was.

During the trial, I don't ever remember it being made clear that Bushey gave the order while Phillips was still the lead detective on the case. Bushey never testified until the DA's rebuttal case. He testified that while Phillips and MF were taken off the case of the case, Phillips and MF were basically still under orders to carry out the notification. His testimony is clear as mud on this topic.

By Bushey giving that order to Phillips and MF, there was no reason for them not to go to Bundy at that time. After all, they were given an order and as we know, MF was called into this case just like Marcia Clark was. I find that odd, don't you?

I don't find it odd at all. I think the testimony is very clear --

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you had previously ordered Detective Phillips to make sure he made personal notification; is that right?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And did you issue an order with respect to robbery/homicide?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And what was that order?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: I explained to Captain Dial that even though robbery/homicide had taken over the investigation and even though robbery/homicide was not in the--the chain of command of West Bureau, as a staff officer of the Los Angeles Police Department I reiterated my order and I wanted robbery/homicide to find Mr. Simpson as soon as possible and ensure that the notification took place, and I reiterated my rationale as to why I insisted that occur.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Was that a suggestion, sir?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: That was not a suggestion; it was not a hint; it was an order.

MS. CLARK: And was it an order that you made very clear and very--you were very adamant about?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: Unequivocally clear.

MS. CLARK: Now, you are aware that four detectives went to make notification to Mr. Simpson?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you approve of that?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: Certainly.

MS. CLARK: Is that unusual?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: No, not at all.

[GreenIce]

I don't find it odd at all. I think the testimony is very clear --

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you had previously ordered Detective Phillips to make sure he made personal notification; is that right?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And did you issue an order with respect to robbery/homicide?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And what was that order?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: I explained to Captain Dial that even though robbery/homicide had taken over the investigation and even though robbery/homicide was not in the--the chain of command of West Bureau, as a staff officer of the Los Angeles Police Department I reiterated my order and I wanted robbery/homicide to find Mr. Simpson as soon as possible and ensure that the notification took place, and I reiterated my rationale as to why I insisted that occur.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Was that a suggestion, sir?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: That was not a suggestion; it was not a hint; it was an order.

MS. CLARK: And was it an order that you made very clear and very--you were very adamant about?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: Unequivocally clear.

MS. CLARK: Now, you are aware that four detectives went to make notification to Mr. Simpson?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you approve of that?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: Certainly.

MS. CLARK: Is that unusual?

COMMANDER BUSHEY: No, not at all.

TV,

IMO, no offense to you G's, but you guys are great at reading "mud". Not so good at explaining it, but very good at reading it:)

Again, it is the time when the order was given and when it was carried it out as well as Phillips calling the station to ask that the kids be asked where their father was.

Left out one part, the detectives never explained why they knew about 3 DV calls and still never considered Simpson a suspect and don't go near the "potential" suspect. Vanatter's, "Mr. Shapiro, he was no more of a suspect then you were" closes the issue on this. IMO. What he has said later is nothing more then CYA--which he has every right to do. However, IMO, he was covering MF's and the LAPD's on this one. I will say this for Lange and VA, they did take quite a few for the home team. IMO.

[tv]

TV,

Faye's book said that she was saw Marcus Allen that day and/or she was planning to see him that night. That was one of the reasons she called.

In Shelia Weller's book, she writes that Nicole was expecting someone else but no one knows who it was. When the Brown sister's went on TV right after the murders, they described the scene as classic Nicole for when she was expecting a guest. However, they later claimed that she did that when she was trying to relax.

MF is convinced that Nicole and Ron were lovers and were going to be again that night and Simpson knew this and that is why he killed them.

There was at least one witness who testified that he saw 4 men around Nicole's condo that night and he saw Nicole hug a man while wearing a white bath robe, I do not know if his testimony was ever questioned. I think his name was Tom Lange.

The problem with Faye's claims is that she could not have known that Ron was coming over to drop off the glasses----she burned her self and had to keep changing the times of her phone call to Nicole. When she realized that she could not know have known that Ron was coming over because of the glasses, she had to come up with something else.

I think she made these comments to Cora F during the limo ride either to or from Nicole funeral. Faye didn't go to the wake because she needed to get hair done and apparently had to fix that her hair turned green the first time it was dyed or highlighted or whatever.

Be honest, you don't believe anything I claim:) But that is okay, our people are still residing in peace and the world is a better place for this! (However, I am still right and you are still wrong and your people tell my people they just let you think you are right because they are afraid of you---but no worries:))

We know Ron's purpose in going to Nicole's was to return the glasses -- they were found at the crime scene. We know he had plans to meet a friend that evening. Ron's pager was going off because the friend was wondering why Ron hadn't shown up.

I question the story of Nicole kissing someone while wearing her bathrobe if it occurred after she got home from the recital. Why would she put the dress back on that she wore at the recital?

Okay, I'll be honest. There are lots of time that I research your claims and find out that, while there is truth to them, it's not the whole truth or you've given it a little spin. I don't say this to cause an argument or to regress to our former abrasive relationship -- I'm just being honest. :) I'm glad all the people are at peace -- there's a lot to be said for serenity.

By the way, you're wrong and I'm right about the most important thing -- OJ Simpson is a murderer. ;)

[GreenIce]

It seemed that fay had much to say but three issue stand out
1. oj killed nicole and ron
2. she did not have such a bad freebasing habit
3. Nicole did some funky stuff.

ps
ron parked around the corner from nicoles house because he needed more time to do what he planned to do and he could not park on Bundy where overnight parking was not allowed.He must have visited her before otherwise how would he know parking was not allowed on Bundy.

Martin,

It makes no sense that Ron would even use Bundy and/or the front gate if he was just dropping off glasses or even if he was going to stay and chat for awhile. In Simpson's statement to the police, he explains what Nicole's habits were regarding when she expected a visitor, she would either leave the garage door open or she would leave the garage door opener in a place where the guest could use it.

I know it was said that the garage door opener was missing but I don't even remember that coming up in the trial or that Nicole had these habits. I think the DA's would have pounded this into the jury if they thought this was useful to their case. IMO.

[tv]

TV,

IMO, no offense to you G's, but you guys are great at reading "mud". Not so good at explaining it, but very good at reading it:)

Again, it is the time when the order was given and when it was carried it out as well as Phillips calling the station to ask that the kids be asked where their father was.

Left out one part, the detectives never explained why they knew about 3 DV calls and still never considered Simpson a suspect and don't go near the "potential" suspect. Vanatter's, "Mr. Shapiro, he was no more of a suspect then you were" closes the issue on this. IMO. What he has said later is nothing more then CYA--which he has every right to do. However, IMO, he was covering MF's and the LAPD's on this one. I will say this for Lange and VA, they did take quite a few for the home team. IMO.

Perfect example of spin. That's why I posted the testimony. It speaks for itself.

[tv]

Martin,

It makes no sense that Ron would even use Bundy and/or the front gate if he was just dropping off glasses or even if he was going to stay and chat for awhile. In Simpson's statement to the police, he explains what Nicole's habits were regarding when she expected a visitor, she would either leave the garage door open or she would leave the garage door opener in a place where the guest could use it.

I know it was said that the garage door opener was missing but I don't even remember that coming up in the trial or that Nicole had these habits. I think the DA's would have pounded this into the jury if they thought this was useful to their case. IMO.

I don't anything about the garage door opener but it wouldn't matter what the prosecution pounded into the jury -- they weren't paying attention to the most important parts.

[GreenIce]

We know Ron's purpose in going to Nicole's was to return the glasses -- they were found at the crime scene. We know he had plans to meet a friend that evening. Ron's pager was going off because the friend was wondering why Ron hadn't shown up.

I question the story of Nicole kissing someone while wearing her bathrobe if it occurred after she got home from the recital. Why would she put the dress back on that she wore at the recital?

Okay, I'll be honest. There are lots of time that I research your claims and find out that, while there is truth to them, it's not the whole truth or you've given it a little spin. I don't say this to cause an argument or to regress to our former abrasive relationship -- I'm just being honest. :) I'm glad all the people are at peace -- there's a lot to be said for serenity.

By the way, you're wrong and I'm right about the most important thing -- OJ Simpson is a murderer. ;)

TV,

I really don't see the "spin" that I put on things but only my honest opinons of the evidence or the situation. I feel that you do the same as do all of us really--which is why we are still talking about this case so many years later. I am being completely honest when I say the "spin" is how a person truly sees the evidence in this case. I am leaving the lawyers and the media out this "spin" equation because you and me and the others on this board, have nothing to gain and we are only stating our opinons. In others words, we have no dog in this fight, we have no family or career to worry about if we go against the grain.

Also, I am happy that our planets have been able to exist in peace and that they have chosen their leaders wisely! However, since I pay your people more then you pay them, I am right every thing!:)

[GreenIce]

We know Ron's purpose in going to Nicole's was to return the glasses -- they were found at the crime scene. We know he had plans to meet a friend that evening. Ron's pager was going off because the friend was wondering why Ron hadn't shown up.

I question the story of Nicole kissing someone while wearing her bathrobe if it occurred after she got home from the recital. Why would she put the dress back on that she wore at the recital?

Okay, I'll be honest. There are lots of time that I research your claims and find out that, while there is truth to them, it's not the whole truth or you've given it a little spin. I don't say this to cause an argument or to regress to our former abrasive relationship -- I'm just being honest. :) I'm glad all the people are at peace -- there's a lot to be said for serenity.

By the way, you're wrong and I'm right about the most important thing -- OJ Simpson is a murderer. ;)

TV,

Now, the rest of your post. From the testimony, we only know of one reason why Ron went to Nicole's that night. My point is that Faye Resnick has claimed that Ron was going to Nicole's for a different reason.

I don't know if you remember any of Cora's deposition but she was not surprised that a man was found with Nicole, she thought it had to be Ron or another waiter.

In Jeff Toobin's book, he claims that Jill S. at first thought the person she saw driving the Bronco was Marcus Allen. However, it wasn't until she heard the voice that she knew it was OJ Simpson. Marcus Allen was in LA that day and night and left on an earlier flight that night. I am not saying that Marcus Allen had anything to do with the murders, my point is that Faye is the one who put's him at Nicole's as well as saying that Marcus Allen was the person who was putting Nicole in danger that night.

Again, I am not saying that Faye is telling the truth but she is pointing a lot of fingers as well as providing a list of "reasons" that Simpson was going to kill her. I believe Faye's fear for her life her real but I don't believe it was fear of OJ Simpson. Again, just in IMO.

[GreenIce]

He did not refuse to leave. Do you think his superiors would have tolerated that? He stayed to help the lead detectives at their request. Please stop telling this tall tale.

TV,

IMO, I do believe that MF was called into this case on purpose because of his knowledge of Simpson and Nicole. I have no problem with his being called in. I also believe that the knowledge he had makes perfect sense while it was agreed to that he should go to Rockingham. However, because of the comments made during the trial and in their book, saying that MF was not needed is what hurts them, IMO.

In reading MF's book, does it make sense why MF would order the Bronco to be impounded but VA would stop this order, when according to MF's book, Vanatter knew of the blood inside the Bronco? For VA to say it was the glove that made him suspect Simpson, makes no sense unless he knew more information, such as that Nicole and Simpson did see each other that night. Find the glove was not "clock" as to when the murders took place. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

i think when le saw the foot prints they thought we got him. now lets go find the shoes over at ojs house.Forget any possible other evidence that may be here.Then a few days later they told LOU wash the crime scene down with water.

Martin,

I don't think anyone told Lou Brown to wash down the crime scene. I would assume he would have asked when he would be able to make arrangements for the condo to be packed up and may have asked if it could be washed down. The police releasing the crime scene at Bundy so soon could only be the reason why the Browns were able to do this.

I also think it is possible they may have suggested for him to change the locks on the gate and all the doors on the condo. His washing down the crime scene does make sense, especially if there was chance that Nicole's mother and sisters might come to the crime scene.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

A couple of things. If you look at the close up of MF pointing to the Bundy glove, the "piece" of paper is coming out of the glove, IMO. What else could it be but a tag?

Also, once one picture was taken of the glove, wouldn't MF then be allowed to pick up?

Another point, who's blood was it in the footprints? Wouldn't knowing that help determine who was kiled first as well as factor into the timeline?

[martin II]

Martin,

A couple of things. If you look at the close up of MF pointing to the Bundy glove, the "piece" of paper is coming out of the glove, IMO. What else could it be but a tag?

Also, once one picture was taken of the glove, wouldn't MF then be allowed to pick up?

Another point, who's blood was it in the footprints? Wouldn't knowing that help determine who was kiled first as well as factor into the timeline?

i think the only person allowed to pick the glove up would fung and mazzola

[martin II]

TV,

Now, the rest of your post. From the testimony, we only know of one reason why Ron went to Nicole's that night. My point is that Faye Resnick has claimed that Ron was going to Nicole's for a different reason.

I don't know if you remember any of Cora's deposition but she was not surprised that a man was found with Nicole, she thought it had to be Ron or another waiter.

In Jeff Toobin's book, he claims that Jill S. at first thought the person she saw driving the Bronco was Marcus Allen. However, it wasn't until she heard the voice that she knew it was OJ Simpson. Marcus Allen was in LA that day and night and left on an earlier flight that night. I am not saying that Marcus Allen had anything to do with the murders, my point is that Faye is the one who put's him at Nicole's as well as saying that Marcus Allen was the person who was putting Nicole in danger that night.

Again, I am not saying that Faye is telling the truth but she is pointing a lot of fingers as well as providing a list of "reasons" that Simpson was going to kill her. I believe Faye's fear for her life her real but I don't believe it was fear of OJ Simpson. Again, just in IMO.

a neighbor saw a black benz in front of nicoles house on that night.who did that belong to. i think the story was a blond in a white robe was seen talking to the driver of the car in front of her condo.

[martin II]

Martin,

I don't think anyone told Lou Brown to wash down the crime scene. I would assume he would have asked when he would be able to make arrangements for the condo to be packed up and may have asked if it could be washed down. The police releasing the crime scene at Bundy so soon could only be the reason why the Browns were able to do this.

I also think it is possible they may have suggested for him to change the locks on the gate and all the doors on the condo. His washing down the crime scene does make sense, especially if there was chance that Nicole's mother and sisters might come to the crime scene.

i think le should have done a last walkthrough before releasing the crime scene.they would have seen the blood on the gate and finger prints etc

[GreenIce]

i think the only person allowed to pick the glove up would fung and mazzola

Martin,

I don't think that is true. In fact, I think in his book he says that after the picture was taken, he lifed it with this pen. I'll have to check. Also, detectives of a certain rank are trained in collecting blood evidence and are allowed access to the lab.

However, MF's and the DA's story about when the picture was taken is just another example of DA's trying to cover for MF. MF having his picture taken with glove should not be an issue if it was done before he left for Rockingham. IMO, it would have been common sense for that to be one of the first pictures taken, especially when pictures were taken of Ron's body.

I think the LAPD and the DA's took another hit on this issue with the jury. I am sure the jurors first thought when hearing MF and Phillips were sent back to Rockingham for the sole purpose to compare the glove, they asked themselves the same question I did, "what does it matter if the gloves were a pair?"

[GreenIce]

i think le should have done a last walkthrough before releasing the crime scene.they would have seen the blood on the gate and finger prints etc

Martin,

According to MF's book, they did the blood on the back gate and the blood fingerprint. IMO, if MF is telling the truth and the detectives said the bloody fingerprint was made in rust (which I still don't see how this can be done), then they probably thought the blood drops on the fence were also rust.

