Random Discussions On The Case

[weezer]

fgump2,

I never got the impression that the defense thought Fung tampered with any evidence or Mozolla for the matter. :punch: then you weren't paying attention because the defense did most certainly through their questioning accuse/insinuate/imply that Fung and Mazolla tampered with the evidence. 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? why would they 'admit' the swatches were wet if they believed them to be dry?

Also, there were 7 swatches that were put into bindles, but only 4 of them had wet transfers, right there raises some honest questions. why? the obvious answer is that some had not dried. BTW, I'm not real sure about the numbers your posting.

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. if you don't remember if that was her testimony, why would you then post the accusation that she did anything wrong?

Michelle Kesler was their supervisor, she did question AM about evidence being tampered with. link to this 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? I'm not sure why you would think that AM's supervisor -- who was not at the scene -- be called to testify. :shrug: and please, pray tell, give us the date that Kessler testified for the defense.

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? not a hard concept here - the bronco was initially looked at without removing seats, etc. Once that happened, more blood was discovered. You also forget that there was several witnesses who testified they did not see the blood where this other sample was later taken from. and unless those folks were removing the seats/console, etc, they wouldn't have seen the blood. The Bronco being left open and no logs kept on the comings and goings lended support to the planting theory. the bronco being left open and no log kept, could not and did not change the blood/DNA of orenthal james simpson and the two people he murdered, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, into anybody else's.

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. Good Gawd!

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. nope -- the defense won because they knew (and used) the jury bias. 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. you're kidding right? I refuse to believe you think murderers should be walking free.

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. it wasn't the opponent that was the problem -- it was a racially biased jury.

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.

an ignorant and racially biased jury gave the defense the victory. :shrug:

[weezer]

Woman and boyfriend odd how it is important to label Ron as 'boyfriend' -- seems to give a whole different connotation to the attack.found dead, le believes ex did it. DA charges ex with murder. At trial, cops lie on the stand, the fact remains the only people admonished/sanctioned for lying were 1-Furhman for saying he had not called/referred to anyone using the n-word in the last 10 years and 2-the defense team for lying/hiding witness testimony. questions of contimination of evidence surfaces. where is the evidence of contamination? there was none. There is testimony that indicates that blood samples were switched in the lab. there is no credible evidence and/or testimony that blood samples were switched in the lab or anywhere else.there is no proof that the defendant was present in the area where the prosecution says he dropped the glove. let me see, orenthal's blood/DNA found on his property. not a huge leap to figure that one out. The prosecutions timeline is proven to be wrong the defence time line is proven to be correct. EXCELLENT! So I can assume that you believe he is liable for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. The one killer claim is not believable. why? there was no other blood/DNA/hair/fiber/hat/glove/size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints found at the scene except for orenthal james simpson and the two human beings he butchered: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. There is testimony that EDTA was found on a sample indicating planting by someone. the blood was tested at multiple labs - was EDTA found in all testing at all labs? NO The jury does not believe the testimony of a prime prosecution witness. the jury had their own agenda and nothing was going to change their minds. Two prosecution witnesses change their testimonies. and multiple defense witness change theirs as well as out and out lie.
The judge instructs the jury that they can ignore any witnesses testimony if they believe he lied on any material fact. that wasn't the problem -- the problem was jury nullification.
Jury deliberates and returns a not guilty verdict.

the jury did get deliberated -- and they did get their swipe back at LE. the only thing is they let a guilty man walk free in order to do it.

[Hipcheck]

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.

O.J. has always denied taking a polygraph test.

The fact is if O.J. had passed a second polygraph test then you can bet that the defense would have let everyone know.

But the facts are is that O.J. took a polygraph test and he flunked it which tells most Americans that he murdered Nicole and Ron.

[tv]

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.

I'll ask one more time. Please post the link to the website. If you can't or won't do this then I'll have to conclude that the website doesn't exist or it's not credible.

[tv]

O.J. has always denied taking a polygraph test.

The fact is if O.J. had passed a second polygraph test then you can bet that the defense would have let everyone know.

But the facts are is that O.J. took a polygraph test and he flunked it which tells most Americans that he murdered Nicole and Ron.

Exactly. :beer: All these excuses why he failed it are just that -- excuses.

[tv]

the jury did get deliberated -- and they did get their swipe back at LE. the only thing is they let a guilty man walk free in order to do it.

Yep, they got deliberated by Johnny Cochran -- the man who had built a career on pointing the finger at the LAPD.

[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.

Ron and Nicoles blood was found INSIDE THE FINGERS of the gloves?

[martin II]

Yep, they got deliberated by Johnny Cochran -- the man who had built a career on pointing the finger at the LAPD.

If not for defence lawyers like Cochran representing citizens in le abuse cases. how do these citizens get justice for the abuse against them by some le.

[tv]

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.

Barry Scheck asked Fung if he poured blood out of the vial. Please stop twisting this to mean something else.

You must think I'm the most forgetful person in the universe because you're always telling me I'm forgetting something. The funny thing is it's usually something that isn't true or is meaningless so there's no reason for me to remember it in the first place.

BTW, here's the testimony that you keep saying doesn't exist -- Scheck questioning Fung --

Q: AND AT SOME POINT THAT MORNING, BEFORE YOU LEFT TO GO SEARCH THE BRONCO AT THE PRINT SHED, YOU POURED OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN POURING OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WITH MR. YAMAUCHI?

A: NO.

[tv]

If not for defence lawyers like Cochran representing citizens in le abuse cases. how do these citizens get justice for the abuse against them by some le.

There's a difference between justice and allowing a cold blooded double-murderer to walk free. OJ Simpson was never abused by LE -- he was babied and pampered for years.

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9201935]

Ron and Nicoles blood was found INSIDE THE FINGERS of the gloves?

Where have you been? We had this discussion some time ago.

[martin II]

O.J. has always denied taking a polygraph test.

The fact is if O.J. had passed a second polygraph test then you can bet that the defense would have let everyone know.

But the facts are is that O.J. took a polygraph test and he flunked it which tells most Americans that he murdered Nicole and Ron.

Do you know of any cases where defendants flunked a polygraph test and were later found to be not guilty at trial. Or to ask it another way are all polygraph test 100% proof of guilt?

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9201935]

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?

I can tell you're not very familiar with using latex gloves.

[tv]

Do you know of any cases where defendants flunked a polygraph test and were later found to be not guilty at trial. Or to ask it another way are all polygraph test 100% proof of guilt?

I suggest you go to GreenIce's website to find out the answers to these questions.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9202000]

Where have you been? We had this discussion some time ago.

i must have not been paying attention.
was nicoles and rons blood found INSIDE THE FINGERS OF THE GLOVES?
YES, NO IS OK.