In Toobin's book, it says that Fung and Rokhar worked very closely together that day, so how did they miss the back gate. The only picture taken of the back gate that morning was the "exit" shot taken by Rokhar.

Also remember, Fung really was not clear on this issue. It seems that either he was told by Lange to collect the blood on the back gate and couldn't find it or he was never told by Lange because Lange did not see blood on the back gate at that time.

I have hard time believing that Lange did not conduct a final walk through at Bundy. I know that is what he said but if he had the time to help move the bodies and take measurements of the bodies, then he had enough time to conduct his final walk through.

However, to give him of the benefit doubt that he did not do it, then isn't this just another example of the "Rush to Judgement"?

[GreenIce]

i think le should have done a last walkthrough before releasing the crime scene.they would have seen the blood on the gate and finger prints etc

Martin,

You bring up an interesting point, apparently Riske saw the bloody fingerprint, and Detective Tom Nolan. I don't know if the officers who testified to seeing the blood drops on the back gate were even asked in they saw it.

It seems impossible to believe that many detectives and officers saw this evidence and not one of them had the common sense to point it out to the photographer and that the locksmith who changed the lock was not questioned about this.

Nor does it make sense that Lange allegedly did not notice this screw up sooner then 3 weeks later. IMO.

[GreenIce]

a neighbor saw a black benz in front of nicoles house on that night.who did that belong to. i think the story was a blond in a white robe was seen talking to the driver of the car in front of her condo.

Martin,

Was this the same witness, Tom Lange?

[tv]

TV,

I really don't see the "spin" that I put on things but only my honest opinons of the evidence or the situation. I feel that you do the same as do all of us really--which is why we are still talking about this case so many years later. I am being completely honest when I say the "spin" is how a person truly sees the evidence in this case. I am leaving the lawyers and the media out this "spin" equation because you and me and the others on this board, have nothing to gain and we are only stating our opinons. In others words, we have no dog in this fight, we have no family or career to worry about if we go against the grain.

Also, I am happy that our planets have been able to exist in peace and that they have chosen their leaders wisely! However, since I pay your people more then you pay them, I am right every thing!:)


There's nothing wrong with stating opinions -- the problem for me is when you state them as fact. I'm still wait for you to tell us the source of your information about Ron having lipstick on his cheek.

[tv]

TV,

Now, the rest of your post. From the testimony, we only know of one reason why Ron went to Nicole's that night. My point is that Faye Resnick has claimed that Ron was going to Nicole's for a different reason.

I don't know if you remember any of Cora's deposition but she was not surprised that a man was found with Nicole, she thought it had to be Ron or another waiter.

In Jeff Toobin's book, he claims that Jill S. at first thought the person she saw driving the Bronco was Marcus Allen. However, it wasn't until she heard the voice that she knew it was OJ Simpson. Marcus Allen was in LA that day and night and left on an earlier flight that night. I am not saying that Marcus Allen had anything to do with the murders, my point is that Faye is the one who put's him at Nicole's as well as saying that Marcus Allen was the person who was putting Nicole in danger that night.

Again, I am not saying that Faye is telling the truth but she is pointing a lot of fingers as well as providing a list of "reasons" that Simpson was going to kill her. I believe Faye's fear for her life her real but I don't believe it was fear of OJ Simpson. Again, just in IMO.

I'm familiar with Jill Shively saying that at first she thought it was Marcus Allen but knew it was OJ Simpson when she heard the voice. I've also read Faye's civil trial deposition and I couldn't find where she mentioned that Marcus Allen was going to see Nicole that night. Why do you believe what Faye says about that but you disbelieve her when she says that OJ Simspon confronted Ron Goldman on the street?

[tv]

TV,

IMO, I do believe that MF was called into this case on purpose because of his knowledge of Simpson and Nicole. I have no problem with his being called in. I also believe that the knowledge he had makes perfect sense while it was agreed to that he should go to Rockingham. However, because of the comments made during the trial and in their book, saying that MF was not needed is what hurts them, IMO.

In reading MF's book, does it make sense why MF would order the Bronco to be impounded but VA would stop this order, when according to MF's book, Vanatter knew of the blood inside the Bronco? For VA to say it was the glove that made him suspect Simpson, makes no sense unless he knew more information, such as that Nicole and Simpson did see each other that night. Find the glove was not "clock" as to when the murders took place. Again, IMO.

Has it ever occurred to you that he was called in because he was a good detective and that the case had the potential to be high profile and complex?

There is tension between Mark Fuhrman and Lange/Vannatter and a lot of back and forth accusations between them but one thing that never changes is that they are adamant that Mark Fuhrman did not and could not have planted the Rockingham glove or manipulated any evidence in the case. If you can't see the connection in finding a bloody right hand glove at Rockingham after finding a matching left hand glove at a bloody double-murder, when the owner of the property was the former husband of one of the victims, I really just don't know what to say. :shrug:

[tv]

Martin,

I don't think anyone told Lou Brown to wash down the crime scene. I would assume he would have asked when he would be able to make arrangements for the condo to be packed up and may have asked if it could be washed down. The police releasing the crime scene at Bundy so soon could only be the reason why the Browns were able to do this.

I also think it is possible they may have suggested for him to change the locks on the gate and all the doors on the condo. His washing down the crime scene does make sense, especially if there was chance that Nicole's mother and sisters might come to the crime scene.

This makes perfect sense. :beer:

[tv]

a neighbor saw a black benz in front of nicoles house on that night.who did that belong to. i think the story was a blond in a white robe was seen talking to the driver of the car in front of her condo.

I looked for this testimony but I can't find it. I'll keep looking.

[tv]

a neighbor saw a black benz in front of nicoles house on that night.who did that belong to. i think the story was a blond in a white robe was seen talking to the driver of the car in front of her condo.

I'll ask again -- why would Nicole come home, change into a robe and then back into the dress she wore to the recital?

[tv]

Martin,

I don't think that is true. In fact, I think in his book he says that after the picture was taken, he lifed it with this pen. I'll have to check. Also, detectives of a certain rank are trained in collecting blood evidence and are allowed access to the lab.

However, MF's and the DA's story about when the picture was taken is just another example of DA's trying to cover for MF. MF having his picture taken with glove should not be an issue if it was done before he left for Rockingham. IMO, it would have been common sense for that to be one of the first pictures taken, especially when pictures were taken of Ron's body.

I think the LAPD and the DA's took another hit on this issue with the jury. I am sure the jurors first thought when hearing MF and Phillips were sent back to Rockingham for the sole purpose to compare the glove, they asked themselves the same question I did, "what does it matter if the gloves were a pair?"

You're kidding, right?

[tv]

Martin,

You bring up an interesting point, apparently Riske saw the bloody fingerprint, and Detective Tom Nolan. I don't know if the officers who testified to seeing the blood drops on the back gate were even asked in they saw it.

It seems impossible to believe that many detectives and officers saw this evidence and not one of them had the common sense to point it out to the photographer and that the locksmith who changed the lock was not questioned about this.

Nor does it make sense that Lange allegedly did not notice this screw up sooner then 3 weeks later. IMO.

Riske, Rossi, Phillips, Lange, Fuhrman, Spangler, Vannater all testifed that they saw the blood on the gate. The defense didn't challenge these officers on their testimony that they saw blood on the back gate only why it wasn't collected until weeks later.

[martin II]

Martin,

I don't think anyone told Lou Brown to wash down the crime scene. I would assume he would have asked when he would be able to make arrangements for the condo to be packed up and may have asked if it could be washed down. The police releasing the crime scene at Bundy so soon could only be the reason why the Browns were able to do this.

I also think it is possible they may have suggested for him to change the locks on the gate and all the doors on the condo. His washing down the crime scene does make sense, especially if there was chance that Nicole's mother and sisters might come to the crime scene.

i agree with that.

[martin II]

Riske, Rossi, Phillips, Lange, Fuhrman, Spangler, Vannater all testifed that they saw the blood on the gate. The defense didn't challenge these officers on their testimony that they saw blood on the back gate only why it wasn't collected until weeks later.

So what was the reason it was not collected.

[martin II]

You're kidding, right?

detectives walking fron one crime scene and then into another is not acceptable crime scene protocol. contamination is the issue

[GreenIce]

I'm familiar with Jill Shively saying that at first she thought it was Marcus Allen but knew it was OJ Simpson when she heard the voice. I've also read Faye's civil trial deposition and I couldn't find where she mentioned that Marcus Allen was going to see Nicole that night. Why do you believe what Faye says about that but you disbelieve her when she says that OJ Simspon confronted Ron Goldman on the street?

TV,

Faye talked about Marcus in her first book. I think Faye is street smart enough and savvy enough of the drug world to know how the game is played and how to stay alive.

I never heard that Faye said that OJ confronted Ron on the street. We also heard that Ron and Nicole were lovers from various neighbors but that has never been proven either.

[GreenIce]

You're kidding, right?

TV,

No, I am not kidding. Would you believe that if the glove at Bundy did not match the one at Rockingham that means Simpson is innocent?

[GreenIce]

Riske, Rossi, Phillips, Lange, Fuhrman, Spangler, Vannater all testifed that they saw the blood on the gate. The defense didn't challenge these officers on their testimony that they saw blood on the back gate only why it wasn't collected until weeks later.

TV,

The defense did challenge them, with the picture and with Mr. Fung. I believe one officer did pick out the wrong spot.

However, not one of these witnesses stepped to the plate to say they made sure the photographer got a photo of it. Wasn't it their job to direct the photographer to it?

[GreenIce]

There's nothing wrong with stating opinions -- the problem for me is when you state them as fact. I'm still wait for you to tell us the source of your information about Ron having lipstick on his cheek.

TV,

I think it was in Bosco's and Donald Freed's book.

[martin II]

I'll ask again -- why would Nicole come home, change into a robe and then back into the dress she wore to the recital?

I will try.

She had planned to take it easy at home alone so she put on the robe. But changed her mind when she talked to Ron about comming with the glasses and decided to do him when he arrived.A sexy black dress beats a bathrobe i think.:cool:

[tv]

I will try.

She had planned to take it easy at home alone so she put on the robe. But changed her mind when she talked to Ron about comming with the glasses and decided to do him when he arrived.A sexy black dress beats a bathrobe i think.:cool:

martin, this is your own imagination working overtime. You really enjoy making Nicole look like a ****, don't you?

[tv]

TV,

I think it was in Bosco's and Donald Freed's book.

I was hoping you could direct me to testimony.

[tv]

TV,

The defense did challenge them, with the picture and with Mr. Fung. I believe one officer did pick out the wrong spot.

However, not one of these witnesses stepped to the plate to say they made sure the photographer got a photo of it. Wasn't it their job to direct the photographer to it?

I'm not getting into the photo of the blood on the back gate. bobaugust has explained this very well so there's no need for me to go over it again.

[tv]

TV,

Faye talked about Marcus in her first book. I think Faye is street smart enough and savvy enough of the drug world to know how the game is played and how to stay alive.

I never heard that Faye said that OJ confronted Ron on the street. We also heard that Ron and Nicole were lovers from various neighbors but that has never been proven either.

I enjoy reading all the books written about the case and have collected quite a few of them but my practice is to check out facts I read in books with testimony. When I don't have the testimony to back it up I usually say so. I didn't see anything in Faye's deposition about Marcus Allen visiting Nicole that night. I admit I could have overlooked it so if it's there please post it or tell me where to find it. As for Ron and Nicole being lovers or potential lovers...I just don't see the relevance.

[tv]

TV,

No, I am not kidding. Would you believe that if the glove at Bundy did not match the one at Rockingham that means Simpson is innocent?

No necessarily but if you don't think it's important that the detectives wanted to know if they matched before they knew whose blood was on them then I just don't get that except you trivialize any hard evidence against OJ Simpson.

[tv]

So what was the reason it was not collected.

We've been over this numerous times including recently. :shrug:

[martin II]

martin, this is your own imagination working overtime. You really enjoy making Nicole look like a ****, don't you?

It was the testimony that stated nicoles intentions with Ron that night. not me. You should get over your habit of crying foul whenever testimony speaks to nicoles lifestyle. It is what it is. It is not possible to discuss two people, bang up on one daily and have no comment about the other.

It was her friend faye that said she intended to do ron that night. You already know this so why pretend it was not said.imo

[martin II]

I enjoy reading all the books written about the case and have collected quite a few of them but my practice is to check out facts I read in books with testimony. When I don't have the testimony to back it up I usually say so. I didn't see anything in Faye's deposition about Marcus Allen visiting Nicole that night. I admit I could have overlooked it so if it's there please post it or tell me where to find it. As for Ron and Nicole being lovers or potential lovers...I just don't see the relevance.

Some have put forth the idea that rons only reason for going to bundy was to deliver the glasses. Testimony and local gossip proves that the relationship
had more to it than delivering some glasses.

[GreenIce]

I enjoy reading all the books written about the case and have collected quite a few of them but my practice is to check out facts I read in books with testimony. When I don't have the testimony to back it up I usually say so. I didn't see anything in Faye's deposition about Marcus Allen visiting Nicole that night. I admit I could have overlooked it so if it's there please post it or tell me where to find it. As for Ron and Nicole being lovers or potential lovers...I just don't see the relevance.

TV,

I remember Cora's desposition about what Faye told her while they were in the limo.

I believe a lot of the stuff written in the books, according to some of the authors was given to them by sources they do not name. I also think that some of the information was in the trial but was overlooked, like the missing jean jacket. Remember, MF's notes, they were displayed but there was no mention of the bloody fingerprint. The stick found on the parkway, the blue wrap found on the neighbor's fence. MF interviewing Rosa Lopez.

A lot of stuff is considered "evidence" when it was not even entered into the trial. That is why this case, IMO, is very difficult and interesting.

[GreenIce]

No necessarily but if you don't think it's important that the detectives wanted to know if they matched before they knew whose blood was on them then I just don't get that except you trivialize any hard evidence against OJ Simpson.

TV,

What would change about the gloves if they were not a matched set? The problem with the gloves there is no evidence, according to the DA's that link the gloves to Simpson. They tried to link it to him by saying how expensive they were but they never proved what color, size and model number that Nicole bought and apparently the tags inside the gloves were removed. At least that is how I remember it.

[GreenIce]

I'm not getting into the photo of the blood on the back gate. bobaugust has explained this very well so there's no need for me to go over it again.

TV,

No, Mr. August has not explained this at all. He has not explained why no pictures were taken of the back gate that morning. In the testimony, it is clear what type of picture was taken from over 15 feet away--it was an escape or an exit shot.


Now which it is, is Fung lying that Lange told him about the blood on the back gate or Lange lying about telling Fung?

Was the photographer ever asked about the taking pictures of the back gate?
I don't believe he was.

[fgump2]

TV,

No, Mr. August has not explained this at all. He has not explained why no pictures were taken of the back gate that morning. In the testimony, it is clear what type of picture was taken from over 15 feet away--it was an escape or an exit shot.


Now which it is, is Fung lying that Lange told him about the blood on the back gate or Lange lying about telling Fung?
How about a third alternative, that neither Fung nor Lange has perfect recall for what they said six months or more earlier? Do you have perfect recall for what you said or what others said to you months earlier? I think you are very eager to accuse the LAPD of lying. .
Was the photographer ever asked about the taking pictures of the back gate?
I don't believe he was.

To bring up something I have argued with you and others about in the past - careless mistakes in investigating the crime scenes. I'd like to point out some other crimes which were investigated in a rather sloppy manner.
- the murders for which Jeffrey Macdonald, a former army doctor was convicted.
- The murder of a lawyer named Wone in Washington DC, which hasn't come to trial.
- The monster of Florence killings (sex related killings of couples in Florence, Italy)
I think I have read enough about police work to know that sloppy processing of crime scenes is a common problem.

I think that people are careless in the best of circumstances, and maybe the shock of seeing a murder scene makes people more careless than usual.
In any case it is common for judges and juries to pass judgement on trials where the police made a lot of careless mistakes.

If the work of the LAPD is as careless as many people say, it would take a lof of guts for anyone to join a frameup

[fgump2]

TV,

What would change about the gloves if they were not a matched set? The problem with the gloves there is no evidence, according to the DA's that link the gloves to Simpson. They tried to link it to him by saying how expensive they were but they never proved what color, size and model number that Nicole bought and apparently the tags inside the gloves were removed. At least that is how I remember it.
I think there were a number of photos of Simpson wearing gloves that looked identical to the murder gloves. I think the defense pointed out that these could have been made by a different company, but there is no evidence that anther company made gloves that similar to the murder gloves.

To pass this off as a meaningless coincidence is too much for me, but since the not guilty (NG) people ignore other coincidences such as the fact that Nicole predicted her own murder; I suppose I should accept the fact that some people find it easy to ignore coincidences.

I have wondered if it would now be possible to use forensice photograph analysis in which two or more photographs of things (in this case gloves) are combined to show details that aren't visibile in any of the original photographs. Using these techniques it might be possible to spot a scratch or some other irregularity in the gloves (irregularity in the stiching for example) or something on the gloves of Simpson broadcasting and compare that to the murder gloves.

[fgump2]

TV,

I remember Cora's desposition about what Faye told her while they were in the limo.

I believe a lot of the stuff written in the books, according to some of the authors was given to them by sources they do not name. I also think that some of the information was in the trial but was overlooked, like the missing jean jacket. Remember, MF's notes, they were displayed but there was no mention of the bloody fingerprint. The stick found on the parkway, the blue wrap found on the neighbor's fence. MF interviewing Rosa Lopez.

A lot of stuff is considered "evidence" when it was not even entered into the trial. That is why this case, IMO, is very difficult and interesting.
two items of evidence not entered that I foung interesting:
A limo driver in Mass who said that when he was with OJS a couple of weeks before the murder, OJS waved a knife around and made some comment about attacking people with a knife. I think he took and passed a lie detector on this.
An airline flight attendent who said that on the night flight to Chicago OJS made numerous trips to the restroom, kept drinking water, and behaved strangely, made no attempts to sleep, seemed to look right through people.

[fgump2]

Some have put forth the idea that rons only reason for going to bundy was to deliver the glasses. Testimony and local gossip proves that the relationship
had more to it than delivering some glasses.

I could be wrong, but I thought Ron had agreed to meet some people, probably at a bar, after taking the glasses to Nicole.

[tv]

I could be wrong, but I thought Ron had agreed to meet some people, probably at a bar, after taking the glasses to Nicole.

You are right, fg2, but the Simpson supporters refuse to acknowledge this because it doesn't fit into their wishful thinking that Ron and Nicole had something going on that night.

[tv]

TV,

No, Mr. August has not explained this at all. He has not explained why no pictures were taken of the back gate that morning. In the testimony, it is clear what type of picture was taken from over 15 feet away--it was an escape or an exit shot.


Now which it is, is Fung lying that Lange told him about the blood on the back gate or Lange lying about telling Fung?

Was the photographer ever asked about the taking pictures of the back gate?
I don't believe he was.

The evidence is what it is. There is no further explanations forthcoming so make up your mind who you want to believe. For you and martin to keep asking other posters why the blood wasn't collected and for us to keep giving you Lange's explanation isn't getting us anywhere.

[tv]

TV,

What would change about the gloves if they were not a matched set? The problem with the gloves there is no evidence, according to the DA's that link the gloves to Simpson. They tried to link it to him by saying how expensive they were but they never proved what color, size and model number that Nicole bought and apparently the tags inside the gloves were removed. At least that is how I remember it.

The gloves are linked to Simpson because his blood was found on the Rockingham glove. For heaven's sake, that is just about the strongest link you can get.

[tv]

TV,

I remember Cora's desposition about what Faye told her while they were in the limo.

I believe a lot of the stuff written in the books, according to some of the authors was given to them by sources they do not name. I also think that some of the information was in the trial but was overlooked, like the missing jean jacket. Remember, MF's notes, they were displayed but there was no mention of the bloody fingerprint. The stick found on the parkway, the blue wrap found on the neighbor's fence. MF interviewing Rosa Lopez.

A lot of stuff is considered "evidence" when it was not even entered into the trial. That is why this case, IMO, is very difficult and interesting.

You pick and choose what you want to believe. Faye is a liar when you don't like what she says but when it fits your theory she's making sense. Kato and Park are telling the truth until it conflicts with your timeline...and it goes on and on. I believe a lot of stuff in books but I try to back it up with testimony. I've asked both you and martin if there's any testimony from Faye that Marcus Allen was going to visit Nicole that night -- please direct me to it.

[tv]

Some have put forth the idea that rons only reason for going to bundy was to deliver the glasses. Testimony and local gossip proves that the relationship
had more to it than delivering some glasses.

What testimony? The testimony is that he was delivering the glasses and then was going to meet his friend afterward. If you have testimony that Ron and Nicole had plans that night I'm interested in seeing it. It doesn't really matter anyway -- they didn't deserved to be slaughtered no matter what they were doing.

You're the one always dismissing gossip so I have to laugh at you offering gossip up as evidence.

[tv]

It was the testimony that stated nicoles intentions with Ron that night. not me. You should get over your habit of crying foul whenever testimony speaks to nicoles lifestyle. It is what it is. It is not possible to discuss two people, bang up on one daily and have no comment about the other.

It was her friend faye that said she intended to do ron that night. You already know this so why pretend it was not said.imo

I don't mind you mentioning Nicole's lifestyle but you tend to enjoy stating it in a crude way. The reason Simpson is 'banged up on' is because most people think he's a double-murderer. It looks to me like you're saying you make these remarks about Nicole as payback for things said about her killer. I'm not pretending anything -- you're the one in denial.

[tv]

I think there were a number of photos of Simpson wearing gloves that looked identical to the murder gloves. I think the defense pointed out that these could have been made by a different company, but there is no evidence that anther company made gloves that similar to the murder gloves.

To pass this off as a meaningless coincidence is too much for me, but since the not guilty (NG) people ignore other coincidences such as the fact that Nicole predicted her own murder; I suppose I should accept the fact that some people find it easy to ignore coincidences.

I have wondered if it would now be possible to use forensice photograph analysis in which two or more photographs of things (in this case gloves) are combined to show details that aren't visibile in any of the original photographs. Using these techniques it might be possible to spot a scratch or some other irregularity in the gloves (irregularity in the stiching for example) or something on the gloves of Simpson broadcasting and compare that to the murder gloves.

I think that's an interesting idea. Technology has grown since come 1994 and it would be fascinating to see what they could come up with now -- kind of like a cold case investigation.

[socaldiva]

I think that's an interesting idea. Technology has grown since come 1994 and it would be fascinating to see what they could come up with now -- kind of like a cold case investigation.

Considering California is out of money & LAPD is satisified OJ is the killer, they won't spent any money or time on further testing imo.

Good to see you!

[GreenIce]

You pick and choose what you want to believe. Faye is a liar when you don't like what she says but when it fits your theory she's making sense. Kato and Park are telling the truth until it conflicts with your timeline...and it goes on and on. I believe a lot of stuff in books but I try to back it up with testimony. I've asked both you and martin if there's any testimony from Faye that Marcus Allen was going to visit Nicole that night -- please direct me to it.

TV,

I never claimed that Faye said this in her testimony, I said several times it was in her first book. I have also posted that it was Cora Fischman who said that Faye told her this and where she said it happened.

Nothing Faye has said was proven. She said that she only paid about 20 bucks a day for her cocaine that she was freebasing. That has never proven to be true. Her comments about Marcus Allen have never proven to be true but Marcus Allen was in LA on the day of the murders and he left in the PM.
Several friends have claimed that Faye is telling the truth about Marcus Allen but I don't think any of that was proven either.

I have never said that Kato or Park were lying in their testimony. In fact, I have posted several times that both men tried to be as honest as possible when it came to their testimony. It has been the G's who love Kato for his thumps and his sweatsuit and then accuse him of slanting his testimony in favor of Simpson during the criminal trial because he cared more about his career. NG's have claimed that is not true.

It has been proven that Kato and Park were mistaken on key parts of their testimony. There is a difference between a mistake and lying and everybody has their own opinon on who was mistaken and who was lying.

I have said that Faye is street smart and knows how her world operates and knows how to stay alive. She knows who will challenge her on what she says and who will not. Faye is a player and a scrapper. She will always land on two feet, but it doesn't matter to her which grave she lands those two feet on, IMO.

[GreenIce]

two items of evidence not entered that I foung interesting:
A limo driver in Mass who said that when he was with OJS a couple of weeks before the murder, OJS waved a knife around and made some comment about attacking people with a knife. I think he took and passed a lie detector on this.
An airline flight attendent who said that on the night flight to Chicago OJS made numerous trips to the restroom, kept drinking water, and behaved strangely, made no attempts to sleep, seemed to look right through people.

fgump2,

The DA's knew their case was falling apart even before opening statements. The DA's had all of this information and obviously they deemed it was not either reliable, unproveable, opened a can worms they didn't want open or simply felt that it did nothing for their case.

Mr. Simpson going to the bathroom several times means nothing when the defense had 4 or 5 witnesses who testified they did not see a cut on his hand and that he was acting "normal".

Mr. Simpson, like many people who make their living out of a suitcase all have their own "formula" on how to beat jet lag. Not everyone can sleep on planes and not every person who flies just loves being up in the air. I hate flying but I do it any way. I just have a couple stiff drinks to relax me to the point that if the plane goes down--it won't hurt as much.

The driver would have opened a can a worms the DA's couldn't open, they already blew it in the prelim hearing with their weapon witnesses. He may very well have passed a lie detector test but then again, so did a drug dealer who said he sold drugs to Kato and OJ that night.

[tv]

fgump2,

The DA's knew their case was falling apart even before opening statements. The DA's had all of this information and obviously they deemed it was not either reliable, unproveable, opened a can worms they didn't want open or simply felt that it did nothing for their case.

Mr. Simpson going to the bathroom several times means nothing when the defense had 4 or 5 witnesses who testified they did not see a cut on his hand and that he was acting "normal".

Mr. Simpson, like many people who make their living out of a suitcase all have their own "formula" on how to beat jet lag. Not everyone can sleep on planes and not every person who flies just loves being up in the air. I hate flying but I do it any way. I just have a couple stiff drinks to relax me to the point that if the plane goes down--it won't hurt as much.

The driver would have opened a can a worms the DA's couldn't open, they already blew it in the prelim hearing with their weapon witnesses. He may very well have passed a lie detector test but then again, so did a drug dealer who said he sold drugs to Kato and OJ that night.

Just like OJ Simpson failed his lie detector miserably.

[tv]

TV,

I never claimed that Faye said this in her testimony, I said several times it was in her first book. I have also posted that it was Cora Fischman who said that Faye told her this and where she said it happened.

Nothing Faye has said was proven. She said that she only paid about 20 bucks a day for her cocaine that she was freebasing. That has never proven to be true. Her comments about Marcus Allen have never proven to be true but Marcus Allen was in LA on the day of the murders and he left in the PM.
Several friends have claimed that Faye is telling the truth about Marcus Allen but I don't think any of that was proven either.

I have never said that Kato or Park were lying in their testimony. In fact, I have posted several times that both men tried to be as honest as possible when it came to their testimony. It has been the G's who love Kato for his thumps and his sweatsuit and then accuse him of slanting his testimony in favor of Simpson during the criminal trial because he cared more about his career. NG's have claimed that is not true.

It has been proven that Kato and Park were mistaken on key parts of their testimony. There is a difference between a mistake and lying and everybody has their own opinon on who was mistaken and who was lying.

I have said that Faye is street smart and knows how her world operates and knows how to stay alive. She knows who will challenge her on what she says and who will not. Faye is a player and a scrapper. She will always land on two feet, but it doesn't matter to her which grave she lands those two feet on, IMO.

I never said you claimed it was her testimony. I was asking if there was any testimony by Faye. I'm going to take it that the answer is no. I would be more inclined to take the Marcus Allen story seriously if it had been his blood and footprints found at the crime scene and at his home. The idea that Kato was trying to further his career by his testimony isn't something I've seen any G's post. That sounds more like an NG accusation to me.

Your comment that Faye didn't care whose grave she landed on is funny. OJ Simpson didn't care who he put in those graves. I don't know how street smart Faye is or was -- what difference does it make? This is a simple uncomplicated case of murder but everyone but OJ Simpson is a liar and potential suspect to you.

[tv]

Considering California is out of money & LAPD is satisified OJ is the killer, they won't spent any money or time on further testing imo.

Good to see you!

Hi Diva! I don't think California is going to spend another cent on Simpson but it would be great if somebody with too much money would decide to do it.

Nice to see you too! :)

[weezer]

I never said you claimed it was her testimony. I was asking if there was any testimony by Faye. I'm going to take it that the answer is no. I would be more inclined to take the Marcus Allen story seriously if it had been his blood and footprints found at the crime scene and at his home. The idea that Kato was trying to further his career by his testimony isn't something I've seen any G's post. That sounds more like an NG accusation to me.

Your comment that Faye didn't care whose grave she landed on is funny. OJ Simpson didn't care who he put in those graves. I don't know how street smart Faye is or was -- what difference does it make? This is a simple uncomplicated case of murder but everyone but OJ Simpson is a liar and potential suspect to you.

wasn't it orenthal that was willing to desecrate Nicole's grave by killing himself on it?

[tv]

wasn't it orenthal that was willing to desecrate Nicole's grave by killing himself on it?

I believe you're right! How nice that would have been for his children but we know it's all about him.

[martin II]

two items of evidence not entered that I foung interesting:
A limo driver in Mass who said that when he was with OJS a couple of weeks before the murder, OJS waved a knife around and made some comment about attacking people with a knife. I think he took and passed a lie detector on this.
An airline flight attendent who said that on the night flight to Chicago OJS made numerous trips to the restroom, kept drinking water, and behaved strangely, made no attempts to sleep, seemed to look right through people.

The plane captain and others that sat and talked to oj on the plane did not confirm what that flight attendant cailmed he did.

[martin II]

two items of evidence not entered that I foung interesting:
A limo driver in Mass who said that when he was with OJS a couple of weeks before the murder, OJS waved a knife around and made some comment about attacking people with a knife. I think he took and passed a lie detector on this.
An airline flight attendent who said that on the night flight to Chicago OJS made numerous trips to the restroom, kept drinking water, and behaved strangely, made no attempts to sleep, seemed to look right through people.

Did this flight attendent testify to her claims.i don't think she did and the reason would be the DA did not believe her claims. 3-4 other people including the captain and Alis photographer and others sitting near oj did not see him doing anything unusual. So where did this attendent get this story from.

[martin II]

I never said you claimed it was her testimony. I was asking if there was any testimony by Faye. I'm going to take it that the answer is no. I would be more inclined to take the Marcus Allen story seriously if it had been his blood and footprints found at the crime scene and at his home. The idea that Kato was trying to further his career by his testimony isn't something I've seen any G's post. That sounds more like an NG accusation to me.

Your comment that Faye didn't care whose grave she landed on is funny. OJ Simpson didn't care who he put in those graves. I don't know how street smart Faye is or was -- what difference does it make? This is a simple uncomplicated case of murder but everyone but OJ Simpson is a liar and potential suspect to you.

Uncomplicated case?
it sure turned into a complicated one for the prosecution when the defence ripped it apart in front of the world.In the end the DA could not make any kind of sensible story to explain what had happened to the jury and that ios why they lost.

[martin II]

To bring up something I have argued with you and others about in the past - careless mistakes in investigating the crime scenes. I'd like to point out some other crimes which were investigated in a rather sloppy manner.
- the murders for which Jeffrey Macdonald, a former army doctor was convicted.
- The murder of a lawyer named Wone in Washington DC, which hasn't come to trial.
- The monster of Florence killings (sex related killings of couples in Florence, Italy)
I think I have read enough about police work to know that sloppy processing of crime scenes is a common problem.

I think that people are careless in the best of circumstances, and maybe the shock of seeing a murder scene makes people more careless than usual.
In any case it is common for judges and juries to pass judgement on trials where the police made a lot of careless mistakes.

If the work of the LAPD is as careless as many people say, it would take a lof of guts for anyone to join a frameup

Detectives are not regular citizens that would make mistakes at a crime scenes. They are trained not to make careless mistakes.We don't expect them to be careless and they are not paid to do sloppy work.

It is not necessary for a lot of people to be involved for a frame to work.But
the often used bule wall, of silence can prevent the truth from comming out.

When cops lie and others remain silent about the lie it is often times impossible for the truth to surface.

[martin II]

TV,

I never claimed that Faye said this in her testimony, I said several times it was in her first book. I have also posted that it was Cora Fischman who said that Faye told her this and where she said it happened.

Nothing Faye has said was proven. She said that she only paid about 20 bucks a day for her cocaine that she was freebasing. That has never proven to be true. Her comments about Marcus Allen have never proven to be true but Marcus Allen was in LA on the day of the murders and he left in the PM.
Several friends have claimed that Faye is telling the truth about Marcus Allen but I don't think any of that was proven either.

I have never said that Kato or Park were lying in their testimony. In fact, I have posted several times that both men tried to be as honest as possible when it came to their testimony. It has been the G's who love Kato for his thumps and his sweatsuit and then accuse him of slanting his testimony in favor of Simpson during the criminal trial because he cared more about his career. NG's have claimed that is not true.

It has been proven that Kato and Park were mistaken on key parts of their testimony. There is a difference between a mistake and lying and everybody has their own opinon on who was mistaken and who was lying.

I have said that Faye is street smart and knows how her world operates and knows how to stay alive. She knows who will challenge her on what she says and who will not. Faye is a player and a scrapper. She will always land on two feet, but it doesn't matter to her which grave she lands those two feet on, IMO.

Faye not only said she spent only $20.00 a day on her freebasing habit she said she freebased but did not use cocain. she gave some kind of answer that she thought she was using heron in her freebasing pipe.Until she was corrected.

[weezer]

Detectives are not regular citizens that would make mistakes at a crime scenes. They are trained not to make careless mistakes.We don't expect them to be careless and they are not paid to do sloppy work.

It is not necessary for a lot of people to be involved for a frame to work.But
the often used bule wall, of silence can prevent the truth from comming out.

When cops lie and others remain silent about the lie it is often times impossible for the truth to surface.

oh martin, what fantasy world do you live in where people don't make mistakes? ever hear of malpractice insurance? liability insurance?

everybody would have had to be involved in this frame for it to work! and to work for 14 years! people who had no connection to LE and/or orenthal. geez

[weezer]

Uncomplicated case?
it sure turned into a complicated one for the prosecution when the defence ripped it apart in front of the world.In the end the DA could not make any kind of sensible story to explain what had happened to the jury and that ios why they lost.

again with the fantasies -- the MAJORITY of people understand why the Butcher of Brentwood, orenthal james simpson, was set free and it had nothing to do with the evidence in the case.

[fgump2]

Detectives are not regular citizens that would make mistakes at a crime scenes. They are trained not to make careless mistakes.We don't expect them to be careless and they are not paid to do sloppy work.

It is not necessary for a lot of people to be involved for a frame to work.But
the often used bule wall, of silence can prevent the truth from comming out.

When cops lie and others remain silent about the lie it is often times impossible for the truth to surface.

I don't know how many people would be involved for a frame up of Mr. Simpson; I read in several places that it would be at least 20. If it was small number they would be sweating blood that someone else would spot the evidence that it was a frame up. If it was a large number they would be sweating blood that someone would spill the truth either because they were drunk, or a death bed confession. No blue wall of silence could prevent either of these possibilities.

Scheck accused Fung of being part of the frame-up, and also said that some of the detectives and Fung's boss were in on the frame up. I challenge Martin, Greenice, WA and other NGs to either denounce Scheck for making this charge or at least admit several things: It would have taken more than 2 or 3 people to frame Simpson, and this would have created a large risk for the plotters. Part of the risk would be the possibility that someone would talk. Part of it would be problems in coordinating the work of a large number of people. My experience is that when more than 2 or 3 people cooperate for the first time on a new project there are often serious misunderstandings. I realize that the NGs could say that explains problems like pieces of paper not being initialized; but the plotters would have been worried that there would have been enough mistakes for the plotters to go to prison.

A person who was thinking of joining the frame up would be faced with two alternatives: Join the frame up and risk going to prison, or expose the frame up and take a chance on being rich. I realize that some NGs will respond by saying that LAPD employees would be more scared of the blue wall of silence than of going to prison. This raises a question: If the blue wall of silence is that strong, why have I never heard of a cop resigning in protest, or writing a book about it?

There have been cases in which cops have covered up for one another, just as people in other professions cover up for one another. The fact that some cops will lie to protect other cops doesn't prove that there is a blue wall of silence any more than in the case of some other profession. If we generalize about the worst behavior of any profession, they would all look bad.

I am sure that there have been cases of accountants or car mechanics covering up for bad behavior in their professions, but nobody talks about accountant wall of silence or car mechanic wall of silence. I think that police have more professional loyalty than most other professions, and therefore are more likely to cover up for co workers mistakes; but this is a matter of degree. If we assume that most LAPD workers would feel obligated to obey a code of silence on framing an innocent man, then we have to assume that most LAPD are psychopaths. I don't see the LAPD as that bad.

I started a thread on the blue wall of silence on this board and this thread was taken off the board because it got only one reply. Threads are removed if they get no postings for 30 days. My post said that it exists, but it is quite unreliable. The only reply said that there is no blue wall of silence. I take this to mean that NG's like to talk about the blue wall of silence, but when that is the main topic they back off.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .The reason the lie detector test should only be given after so many hours, I want to say 72 hours is because in the past, when a person was asked questions about a love one's death they are so emotional that their responses skew the results. and when do you think orenthal took the test?

OJ Simpson, besides it being too soon for him to take this test, never completed the test. The person is actually given two rounds of the same questions and there is a hour or a couple of hours between rounds. orenthal didn't complete the test because flee told shapiro to stop it.

Simpson's failing this test, at that time, really points to his innocence. Now just take it easy........Think about it, if Simpson has passed that test, so soon after the murders, wouldn't that point to his guilt? Wouldn't those results indicated one mean, cold SOB and psychopath? orenthal failing the test means exactly that -- orenthal failed the lie detector test. and yes, it does indicate he's a cold SOB and psychopath but so did the beatings, stalking, and threatening.

Had Simpson passed that test, IMO, points to his guilt.

Another point to consider, Bob Shapiro offered the DA's for Simpson to take a lie detector test only if they agreed that the results would be used in the trial. Now, in order for Shapiro to make this offer, he had to know that Simpson would pass a lie detector test, otherwise he would have made this offer knowing that he had "failed" one and he would have been disbarred if the DA's took this offer knowing his client was going to fail it. shapiro was the attorney with orenthal when he failed the test. your statement that he made any offers about a test being used in the trial is an untruth.

Another interesting point, in Petrocelli's book, he said that he was warned not to offer Simpson a lie detector test. It was felt that he could "beat" it. in Petrocelli's book, he said that orenthal offered to take the test for money. Petrocelli knew orenthal couldn't pass one.

I personally do not believe in them and I think they are nothing but a media tool used by both sides. If a person refuses to take one, then the person must be guilty, if a person takes one and passes one, that means nothing.

Again, not to upset you but just to explain my position on this issue.:)

:shrug:

[GreenIce]

I don't know how many people would be involved for a frame up of Mr. Simpson; I read in several places that it would be at least 20. If it was small number they would be sweating blood that someone else would spot the evidence that it was a frame up. If it was a large number they would be sweating blood that someone would spill the truth either because they were drunk, or a death bed confession. No blue wall of silence could prevent either of these possibilities.

Scheck accused Fung of being part of the frame-up, and also said that some of the detectives and Fung's boss were in on the frame up. I challenge Martin, Greenice, WA and other NGs to either denounce Scheck for making this charge or at least admit several things: It would have taken more than 2 or 3 people to frame Simpson, and this would have created a large risk for the plotters. Part of the risk would be the possibility that someone would talk. Part of it would be problems in coordinating the work of a large number of people. My experience is that when more than 2 or 3 people cooperate for the first time on a new project there are often serious misunderstandings. I realize that the NGs could say that explains problems like pieces of paper not being initialized; but the plotters would have been worried that there would have been enough mistakes for the plotters to go to prison.

A person who was thinking of joining the frame up would be faced with two alternatives: Join the frame up and risk going to prison, or expose the frame up and take a chance on being rich. I realize that some NGs will respond by saying that LAPD employees would be more scared of the blue wall of silence than of going to prison. This raises a question: If the blue wall of silence is that strong, why have I never heard of a cop resigning in protest, or writing a book about it?

There have been cases in which cops have covered up for one another, just as people in other professions cover up for one another. The fact that some cops will lie to protect other cops doesn't prove that there is a blue wall of silence any more than in the case of some other profession. If we generalize about the worst behavior of any profession, they would all look bad.

I am sure that there have been cases of accountants or car mechanics covering up for bad behavior in their professions, but nobody talks about accountant wall of silence or car mechanic wall of silence. I think that police have more professional loyalty than most other professions, and therefore are more likely to cover up for co workers mistakes; but this is a matter of degree. If we assume that most LAPD workers would feel obligated to obey a code of silence on framing an innocent man, then we have to assume that most LAPD are psychopaths. I don't see the LAPD as that bad.

I started a thread on the blue wall of silence on this board and this thread was taken off the board because it got only one reply. Threads are removed if they get no postings for 30 days. My post said that it exists, but it is quite unreliable. The only reply said that there is no blue wall of silence. I take this to mean that NG's like to talk about the blue wall of silence, but when that is the main topic they back off.

fgump2,

It would not take 20 people to frame someone. All it would take one or two people at the most, IMO. Remember when Andrea Mozzola testified that she initialed the bindles, then later, the initals were not on the bindles? She never said that she was wrong about her initals, only she didn't know what happened to them. Now, if she is sure she wrote them in the bindles and now the bindles don't have them, what is she supposed to think? How is her supervisor going to handles this? How long do you think it would have taken her boss to point out that if she is positive that she initaled the bindles and sticks to that story, that means that somone, in fact did tamper with them. Then she would be asked who would tamper with her work, when did they do it, why did they do it. Just like the civil trial rules, reasonable doubt is tossed out the window in these issues, it is who, what, when, where and why.

For some bizarre reason, most people think that if a LE person or a SID person plants or tampers with evidence, they want to get caught so they make sure they tell someone and do it in front of a witness who can either blackmail them or turn them in.

Dennis Fung is interesting. First, the DA's and his boss had the same video tapes that the defense had, they knew of Barry Scheck and knew that even under the best of circumstances, he was going to be tough on Fung. Fung was an experienced SID person who had testified in many trials before. Fung spent almost 50 hours with Hank Goldberg to prepare him for his testimony. IMO, Fung was another scape goat on the DA's list. By having him trashed and bashed and his own side treating him like dolt, they had another whipping boy.

What is interesting is that Hank Goldberg wanted to bring out that Dennis Fung believed Simpson was innocent so why would he do such a lousy job but Clark wanted no part of that. Just like when Collin Y almost said enough for the defense to get Simpson's statement into the police.

You have often talked about "carelessness" is part of the job and I think that is wrong. I can understand mistakes made in the MacDonald case, military bases and police don't deal with a lot of murders or some small community but the City of LA is not a small time town.

You also fail to recognize that SOP's are written for the very reasons you have often cited. Memory, having to testify later, ensuring all the steps are taken. Fung and Mozzola's paperwork is a mystery within itself. Clark reviews it, says nothing to Fung about their paperwork not being completed then later she comes ungluded by this?

I also believe that if you or your loved one was seating in the defendant's seat, you would not be quoting VB's book or would you accept "carelessness" as part of their job. In fact, I think if it was your loved one who was convicted on evidence that you found suspect, you would be the loudest one on pointing out the descrepancies. You would be very polite doing this as well, because you seem kind of quiet but are able to get your point across without having to use profane language---you would take the dignified approach, IMO. Truly, I mean that as compliment.

[GreenIce]

fgump,

In order to be afraid of the consequences of being involved in a frame up or whatever, you have to be afraid of being caught. Did MF or VA seem afraid of getting caught? IMO, VA took several hits for the hometeam and if he could have wrung MF's neck, he would have.

Also remember, we posters have nothing to lose, not a career, not being able to feed our family, etc, some of these people who may have knowledge of police misconduct, etc., have a lot to lose. IMO.

One more point, what does "frame" mean to you? If a LEO plants or tampers with evidence, do you think they are doing because they know the guy is innocent or do you believe they are framing them because the person believes the guy is guilty?

I do believe the 4 lead detectives in this case believed Simpson was guilty and in their mind an innocent man was not being framed. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

Shaprio DID make that offer to the DA that the poster referred to above.

[fgump2]

TV,

Now you know I am going to have to respond to this one. Pour yourself your favorite beverage and read what I am about to post slowing and think about it before you respond. My concern is for you and we need all the nurses we can get in this country and I don't want to be responsible for you taking a little trip to that pretty little rubber room that some planets have for their people.:)

The reason the lie detector test should only be given after so many hours, I want to say 72 hours is because in the past, when a person was asked questions about a love one's death they are so emotional that their responses skew the results.

OJ Simpson, besides it being too soon for him to take this test, never completed the test. The person is actually given two rounds of the same questions and there is a hour or a couple of hours between rounds.

Simpson's failing this test, at that time, really points to his innocence. Now just take it easy........Think about it, if Simpson has passed that test, so soon after the murders, wouldn't that point to his guilt? Wouldn't those results indicated one mean, cold SOB and psychopath?

Had Simpson passed that test, IMO, points to his guilt.

Another point to consider, Bob Shapiro offered the DA's for Simpson to take a lie detector test only if they agreed that the results would be used in the trial. Now, in order for Shapiro to make this offer, he had to know that Simpson would pass a lie detector test, otherwise he would have made this offer knowing that he had "failed" one and he would have been disbarred if the DA's took this offer knowing his client was going to fail it.

Another interesting point, in Petrocelli's book, he said that he was warned not to offer Simpson a lie detector test. It was felt that he could "beat" it.

I personally do not believe in them and I think they are nothing but a media tool used by both sides. If a person refuses to take one, then the person must be guilty, if a person takes one and passes one, that means nothing.

Again, not to upset you but just to explain my position on this issue.:)
I read that Simpson got the lowest possible score on it. I am pretty sure that in the civil trial Baker said that Simpson offered to take a lie detector test. Petrocelli then said that SImpson had taken one, and flunked it badly. Petrocelli was allowed to do this because Baker bringing the lie detector subject up, this allowed Petrocelli to bring the failed test up. If what you wrote about lie detector tests being misleading under these circumstances, why wasn't this entered in to the civil trial? I don't think it was. If Baker could have found an expert to say that flunking it indicates innocence, I think he would have.
If Simpson could have passed a lie detector test at the time (during the civil trial), he probably would have. I don't know if it could have been entered in the civil trial, but it could have been make public. It would have been entered into the court of public opinion.

I once again criticize you for acting like a mind reader about Shapiro knowing that Simpson would pass the lie detector test.
If Shapiro made the offer, it may have been an act of desperation. In any case most people know that lie detector are fallible. Lawyers especially. Even if Shapiro knew Simpson was innocent, he would also know that lie detector tests are fallible. I think Shapiro brought in Cochran to play the race card.

In a previous posting you wrote that either Fung or Lange must have been lying because Fung and Lange disagreed about whethor or not Lange had told or asked FUng something. And yet it doesn't seem to bother you that Simpson has given 3 versions of the type of relationship that he and Nicole had in the last 3 - 6 months before the killings. Version one (to A. Austin) Nicole dumped him. Version two (just after the killings) it was a mutual breakup with mutual respect. Version three, OJS broke it off because Nicole was acting irrational. Three different stories.

[GreenIce]

Shaprio DID make that offer to the DA that the poster referred to above.

Martin,

Thanks. And I am pretty sure if Petrocelli really felt Simpson would fail a lie detector test, he would have been chomping at the bit. Again, IMO.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

It would not take 20 people to frame someone. All it would take one or two people at the most, IMO. Remember when Andrea Mozzola testified that she initialed the bindles, then later, the initals were not on the bindles? She never said that she was wrong about her initals, only she didn't know what happened to them. Now, if she is sure she wrote them in the bindles and now the bindles don't have them, what is she supposed to think? How is her supervisor going to handles this? How long do you think it would have taken her boss to point out that if she is positive that she initaled the bindles and sticks to that story, that means that somone, in fact did tamper with them. Then she would be asked who would tamper with her work, when did they do it, why did they do it. Just like the civil trial rules, reasonable doubt is tossed out the window in these issues, it is who, what, when, where and why.

For some bizarre reason, most people think that if a LE person or a SID person plants or tampers with evidence, they want to get caught so they make sure they tell someone and do it in front of a witness who can either blackmail them or turn them in.

Dennis Fung is interesting. First, the DA's and his boss had the same video tapes that the defense had, they knew of Barry Scheck and knew that even under the best of circumstances, he was going to be tough on Fung. Fung was an experienced SID person who had testified in many trials before. Fung spent almost 50 hours with Hank Goldberg to prepare him for his testimony. IMO, Fung was another scape goat on the DA's list. By having him trashed and bashed and his own side treating him like dolt, they had another whipping boy.

What is interesting is that Hank Goldberg wanted to bring out that Dennis Fung believed Simpson was innocent so why would he do such a lousy job but Clark wanted no part of that. Just like when Collin Y almost said enough for the defense to get Simpson's statement into the police.

You have often talked about "carelessness" is part of the job and I think that is wrong. I can understand mistakes made in the MacDonald case, military bases and police don't deal with a lot of murders or some small community but the City of LA is not a small time town.

You also fail to recognize that SOP's are written for the very reasons you have often cited. Memory, having to testify later, ensuring all the steps are taken. Fung and Mozzola's paperwork is a mystery within itself. Clark reviews it, says nothing to Fung about their paperwork not being completed then later she comes ungluded by this?

I also believe that if you or your loved one was seating in the defendant's seat, you would not be quoting VB's book or would you accept "carelessness" as part of their job. In fact, I think if it was your loved one who was convicted on evidence that you found suspect, you would be the loudest one on pointing out the descrepancies. You would be very polite doing this as well, because you seem kind of quiet but are able to get your point across without having to use profane language---you would take the dignified approach, IMO. Truly, I mean that as compliment.

As for how many people it would take to frame it, the defense implied that it was more than 1 or 2. First of all they said I think that 3 detectives were in on it, along with Fung and his boss. That is five and Fung would have been taking a dangerous chance if Mazzola wasn't in on it. She was watching what he did most of the time. Also the defence claimed that some of the blood wasn't put in the bronco till a number of days after it was towed. That implies a lot of people cooperating on it. How would the planters know who had run what tests on the bronco looking for blood? Same thing on the sock.

If it was someone I cared about a lot in the defendens seat, I would probably think it was OK to get them out with the legal BS the dream team used. I might also be in favor of getting them out with a tunnel or a helicoptor or who knows what else. What does that have to do with the way a justice system should be run?

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9201740] I think Shapiro brought in Cochran to play the race card.
QUOTE]

Fgump,

Mr. Cochran was an experienced attorney who spent quite a few years in the DA's office. I believe he was Ito's supervisor at one time. Mr. Cochran, being a black man knows and understands the law looking through a black man's eyes, something that Shapiro never could do. Mr. Cochran would never be able to see the law through a white man's eyes.

Long before the Simpson trial, there was racism in our country and in our legal system. If calling hiring JC was using the race card, why can't the same be said of the DA's who brough on Chris Darden? IMO, I think it was wise that both sides had a lead black lawyer. I don't think this is being racist or playing the race card. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

fgump2,

It would not take 20 people to frame someone. All it would take one or two people at the most, IMO. Remember when Andrea Mozzola testified that she initialed the bindles, then later, the initals were not on the bindles? She never said that she was wrong about her initals, only she didn't know what happened to them. Now, if she is sure she wrote them in the bindles and now the bindles don't have them, what is she supposed to think? How is her supervisor going to handles this? How long do you think it would have taken her boss to point out that if she is positive that she initaled the bindles and sticks to that story, that means that somone, in fact did tamper with them. Then she would be asked who would tamper with her work, when did they do it, why did they do it. Just like the civil trial rules, reasonable doubt is tossed out the window in these issues, it is who, what, when, where and why.

For some bizarre reason, most people think that if a LE person or a SID person plants or tampers with evidence, they want to get caught so they make sure they tell someone and do it in front of a witness who can either blackmail them or turn them in.

Dennis Fung is interesting. First, the DA's and his boss had the same video tapes that the defense had, they knew of Barry Scheck and knew that even under the best of circumstances, he was going to be tough on Fung. Fung was an experienced SID person who had testified in many trials before. Fung spent almost 50 hours with Hank Goldberg to prepare him for his testimony. IMO, Fung was another scape goat on the DA's list. By having him trashed and bashed and his own side treating him like dolt, they had another whipping boy.

What is interesting is that Hank Goldberg wanted to bring out that Dennis Fung believed Simpson was innocent so why would he do such a lousy job but Clark wanted no part of that. Just like when Collin Y almost said enough for the defense to get Simpson's statement into the police.

You have often talked about "carelessness" is part of the job and I think that is wrong. I can understand mistakes made in the MacDonald case, military bases and police don't deal with a lot of murders or some small community but the City of LA is not a small time town.

You also fail to recognize that SOP's are written for the very reasons you have often cited. Memory, having to testify later, ensuring all the steps are taken. Fung and Mozzola's paperwork is a mystery within itself. Clark reviews it, says nothing to Fung about their paperwork not being completed then later she comes ungluded by this?

I also believe that if you or your loved one was seating in the defendant's seat, you would not be quoting VB's book or would you accept "carelessness" as part of their job. In fact, I think if it was your loved one who was convicted on evidence that you found suspect, you would be the loudest one on pointing out the descrepancies. You would be very polite doing this as well, because you seem kind of quiet but are able to get your point across without having to use profane language---you would take the dignified approach, IMO. Truly, I mean that as compliment.

i think it would take 2-3 people to tamper with evidence.maby 1-2 detectives and one lab worker.Those that knew about tampering would remain silent for job security and other reasons.Think about that cop that acussed mf of bad acts and kept a diary of furhmans bad behavior. HE ripped up his notes rather than take furhman head on or give his notes up.

Mazzola gave the only answer she could have given considering the position she was put in.Her answer was simple I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO MY INITIALS. She was not in a position to force her boss to tell her what happened. No one could/would give her or the court the answer as to what happened. The defence proved their point that if she knew she put her initials on the bendels someone must have switched the bendels with ojs samples.She was a new intern, she wanted to keep her job.There was nothing more that she could do.
Now, the jury again heard her testimony about the missing initials.there would be good reason for them to believe SOMETHING WRONG.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9201740] I think Shapiro brought in Cochran to play the race card.
QUOTE]

Fgump,

Mr. Cochran was an experienced attorney who spent quite a few years in the DA's office. I believe he was Ito's supervisor at one time. WTH? Mr. Cochran, being a black man knows and understands the law looking through a black man's eyes, something that Shapiro never could do. personally, I think they hired cockroach to get him off the tv where he was implying/saying orenthal was guilty. Mr. Cochran would never be able to see the law through a white man's eyes. which is exactly how he made his living -- telling the black community that the white community was against them and could never understand them.

Long before the Simpson trial, there was racism in our country and in our legal system. If calling hiring JC was using the race card, why can't the same be said of the DA's who brough on Chris Darden? IMO, I think it was wise that both sides had a lead black lawyer. I don't think this is being racist or playing the race card. Again, IMO.

shapiro didn't play the race card and no one has ever said that. cockroach played the race card -- like he had done in countless cases before this one.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9201740]
I once again criticize you for acting like a mind reader about Shapiro knowing that Simpson would pass the lie detector test.
If Shapiro made the offer, it may have been an act of desperation. In any case most people know that lie detector are fallible. Lawyers especially. Even if Shapiro knew Simpson was innocent, he would also know that lie detector tests are fallible.
Fgump2,

I posted why I felt that Shapiro knew he would pass the lie detector test. If he knew his client failed one and then offered his client to the DA's on a silver platter to fail "another one", he would be reported and he would be disbarred. It is the same thing that a lawyer can't a witness on the stand if they know they are going to lie. He would be disbarred.

Aren't you reading Shapiro's mind about his offer being one of "desperation"? What is your proof of this? My proof is he would have lost his license if he gave up his own client. What is your proof that he was deperate?

I agree with you that most lawyers do not put a lot of stock into lie detector tests. However, Shapiro could have been acting on Lange and Vanatter's request for Simpson to take one during their interview.

I have always had negative things to say about Shapiro on why he allowed Simpson to take the test and be asked about Nicole but maybe he was using his own method---if he passes it, then he has got a problem.

You don't really believe that every defense lawyer just takes their clients word about their innocence do you? Wouldn't any lawyer, regardless of what side you are on, test each and every one of their witnesses, try to trip them up with little details or give them little tests to form their own private opinon of their client's credibilility?

[martin II]

As for how many people it would take to frame it, the defense implied that it was more than 1 or 2. First of all they said I think that 3 detectives were in on it, along with Fung and his boss. That is five and Fung would have been taking a dangerous chance if Mazzola wasn't in on it. She was watching what he did most of the time. Also the defence claimed that some of the blood wasn't put in the bronco till a number of days after it was towed. That implies a lot of people cooperating on it. How would the planters know who had run what tests on the bronco looking for blood? Same thing on the sock.

If it was someone I cared about a lot in the defendens seat, I would probably think it was OK to get them out with the legal BS the dream team used. I might also be in favor of getting them out with a tunnel or a helicoptor or who knows what else. What does that have to do with the way a justice system should be run?

all of the evidence was collected and held by the lab.that is the place where blood switching of samples could have taken place.imo

Mazzolas case is a good exanple.

[GreenIce]

In a previous posting you wrote that either Fung or Lange must have been lying because Fung and Lange disagreed about whethor or not Lange had told or asked FUng something. And yet it doesn't seem to bother you that Simpson has given 3 versions of the type of relationship that he and Nicole had in the last 3 - 6 months before the killings. Version one (to A. Austin) Nicole dumped him. Version two (just after the killings) it was a mutual breakup with mutual respect. Version three, OJS broke it off because Nicole was acting irrational. Three different stories.

fgump2,

First off all, I am sure that OJ Simpson is not the first or will be the last man to ever give different versions of their relationships with girlfriends, wives, ex-wives, kids, whatever. I am sure that Nicole is not the first or the last woman who would have exact opposite versions of the very same relationships.

You can't compare Simpson's version of events next to blood on the back gate. Simpson's version of events are not events. Even if he was the sweetest, bestest husband in the whole world, if that blood is on the back gate and it got there on the same night that Nicole murdered, it doesn't matter what type of husband he was. Good people snap and loose control and spend many years in jail for losing control when it comes to a loved one.

As for the three different versions, why can't they all be true? Does a break up have to be for one reason only? It has been proven that there is truth in all three versions so I am not so sure what point you are trying to make.

To be honest, are totally shocked that Simpson or any other defendant would lie? Why would they lie, because they don't want to get caught or they don't want to go to jail, they want to protect themselves, that is understandable.

However, can you explain to me why 4 lead detectives would lie?

The bottom line is that either Lange or Fung have to be lying about the back gate and IMO, it is Lange. There are certain issues, such as this one, that they both can not be telling the truth.

[weezer]

GI, you do realize that there is a picture (taken on the night of the murders) that shows the blood on the back gate, right?

[martin II]

fgump2,

First off all, I am sure that OJ Simpson is not the first or will be the last man to ever give different versions of their relationships with girlfriends, wives, ex-wives, kids, whatever. I am sure that Nicole is not the first or the last woman who would have exact opposite versions of the very same relationships.

You can't compare Simpson's version of events next to blood on the back gate. Simpson's version of events are not events. Even if he was the sweetest, bestest husband in the whole world, if that blood is on the back gate and it got there on the same night that Nicole murdered, it doesn't matter what type of husband he was. Good people snap and loose control and spend many years in jail for losing control when it comes to a loved one.

As for the three different versions, why can't they all be true? Does a break up have to be for one reason only? It has been proven that there is truth in all three versions so I am not so sure what point you are trying to make.

To be honest, are totally shocked that Simpson or any other defendant would lie? Why would they lie, because they don't want to get caught or they don't want to go to jail, they want to protect themselves, that is understandable.

However, can you explain to me why 4 lead detectives would lie?

The bottom line is that either Lange or Fung have to be lying about the back gate and IMO, it is Lange. There are certain issues, such as this one, that they both can not be telling the truth.


All three were true as the relationship changed from week to week.
Some look for any reason to attack oj. Any reason is ok even those that sound like they were made up by a child.imo

I still don't know why the public should accept trained detectives doing the work they were trained to do can make all kinds of mistakes and work in a careless manner and this is ok. if this is true we might as well allow untrained citizens to do the work.

[weezer]

All three were true as the relationship changed from week to week.
Some look for any reason to attack oj. Any reason is ok even those that sound like they were made up by a child.imo

I still don't know why the public should accept trained detectives doing the work they were trained to do can make all kinds of mistakes and work in a careless manner and this is ok. if this is true we might as well allow untrained citizens to do the work.

and some look for any reason to blame the victim(s). all the while excusing orenthal's beatings and wh*ring as if it was something Nicole deserved. :punch::seeya:

[Hipcheck]

TV,

Now you know I am going to have to respond to this one. Pour yourself your favorite beverage and read what I am about to post slowing and think about it before you respond. My concern is for you and we need all the nurses we can get in this country and I don't want to be responsible for you taking a little trip to that pretty little rubber room that some planets have for their people.:)

The reason the lie detector test should only be given after so many hours, I want to say 72 hours is because in the past, when a person was asked questions about a love one's death they are so emotional that their responses skew the results.

OJ Simpson, besides it being too soon for him to take this test, never completed the test. The person is actually given two rounds of the same questions and there is a hour or a couple of hours between rounds.

Simpson's failing this test, at that time, really points to his innocence. Now just take it easy........Think about it, if Simpson has passed that test, so soon after the murders, wouldn't that point to his guilt? Wouldn't those results indicated one mean, cold SOB and psychopath?

Had Simpson passed that test, IMO, points to his guilt.

Another point to consider, Bob Shapiro offered the DA's for Simpson to take a lie detector test only if they agreed that the results would be used in the trial. Now, in order for Shapiro to make this offer, he had to know that Simpson would pass a lie detector test, otherwise he would have made this offer knowing that he had "failed" one and he would have been disbarred if the DA's took this offer knowing his client was going to fail it.

Another interesting point, in Petrocelli's book, he said that he was warned not to offer Simpson a lie detector test. It was felt that he could "beat" it.

I personally do not believe in them and I think they are nothing but a media tool used by both sides. If a person refuses to take one, then the person must be guilty, if a person takes one and passes one, that means nothing.

Again, not to upset you but just to explain my position on this issue.:)

This post makes absolutely no sense at all.

You think if Simpsom passed a polygraph it showed he's guilty.

You also think if he flunked the polygrasph then that would show he's innocent.

You have got to be joking.

[martin II]

This post makes absolutely no sense at all.

You think if Simpsom passed a polygraph it showed he's guilty.

You also think if he flunked the polygrasph then that would show he's innocent.

You have got to be joking.

if oj had passed the test many would find fault with the tester or claim that oj found a way to beat the test and that he was actually guilty.


if you consider the mental strain he would be under for taking the test too soon., if he flunked it it would show that he did so because of the mental strain and therefore he is innocent. imo

[Hipcheck]

if you consider the mental strain he would be under for taking the test too soon., if he flunked it it would show that he did so because of the mental strain and therefore he is innocent. imo

This has to be one the stupidest posts that I have ever read.

This post ranks right up there with the one Greenice posted.

Do you even know how a polgraph test works? Have you ever witnessed a polygraph test being administered to someone?

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9201740]
I once again criticize you for acting like a mind reader about Shapiro knowing that Simpson would pass the lie detector test.
If Shapiro made the offer, it may have been an act of desperation. In any case most people know that lie detector are fallible. Lawyers especially. Even if Shapiro knew Simpson was innocent, he would also know that lie detector tests are fallible.
Fgump2,

I posted why I felt that Shapiro knew he would pass the lie detector test. If he knew his client failed one and then offered his client to the DA's on a silver platter to fail "another one", he would be reported and he would be disbarred. It is the same thing that a lawyer can't a witness on the stand if they know they are going to lie. He would be disbarred.

Aren't you reading Shapiro's mind about his offer being one of "desperation"? What is your proof of this? My proof is he would have lost his license if he gave up his own client. What is your proof that he was deperate?

I agree with you that most lawyers do not put a lot of stock into lie detector tests. However, Shapiro could have been acting on Lange and Vanatter's request for Simpson to take one during their interview.

I have always had negative things to say about Shapiro on why he allowed Simpson to take the test and be asked about Nicole but maybe he was using his own method---if he passes it, then he has got a problem.

You don't really believe that every defense lawyer just takes their clients word about their innocence do you? Wouldn't any lawyer, regardless of what side you are on, test each and every one of their witnesses, try to trip them up with little details or give them little tests to form their own private opinon of their client's credibilility?

Here is your quote about Shapiro that I thought was mind reading:Now, in order for Shapiro to make this offer, he had to know that Simpson would pass a lie detector test, otherwise he would have made this offer knowing that he had "failed" one and he would have been disbarred if the DA's took this offer knowing his client was going to fail it. I doubt that Shapiro either knew Simpson would pass it, or that Shapiro was facing the possibility of disbarrel.

Here is my quote about the possibility of Shapiro acting on desperation:
If Shapiro made the offer, it may have been an act of desperation. In any case most people know that lie detector are fallible. Lawyers especially. Even if Shapiro knew Simpson was innocent, he would also know that lie detector tests are fallible. I made it clear that I was making a guess. You wrote with certainty.
Another possibility is that Shapiro was bluffing. In other words iif the DA had accepted, Shapiro could have withdrawn the offer or put on so many qualifications that it wasn't a real offer. A lot of people have made insincere offers that they have no intention of acting on. Ever read much about international relations?

I remember reading that a pro golfer once said that pressure is when you have a $10 bet riding on the next golf hole, and no money in your pocket. Lots of lawyers, diplomats, salesmen, and others have felt that kind of pressure.

I have done enough reading about lie detector tests to feel sure that there is no way that Shapiro could know that SImpson would pass the test unless someone bribed the tester. The tests are too imprecise for that. However I have never read anything about special circumstances in which failing a test can be considered evidence that the person is telling the truth.

[GreenIce]

This post makes absolutely no sense at all.

You think if Simpsom passed a polygraph it showed he's guilty.

You also think if he flunked the polygrasph then that would show he's innocent.

You have got to be joking.

Hipcheck,

The main point of my post is when the test was given and while I did not post this before, but as well as who he was asked about. Of course Simpson would get emotional whenever Nicole's named was mentioned, however, what if he was asked about Ron, would the results have been the same?

IMO, according to the information I have read on these tests, Simpson's failing it points more toward his innocence then to guilt.

Also, we don't know what questions were asked.

The best of my knowledge the person who gave the test never testified and I have to wonder why he did not inform Shapiro that Simpson should not be taking the test at that time, that time does matter. I also have to wonder why he didn't start the tests with questions about Ron Goldman.

[GreenIce]

This has to be one the stupidest posts that I have ever read.

This post ranks right up there with the one Greenice posted.

Do you even know how a polgraph test works? Have you ever witnessed a polygraph test being administered to someone?

Hipcheck,

It is obvious that the people who developed this test and tweaked it and have fought very hard to give these tests credibility know more about the test then you do.

I am pretty sure that when the actual tests are given, the only two people in the room would be the tester and the testee. To have a third person in the room would only add more stress to the testee.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9201748]

Here is your quote about Shapiro that I thought was mind reading:Now, in order for Shapiro to make this offer, he had to know that Simpson would pass a lie detector test, otherwise he would have made this offer knowing that he had "failed" one and he would have been disbarred if the DA's took this offer knowing his client was going to fail it. I doubt that Shapiro either knew Simpson would pass it, or that Shapiro was facing the possibility of disbarrel.

Here is my quote about the possibility of Shapiro acting on desperation:
If Shapiro made the offer, it may have been an act of desperation. In any case most people know that lie detector are fallible. Lawyers especially. Even if Shapiro knew Simpson was innocent, he would also know that lie detector tests are fallible. I made it clear that I was making a guess. You wrote with certainty.
Another possibility is that Shapiro was bluffing. In other words iif the DA had accepted, Shapiro could have withdrawn the offer or put on so many qualifications that it wasn't a real offer. A lot of people have made insincere offers that they have no intention of acting on. Ever read much about international relations?

I remember reading that a pro golfer once said that pressure is when you have a $10 bet riding on the next golf hole, and no money in your pocket. Lots of lawyers, diplomats, salesmen, and others have felt that kind of pressure.

I have done enough reading about lie detector tests to feel sure that there is no way that Shapiro could know that SImpson would pass the test unless someone bribed the tester. The tests are too imprecise for that. However I have never read anything about special circumstances in which failing a test can be considered evidence that the person is telling the truth.

fgump2,

I did think consider that Shapiro maybe bluffing, however, his offer is accepting the test results as well as entering them into evidence. I don't think he would have done that if he did not know that Simpson would pass the test.

Had the DA's accepted his offer and Simpson was convicted, then not only would Simpson have grounds for appeal but Shapiro would have, at the very least lose his high profile clients and at the very worst, he would lose his license.

Shapiro would not have made the same mistake that Rock Harmon made about EDTA. He said in open court, that if EDTA was found in these two samples, then the case never should have been filed. However, if no EDTA was found, then Simpson would have to plead guilty.

We all know how that blew up in his face.

Again, you may be right, he may have been bluffing but on this issue, I don't think so.

If Simpson passed that lie detector test, would you believe he was innocent?

I totally agree with you about these tests and I don't think they should be allowed period. A guilty person can pass them and an innocent person can fail it.

Another thing to consider, Shapiro could have taken into consideration any medications Simpson was taking would help him pass the test.

[GreenIce]

if oj had passed the test many would find fault with the tester or claim that oj found a way to beat the test and that he was actually guilty.


if you consider the mental strain he would be under for taking the test too soon., if he flunked it it would show that he did so because of the mental strain and therefore he is innocent. imo

Martin,

If Simpson passed that test so soon after the murders, I would have leaned toward guilt. I think it would be a fair argument to make. I also believe that with enough practice, knowledge of the tests, a guilty person can pass it.

[windh]

One thing that is remarkable in this case is the location and way the socks were found in Simpson´s bedroom.

How on Earth could he leave/drop them like that?

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/windh/bedroom.jpg


Other than the LAPD planted them there, that is.... :biggrin:

[martin II]

This has to be one the stupidest posts that I have ever read.

This post ranks right up there with the one Greenice posted.

Do you even know how a polgraph test works? Have you ever witnessed a polygraph test being administered to someone?

you are welcomed to have your opinion but you have not stated whaT it is.

[tv]

This post makes absolutely no sense at all.

You think if Simpsom passed a polygraph it showed he's guilty.

You also think if he flunked the polygrasph then that would show he's innocent.

You have got to be joking.

No, Hipcheck, she's dead serious. :shrug:

[tv]

Martin,

If Simpson passed that test so soon after the murders, I would have leaned toward guilt. I think it would be a fair argument to make. I also believe that with enough practice, knowledge of the tests, a guilty person can pass it.

GreenIce, it's very hard to beat a polygraph just by having knowledge. The test measures fluctuations in breathing, heart rate and sweat gland activity. It's nearly impossible for a person to control these body functions at will.

[tv]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9201781]

fgump2,

I did think consider that Shapiro maybe bluffing, however, his offer is accepting the test results as well as entering them into evidence. I don't think he would have done that if he did not know that Simpson would pass the test.

Had the DA's accepted his offer and Simpson was convicted, then not only would Simpson have grounds for appeal but Shapiro would have, at the very least lose his high profile clients and at the very worst, he would lose his license.

Shapiro would not have made the same mistake that Rock Harmon made about EDTA. He said in open court, that if EDTA was found in these two samples, then the case never should have been filed. However, if no EDTA was found, then Simpson would have to plead guilty.

We all know how that blew up in his face.

Again, you may be right, he may have been bluffing but on this issue, I don't think so.

If Simpson passed that lie detector test, would you believe he was innocent?

I totally agree with you about these tests and I don't think they should be allowed period. A guilty person can pass them and an innocent person can fail it.

Another thing to consider, Shapiro could have taken into consideration any medications Simpson was taking would help him pass the test.

Unfortunately, I've never heard that Bob Shapiro has the gift of mindreading so it's very doubtful that he 'knew' Simpson would pass the test. Obviously, Shapiro was dead wrong because Simpson didn't just fail it -- he failed it in a big way.

[tv]

*snipped*
I have done enough reading about lie detector tests to feel sure that there is no way that Shapiro could know that SImpson would pass the test unless someone bribed the tester. The tests are too imprecise for that. However I have never read anything about special circumstances in which failing a test can be considered evidence that the person is telling the truth.

Neither has anyone else on this forum. :)

[tv]

Hipcheck,

It is obvious that the people who developed this test and tweaked it and have fought very hard to give these tests credibility know more about the test then you do.

I am pretty sure that when the actual tests are given, the only two people in the room would be the tester and the testee. To have a third person in the room would only add more stress to the testee.

Not true -- I took a polygraph one time with two other people present.

[tv]

Hipcheck,

The main point of my post is when the test was given and while I did not post this before, but as well as who he was asked about. Of course Simpson would get emotional whenever Nicole's named was mentioned, however, what if he was asked about Ron, would the results have been the same?

IMO, according to the information I have read on these tests, Simpson's failing it points more toward his innocence then to guilt.

Also, we don't know what questions were asked.

The best of my knowledge the person who gave the test never testified and I have to wonder why he did not inform Shapiro that Simpson should not be taking the test at that time, that time does matter. I also have to wonder why he didn't start the tests with questions about Ron Goldman.How do you know he didn't?

[tv]

Uncomplicated case?
it sure turned into a complicated one for the prosecution when the defence ripped it apart in front of the world.In the end the DA could not make any kind of sensible story to explain what had happened to the jury and that ios why they lost.

Very uncomplicated --

Man kills ex-wife and her friend in a rage, his DNA is found at the crime scene and his DNA mixed with the DNA of the victims is found in his car, his home and on a glove on his property. End of very simple story.

It became complicated when the defense realized they couldn't overcome the evidence that the prosecution had against Simpson and had to find another way to get him acquitted. They found it -- I've never understood how they sleep at night with a clear conscience.

[tv]

I don't know how many people would be involved for a frame up of Mr. Simpson; I read in several places that it would be at least 20. If it was small number they would be sweating blood that someone else would spot the evidence that it was a frame up. If it was a large number they would be sweating blood that someone would spill the truth either because they were drunk, or a death bed confession. No blue wall of silence could prevent either of these possibilities. fg2, I agree, there is just no way this secret would be kept for so many years. It's just not human nature.

Scheck accused Fung of being part of the frame-up, and also said that some of the detectives and Fung's boss were in on the frame up. I challenge Martin, Greenice, WA and other NGs to either denounce Scheck for making this charge or at least admit several things: It would have taken more than 2 or 3 people to frame Simpson, and this would have created a large risk for the plotters. Part of the risk would be the possibility that someone would talk. Part of it would be problems in coordinating the work of a large number of people. My experience is that when more than 2 or 3 people cooperate for the first time on a new project there are often serious misunderstandings. I realize that the NGs could say that explains problems like pieces of paper not being initialized; but the plotters would have been worried that there would have been enough mistakes for the plotters to go to prison. What the NGs never mention is that under the California penal code anyone whose perjury helps procure the conviction and execution of an innocent person will be sentenced to death or life in prision without possibility of parole. At the time of the supposed evidence planting there is no way that Fuhrman, Vannatter, Fung or Lange or any of the other LE officers could know that the state wouldn't seek the death penalty for the crimes. They would have been putting themselves in a very dangerous position.

A person who was thinking of joining the frame up would be faced with two alternatives: Join the frame up and risk going to prison, or expose the frame up and take a chance on being rich. I realize that some NGs will respond by saying that LAPD employees would be more scared of the blue wall of silence than of going to prison. This raises a question: If the blue wall of silence is that strong, why have I never heard of a cop resigning in protest, or writing a book about it?

There have been cases in which cops have covered up for one another, just as people in other professions cover up for one another. The fact that some cops will lie to protect other cops doesn't prove that there is a blue wall of silence any more than in the case of some other profession. If we generalize about the worst behavior of any profession, they would all look bad.

I am sure that there have been cases of accountants or car mechanics covering up for bad behavior in their professions, but nobody talks about accountant wall of silence or car mechanic wall of silence.This made me laugh. I think that police have more professional loyalty than most other professions, and therefore are more likely to cover up for co workers mistakes; but this is a matter of degree. If we assume that most LAPD workers would feel obligated to obey a code of silence on framing an innocent man, then we have to assume that most LAPD are psychopaths. I don't see the LAPD as that bad.

I started a thread on the blue wall of silence on this board and this thread was taken off the board because it got only one reply. Threads are removed if they get no postings for 30 days. My post said that it exists, but it is quite unreliable. The only reply said that there is no blue wall of silence. I take this to mean that NG's like to talk about the blue wall of silence, but when that is the main topic they back off.

The NGs like to talk about how the blue wall of silence affects OJ Simpson, that's all. They don't mention that he was pampered by the LAPD for many years and even received special treatment while in jail.

By the way, your thread is still there. http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?p=9194789#post9194789 :seeya:

[martin II]

Very uncomplicated --

Man kills ex-wife and her friend in a rage, his DNA is found at the crime scene and his DNA mixed with the DNA of the victims is found in his car, his home and on a glove on his property. End of very simple story.

It became complicated when the defense realized they couldn't overcome the evidence that the prosecution had against Simpson and had to find another way to get him acquitted. They found it -- I've never understood how they sleep at night with a clear conscience.

That would put you in the 100% guilty side regardless of how the defence artfully and leagally showed the world that the prosecution did not prove their claims.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9201785]

Unfortunately, I've never heard that Bob Shapiro has the gift of mindreading so it's very doubtful that he 'knew' Simpson would pass the test. Obviously, Shapiro was dead wrong because Simpson didn't just fail it -- he failed it in a big way.

Shaperio knew the gloves did not fit before the demo..that did not take any mind reading only good lawyering.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9201812]

Shaperio knew the gloves did not fit before the demo..that did not take any mind reading only good lawyering.

WTH? :confused: the discussion is lie detector! :eek:

[martin II]

OJ had taken about 1/4 of the TOTAL test when it was stopped. That does not sound like he failed THE TEST to me.

[weezer]

OJ had taken about 1/4 of the TOTAL test when it was stopped. That does not sound like he failed THE TEST to me.

-22 is failed.

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

I am pretty sure that when the actual tests are given, the only two people in the room would be the tester and the testee. To have a third person in the room would only add more stress to the testee.

GreenIce

You are absolutely correct that when a polygraph test is given there are only two people in that room. One being the polygraph operator and the other being the person taking the test.

Did you know that all police polygraph tests are video taped? The investigator is sitting in another room watching a monitor of the polygraph examination taking place.

[fgump2]

I don't see why the picture of the socks proves any thing. What would be different about the picture if Simpson had dropped them accidentally? I have accidentally dropped socks that looked a lot like that. We don't know what happened there. Maybe Simpson dropped more clothing there and the cleanup person (Arnelle?) didn't get everything.

I have never been able to take the lack of initials on the bindle or envelope that Mazzola thought she put there,. There are two possibilities if we include planting:
1 - there was no planting. Mazzola forgot to initial the paper.
2 - there was planting and the planter forgot to initial the paper.
I can't understand why anyone would think the second possibility is so much more logical than the first. Either way someone was careless. I have sometimes felt sure I did something, and then found out I was wrong. Others have had the same experience.

As for it taking only 1 or 2 people to frame SImpson. I don't see how anyone could guess at that unless they knew a lot about the LAPD procedures. In any case, the scenario that the defense seemed to believe would involve a lot of people and a lot of work: Planting socks in the bed room, then waiting weeks or months before planting blood on them. Planting some blood in the Bronco immediately after the murders, then planting more weeks later. Also for the blood on the gate, several cops said they saw it, including at least one who Cochran said seemed honest.
The fact that Scheck implied (or said) that both Fung and his boss were part of the plot makes for a lot of people. And would Fuhrman be comfortable with both a woman and a person of asian ancestory as part of the plot? The people who believe in a police plot centered on Fuhrman seem to believe two contradictory things about Fuhrman: He was a devout racist who distrusted and resented both women and minority groups. He trusted all LAPD employees, including women and minorities, to help him in the frameup. This would include a black man, Donald Thompson who was one of the first cops at Bundy and also at Rockingham and hour or two after the first cops got there.
If more than one person knows a secret, it probably won't stay a secret for long, especially if it is an interesting story. I know frome experience that it can be almost physically painful to keep quiet about an interesting story.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9201740]
I once again criticize you for acting like a mind reader about Shapiro knowing that Simpson would pass the lie detector test.
If Shapiro made the offer, it may have been an act of desperation. In any case most people know that lie detector are fallible. Lawyers especially. Even if Shapiro knew Simpson was innocent, he would also know that lie detector tests are fallible.
Fgump2,

I posted why I felt that Shapiro knew he would pass the lie detector test. If he knew his client failed one and then offered his client to the DA's on a silver platter to fail "another one", he would be reported and he would be disbarred. It is the same thing that a lawyer can't a witness on the stand if they know they are going to lie. He would be disbarred.

Aren't you reading Shapiro's mind about his offer being one of "desperation"? What is your proof of this? My proof is he would have lost his license if he gave up his own client. What is your proof that he was deperate?

I agree with you that most lawyers do not put a lot of stock into lie detector tests. However, Shapiro could have been acting on Lange and Vanatter's request for Simpson to take one during their interview.

I have always had negative things to say about Shapiro on why he allowed Simpson to take the test and be asked about Nicole but maybe he was using his own method---if he passes it, then he has got a problem.

You don't really believe that every defense lawyer just takes their clients word about their innocence do you? Wouldn't any lawyer, regardless of what side you are on, test each and every one of their witnesses, try to trip them up with little details or give them little tests to form their own private opinon of their client's credibilility?

Another possibility for the lie detector offer was that at this time the DNA tests probalby hadn't come back. The prosecution probably wanted to wait till the blood tests came back. I have read that lie detector tests are accurate about 2/3 of the time. If the prosecution thought they had a better chance with the evidence, they would have refused the offer. In any case I don't see how Shapiro could be sure OJS would pass it. Not on the basis of the psychological evaluation by Saul Faerstien. I don't think the physical evidence had been processed enough to conclude much about it. The DNA evidence wasn't in yet. Are you really unfamilar with the fact that some times people make an offer that they have no intention of agreeing to? If this was done publically it may have been for public relations.

I read that when the score on the lie detector test came out, Simpson turned to SHapiro and asked "why did you have me take this test?". I thought an innocent man would claim that the test was wrong.

Do you see that you have written two fairly contradictory statements about lie detector tests.
1 - you don't put much stock in lie detector tests, and most lawyers don't either.
2 - Shapiro knew that SImpson would pass the test if he took it a second time.

I am not holding my breath waiting for you to show evidence that flunking a lie detector test can prove innocence. I will concede that if you work hard enough you could probably find a book that would back you up on anything. If you do find a book that supports you on that, explain why Bob Baker didn't use this information in the civil trial.

[tv]

That would put you in the 100% guilty side regardless of how the defence artfully and leagally showed the world that the prosecution did not prove their claims.

Sure, the defense was able to win by fabricating theories about framing and conspiracy. Too bad they won the case but the majority of people still believe that OJ Simpson is 100% guilty.

[tv]

[QUOTE=martin II;9201857]

WTH? :confused: the discussion is lie detector! :eek:

It's much more comfortable for the NGs to discuss the glove which they like to say didn't fit even though it was obvious that Simpson used some bad acting to make it look like he was really trying...haha.

[tv]

OJ had taken about 1/4 of the TOTAL test when it was stopped. That does not sound like he failed THE TEST to me.

It must have been really, really bad if they stopped it after only 1/4 of the test was completed.:eek: Since you think it indicated he was innocent I wonder why they didn't let him complete it and then announce the results to the world?

[tv]

I don't see why the picture of the socks proves any thing. What would be different about the picture if Simpson had dropped them accidentally? I have accidentally dropped socks that looked a lot like that. We don't know what happened there. Maybe Simpson dropped more clothing there and the cleanup person (Arnelle?) didn't get everything.

I have never been able to take the lack of initials on the bindle or envelope that Mazzola thought she put there,. There are two possibilities if we include planting:
1 - there was no planting. Mazzola forgot to initial the paper.
2 - there was planting and the planter forgot to initial the paper.
I can't understand why anyone would think the second possibility is so much more logical than the first. Either way someone was careless. I have sometimes felt sure I did something, and then found out I was wrong. Others have had the same experience.

As for it taking only 1 or 2 people to frame SImpson. I don't see how anyone could guess at that unless they knew a lot about the LAPD procedures. In any case, the scenario that the defense seemed to believe would involve a lot of people and a lot of work: Planting socks in the bed room, then waiting weeks or months before planting blood on them. Planting some blood in the Bronco immediately after the murders, then planting more weeks later. Also for the blood on the gate, several cops said they saw it, including at least one who Cochran said seemed honest.
The fact that Scheck implied (or said) that both Fung and his boss were part of the plot makes for a lot of people. And would Fuhrman be comfortable with both a woman and a person of asian ancestory as part of the plot? The people who believe in a police plot centered on Fuhrman seem to believe two contradictory things about Fuhrman: He was a devout racist who distrusted and resented both women and minority groups. He trusted all LAPD employees, including women and minorities, to help him in the frameup. This would include a black man, Donald Thompson who was one of the first cops at Bundy and also at Rockingham and hour or two after the first cops got there.
If more than one person knows a secret, it probably won't stay a secret for long, especially if it is an interesting story. I know frome experience that it can be almost physically painful to keep quiet about an interesting story.

I've never thought about it but it makes sense that Fuhrman can't be a racist and woman hater on one hand but on the other hand enlist the people that would have had to be involved for the frame up to work. IMO, there are only one or two people besides OJ Simpson and the victims that really know what happened that night and have known from the beginning. I think one of them is dead.

[GreenIce]

How do you know he didn't?

TV,

Because of what Simpson allegedly said about the test, that everytime Nicole's name was mentioned he became so emotional. Also, FLB basically said that Ron's name would not have involked those emotions because he did not know Ron.

[GreenIce]

Did this flight attendent testify to her claims.i don't think she did and the reason would be the DA did not believe her claims. 3-4 other people including the captain and Alis photographer and others sitting near oj did not see him doing anything unusual. So where did this attendent get this story from.

Martin,

I'm not sure but I thought OJ addressed this in his deposition and said he did use the rest room several times and that was not unusal for him. IMO, this shows how some people are willing to use bathroom breaks as a sign of guilt but reject several witnesses who testified to his demeanor and at least one witness who study his hands that night, looking for a ring and saw no cut on it.

IMO, the DA's would not have called the flight attendant because they would have to prove this was unsual for him. Since Simpson made his living by traveling, I'm sure there other flight attendants who would say that this was not unusual for Simpson. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9201858]

It's much more comfortable for the NGs to discuss the glove which they like to say didn't fit even though it was obvious that Simpson used some bad acting to make it look like he was really trying...haha.

TV,

There are people who were in the court room who believe Simpson is guilty and still say the gloves did not fit. There are jurors who believed the gloves did fit and some that don't.

Simpson did not have to act during the glove demonstration, his lawyers knew they weren't going to fit and Clark knew they weren't going to fit.

Don't forget, it was the DA's who said they didn't fit because the gloves shrank. They never said that the gloves did not fit because of the latex gloves. The latex gloves would have made it a tad more difficult to put on but would not affect the fit.

What I always wondered about the gloves is why no DNA tests were taken from the lining of the glove. I would assume that sweat would contain DNA. I don't know if it is possible but I think it is an interesting question.

[GreenIce]

One thing that is remarkable in this case is the location and way the socks were found in Simpson´s bedroom.

How on Earth could he leave/drop them like that?

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/windh/bedroom.jpg


Other than the LAPD planted them there, that is.... :biggrin:

Windh,

In Joe Bosco's book, he says that the socks were measured in regards to the distance from the walls, bed, etc. This was done three times and the measurements were all different. And then there was the debate about the luggage suspenders being moved as well.

[GreenIce]

As for how many people it would take to frame it, the defense implied that it was more than 1 or 2. First of all they said I think that 3 detectives were in on it, along with Fung and his boss. That is five and Fung would have been taking a dangerous chance if Mazzola wasn't in on it. She was watching what he did most of the time. Also the defence claimed that some of the blood wasn't put in the bronco till a number of days after it was towed. That implies a lot of people cooperating on it. How would the planters know who had run what tests on the bronco looking for blood? Same thing on the sock.

If it was someone I cared about a lot in the defendens seat, I would probably think it was OK to get them out with the legal BS the dream team used. I might also be in favor of getting them out with a tunnel or a helicoptor or who knows what else. What does that have to do with the way a justice system should be run?

fgump2,

I never got the impression that the defense thought Fung tampered with any evidence or Mozolla for the matter. Both testified they left swatches out to dry over night, I think they both said the left the lab about 7:00 p.m. I believe both testifed the swatches they put into the bindles were dry.

If they were "in on it", they would have said the swatches were still wet and that because Andrea was still in training, she made a mistake. Don't forget, Dennis Fung and Andrea admitted they made mistakes, why not admit to a wet swatch mistake?

Also, there were 7 swatches that were put into bindles, but only 4 of them had wet transfers, right there raises some honest questions.

I don't remember if Andrea said she initaled all the bindles, but if she did, and there were seven of them, then either all 7 should have had her intials or none of them should have had her initals.

Michelle Kesler was their supervisor, she did question AM about evidence being tampered with. However, she was never called in the DA's case, but rather in the defense's case. Isn't that odd the director of the lab was not called by the DA's to refute the defense's claims?

How many people does it take to plant blood in the Bronco? Again, you are missing the key points, Dennis Fung according to Marcia Clark did not take all the samples from inside the Bronco, yet at least two months later, he is told that he missed the blood in the Bronco and he just happened to get a sample that had Ron's blood in it? You also forget that there was several witnesses who testified they did not see the blood where this other sample was later taken from. The Bronco being left open and no logs kept on the comings and goings lended support to the planting theory.

Who ever planted the blood would have known that no tests were run on these samples because they weren't collected. Once they completed their mission, it was up to the DA's and the defense to duke it out.

You know, there is one thing that is always overlooked about the defense in this case, they won by using science and eye witness testimony. The defense was always on the offense but the DA's were always on the defense.

The Simpson case should be rule rather the exception in our legal system. We have no idea how many innocent people have gone to jail because they did not have the resources to even come close to matching the state's.

I also think that if the playing field between the defense and DA's, alot of "carelessness" you talk about, would not happen. It is always different playing against an equal opponent--IMO.

Even if you hate the dream team and felt they were over rated, you have to give this--it was the DA's who handed them the victory on a silver platter. Again, IMO. The gloves, blood evidence and witnesses are not "BS" issues, IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, it's very hard to beat a polygraph just by having knowledge. The test measures fluctuations in breathing, heart rate and sweat gland activity. It's nearly impossible for a person to control these body functions at will.

TV,

I agree it would be hard for a person to beat a polygraph if they did not do their homework on it. In order to beat it, you got to how the game is played. You got to prepare yourself and have a pretty good idea what the questions are going to be. I agree, that it would be very hard for a person to control these body functions as will, unless you are psychopath and you know certain drugs would help control these body functions.

However, I am sure there are people who think they are so cool and the to beat the polygraph will a snap for them but I am sure that the person is snapped into reality very quickly---knowing you can beat test before ever having taken one before is a huge, huge, mistake, IMO.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9201785]

Unfortunately, I've never heard that Bob Shapiro has the gift of mindreading so it's very doubtful that he 'knew' Simpson would pass the test. Obviously, Shapiro was dead wrong because Simpson didn't just fail it -- he failed it in a big way.

TV,

You keep forgetting why Simpson failed the test. You keep forgetting that we do know what the questions were nor did the examiner ever explain his procedures nor did he ever bring the results of the tests into the courtoom. He never testifed.

The "expert" never took the stand and testified.

One last thing, what do you think Bob's reaction was he was told that Simpson allegedy failed this test and when he was told that it was too soon to give this test? Don't you think there is a strong possibily that another was conducted and that was Shapiro was hiding this up his sleeve?

And according to examiners, Simpson should have failed the test so his failing is consistent with their protocol and SOP's.

[GreenIce]

Not true -- I took a polygraph one time with two other people present.

TV,

Who were the other two witnesses and why were they present--did they think you wrote your answers on inside of your shirt sleeve:)

Seriously, why were taking the testing and why were the witnesses present?

[GreenIce]

fgump and TV,

The "special circumstances" surrounding the polygraph are:

1) When the test was given

2) What questions were asked

3) The person who gave the test never testified about the procedures that were used and what were his findings.

4) The possibility that another was done and Simpson passed with flying colors.

5) We do not know what Simpson would have scored had he only been asked about Ron Goldman.

[tv]

TV,

Because of what Simpson allegedly said about the test, that everytime Nicole's name was mentioned he became so emotional. Also, FLB basically said that Ron's name would not have involked those emotions because he did not know Ron.

I take anything that Simpson and Bailey say that can't be corroborated with a grain of salt. They both had a reason to make excuses for why he failed the test.

If you've ever read up on how a polygraph exam works you know that polygraph examiners are trained in differentiating between an emotional response and an untruthful one. Sorry, but your guy failed the test because he failed the test not because he was emotional.

[tv]

TV,

Who were the other two witnesses and why were they present--did they think you wrote your answers on inside of your shirt sleeve:)

Seriously, why were taking the testing and why were the witnesses present?

I was participating in an FBI study on polygraph exams. The two people present besides me were two FBI polygraph examiners so it wasn't a typical LE situation.

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9201812]

TV,

You keep forgetting why Simpson failed the test. You keep forgetting that we do know what the questions were nor did the examiner ever explain his procedures nor did he ever bring the results of the tests into the courtoom. He never testifed.

The "expert" never took the stand and testified.

One last thing, what do you think Bob's reaction was he was told that Simpson allegedy failed this test and when he was told that it was too soon to give this test? Don't you think there is a strong possibily that another was conducted and that was Shapiro was hiding this up his sleeve?

And according to examiners, Simpson should have failed the test so his failing is consistent with their protocol and SOP's.

I haven't forgotten why Simpson failed the test. Simpson failed the polygaph because he's a double-murderer and was telling great big fat lies.

I'm begging you, GI, what examiners are saying his failing is consistent with innocence? A source, a link, a paragraph in a book...I'd like to find out more about it.

Of course, the polygraph examiner didn't testify. Polygraphs are inadmissable in a court of law. I don't believe there was another exam that Shapiro was 'hiding' up his sleeve. It wasn't possible to keep it a secret the first time around and it wouldn't have been possible if there had been a second time.

[tv]

TV,

I agree it would be hard for a person to beat a polygraph if they did not do their homework on it. In order to beat it, you got to how the game is played. You got to prepare yourself and have a pretty good idea what the questions are going to be. I agree, that it would be very hard for a person to control these body functions as will, unless you are psychopath and you know certain drugs would help control these body functions.

However, I am sure there are people who think they are so cool and the to beat the polygraph will a snap for them but I am sure that the person is snapped into reality very quickly---knowing you can beat test before ever having taken one before is a huge, huge, mistake, IMO.

Simpson didn't beat the polygraph so...:shrug:

[tv]

fgump2,

I never got the impression that the defense thought Fung tampered with any evidence or Mozolla for the matter. Both testified they left swatches out to dry over night, I think they both said the left the lab about 7:00 p.m. I believe both testifed the swatches they put into the bindles were dry.

If they were "in on it", they would have said the swatches were still wet and that because Andrea was still in training, she made a mistake. Don't forget, Dennis Fung and Andrea admitted they made mistakes, why not admit to a wet swatch mistake?

Also, there were 7 swatches that were put into bindles, but only 4 of them had wet transfers, right there raises some honest questions.

I don't remember if Andrea said she initaled all the bindles, but if she did, and there were seven of them, then either all 7 should have had her intials or none of them should have had her initals.

Michelle Kesler was their supervisor, she did question AM about evidence being tampered with. However, she was never called in the DA's case, but rather in the defense's case. Isn't that odd the director of the lab was not called by the DA's to refute the defense's claims?

How many people does it take to plant blood in the Bronco? Again, you are missing the key points, Dennis Fung according to Marcia Clark did not take all the samples from inside the Bronco, yet at least two months later, he is told that he missed the blood in the Bronco and he just happened to get a sample that had Ron's blood in it? You also forget that there was several witnesses who testified they did not see the blood where this other sample was later taken from. The Bronco being left open and no logs kept on the comings and goings lended support to the planting theory.

Who ever planted the blood would have known that no tests were run on these samples because they weren't collected. Once they completed their mission, it was up to the DA's and the defense to duke it out.

You know, there is one thing that is always overlooked about the defense in this case, they won by using science and eye witness testimony. The defense was always on the offense but the DA's were always on the defense.

The Simpson case should be rule rather the exception in our legal system. We have no idea how many innocent people have gone to jail because they did not have the resources to even come close to matching the state's.

I also think that if the playing field between the defense and DA's, alot of "carelessness" you talk about, would not happen. It is always different playing against an equal opponent--IMO.

Even if you hate the dream team and felt they were over rated, you have to give this--it was the DA's who handed them the victory on a silver platter. Again, IMO. The gloves, blood evidence and witnesses are not "BS" issues, IMO.

GreenIce, your first sentence floored me. Barry Scheck asked Fung straight out if he poured blood off of the vial containing Simpson's reference sample. If that's not the defense accusing Fung of tampering then what is it?

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9201887]

TV,

There are people who were in the court room who believe Simpson is guilty and still say the gloves did not fit. There are jurors who believed the gloves did fit and some that don't.

Simpson did not have to act during the glove demonstration, his lawyers knew they weren't going to fit and Clark knew they weren't going to fit.

Don't forget, it was the DA's who said they didn't fit because the gloves shrank. They never said that the gloves did not fit because of the latex gloves. The latex gloves would have made it a tad more difficult to put on but would not affect the fit.

What I always wondered about the gloves is why no DNA tests were taken from the lining of the glove. I would assume that sweat would contain DNA. I don't know if it is possible but I think it is an interesting question.

I wear and change latex gloves numerous times during a work day. Believe me when I tell you latex absolutely would affect the fit.

You say no DNA tests were taken from the lining of the glove. If that's the case how did they identify Ron and Nicole's blood in the fingers of the glove? Marcia Clark expressed her concern about trying the gloves on over latex in a sidebar on June 15. Richard Rubin testified that he tried on his own gloves over latex and it greatly impeded the fit.

[GreenIce]

I take anything that Simpson and Bailey say that can't be corroborated with a grain of salt. They both had a reason to make excuses for why he failed the test.

If you've ever read up on how a polygraph exam works you know that polygraph examiners are trained in differentiating between an emotional response and an untruthful one. Sorry, but your guy failed the test because he failed the test not because he was emotional.

TV,

If you read up the polygraph, you would knowing that the time of the test is crucial as well as knowing that studies shows that people of different ethnic backgrounds and gender also affects the results, therefore are more "control" questions to balance this.

BTW, I do have great website that talks about all these things as well as drugs and how knowledge helps a person beat a polygraph. Sorry:)

True or False, the person who gave the test never testified in the trial?

True or False, you know the questions that were asked of Simpson and the only questions he failed had to do with the murder of Nicole?

True or False, the experience of the examiner is also a key factor?

TV,

There are several key factors that you a denying that exist. Just like the sweats and gloves and a few other issues, you are denying the legal fact that none of the claims made by the DA's were proven.

You are denying the fact that the test was given too soon and that you do not know the questions.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9201917]

I wear and change latex gloves numerous times during a work day. Believe me when I tell you latex absolutely would affect the fit.

You say no DNA tests were taken from the lining of the glove. If that's the case how did they identify Ron and Nicole's blood in the fingers of the glove? Marcia Clark expressed her concern about trying the gloves on over latex in a sidebar on June 15. Richard Rubin testified that he tried on his own gloves over latex and it greatly impeded the fit.

TV,

So, can you tell what hand measurements are without wearing latex gloves and what they measurements are when you have them on? Is it an inch difference, half an inch, are we talking centimeters, milameters?

To totally suck at the metric system so please give the thickness of latex gloves and how much they would alter the fit.

BTW, you are denying that the DA's did try to claim that the reason the gloves didn't fit was because the shrank. You also deny the fact that the DA's never once told the jury how much latex gloves would impact the fit.

You are also denying that the gloves were tried on without the latex gloves and the fit did not alter. Vanatter tried the gloves on, many people tried those gloves on and latex gloves were not used.

If the latex gloves were going to change the fit or the size of person's hands, the DA's were obligated to make sure the jury was aware of this. IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, your first sentence floored me. Barry Scheck asked Fung straight out if he poured blood off of the vial containing Simpson's reference sample. If that's not the defense accusing Fung of tampering then what is it?

TV,

So when Hank Goldberg asked the same type of questions, he was also accusing the witnesses of tampering, correct?

Since blood was missing or the DA's couldn't find it, isn't it only fair to ask each witness when they had the sample if they opened it and spilled it?

Remember Collin Y's testimony about his spillage? Did the defense accuse him of doing this on purpose?

What about when Rock Harmon asked the witnesses if a person's DNA flying in the air can change into another person's DNA, was he junking the science?

The defense never accused Fung of any tampering, however, they made a strong case that he may have been guilty of CYA for him, AM and his department.

You keep forgetting, his boss never took the stand in his defense.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9201917]

I wear and change latex gloves numerous times during a work day. Believe me when I tell you latex absolutely would affect the fit.

You say no DNA tests were taken from the lining of the glove. If that's the case how did they identify Ron and Nicole's blood in the fingers of the glove? Marcia Clark expressed her concern about trying the gloves on over latex in a sidebar on June 15. Richard Rubin testified that he tried on his own gloves over latex and it greatly impeded the fit.

There is no way lates gloves would change the size of the gloves.Rubin made a mistake when he estimated the size of ojs hands.Shaperios hands were the size of oj. he tried on the gloves the night before the demo and knew they would not fit oj. Rubin was so intent on helping the prosecutions case that he made unreasonable and false claims that were proved to be just that.
false.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9201935]

TV,

So, can you tell what hand measurements are without wearing latex gloves and what they measurements are when you have them on? Is it an inch difference, half an inch, are we talking centimeters, milameters?

To totally suck at the metric system so please give the thickness of latex gloves and how much they would alter the fit.

BTW, you are denying that the DA's did try to claim that the reason the gloves didn't fit was because the shrank. You also deny the fact that the DA's never once told the jury how much latex gloves would impact the fit.

You are also denying that the gloves were tried on without the latex gloves and the fit did not alter. Vanatter tried the gloves on, many people tried those gloves on and latex gloves were not used.

If the latex gloves were going to change the fit or the size of person's hands, the DA's were obligated to make sure the jury was aware of this. IMO.

i think the laters gloves would measure about 1/2 a mililiter at most. hardly enough to make a differance in the fit.They would not change the size of a persons hands or the size of the gloves.
The order to use latex came from the judge not the defence.If the prosecution felt the latex would change the fit they could have just cancelled the demo.

[martin II]

GreenIce, your first sentence floored me. Barry Scheck asked Fung straight out if he poured blood off of the vial containing Simpson's reference sample. If that's not the defense accusing Fung of tampering then what is it?

The answer to that is simple. It was a question.

[martin II]

Windh,

In Joe Bosco's book, he says that the socks were measured in regards to the distance from the walls, bed, etc. This was done three times and the measurements were all different. And then there was the debate about the luggage suspenders being moved as well.

For one thing the socks in the picture were too far from the bed if he sat on the bed to take them off.i sit on the bed to take my socks off and they are always closer to the bed.i have never stood in the middle of the room to take of socks.the straps on the bed looked out of order also but were not collected.i think someone tookk those socks from ojs clothes closet and dropped them for the picture.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9201917]

I wear and change latex gloves numerous times during a work day. Believe me when I tell you latex absolutely would affect the fit.

You say no DNA tests were taken from the lining of the glove. If that's the case how did they identify Ron and Nicole's blood in the fingers of the glove? Marcia Clark expressed her concern about trying the gloves on over latex in a sidebar on June 15. Richard Rubin testified that he tried on his own gloves over latex and it greatly impeded the fit.

i think you wear latex gloves over your bare hands, i don't think you put leather gloves over the lates gloves so you would not be able to tell how they fit under leather gloves. right?

[martin II]

Martin,

I'm not sure but I thought OJ addressed this in his deposition and said he did use the rest room several times and that was not unusal for him. IMO, this shows how some people are willing to use bathroom breaks as a sign of guilt but reject several witnesses who testified to his demeanor and at least one witness who study his hands that night, looking for a ring and saw no cut on it.

IMO, the DA's would not have called the flight attendant because they would have to prove this was unsual for him. Since Simpson made his living by traveling, I'm sure there other flight attendants who would say that this was not unusual for Simpson. Again, IMO.

All therr of the sky caps testified that there was nothing unusual about oj actions in front of the airport doors when they spoke to him.the same is true for the people that sat with him and talked to him on the plane.So the attendant must not like people using the toilet on her flights or she was looking for 15 minutes of fame.

i guess the poster believes going to the toliet equals proof of a murderer.how silly can it get.

[martin II]

How do you know he didn't?

question
does the tester ask the same sensitive questions more than once?

[martin II]

Very uncomplicated --

Man kills ex-wife and her friend in a rage, his DNA is found at the crime scene and his DNA mixed with the DNA of the victims is found in his car, his home and on a glove on his property. End of very simple story.

It became complicated when the defense realized they couldn't overcome the evidence that the prosecution had against Simpson and had to find another way to get him acquitted. They found it -- I've never understood how they sleep at night with a clear conscience.

Woman and boyfriend found dead, le believes ex did it. DA charges ex with murder. At trial, cops lie on the stand,questions of contimination of evidence surfaces.There is testimony that indicates that blood samples were switched in the lab. there is no proof that the defendant was present in the area where the prosecution says he dropped the glove.The prosecutions timeline is proven to be wrong the defence time line is proven to be correct.The one killer claim is not believable.There is testimony that EDTA was found on a sample indicating planting by someone. The jury does not believe the testimony of a prime prosecution witness. Two prosecution witnesses change their testimonies.the prosecution claims the murder gloves were worn by defendant. they do a demo. the gloves do not fit.
The judge instructs the jury that they can ignore any witnesses testimony if they believe he lied on any material fact.
Jury deliberates and returns a not guilty verdict.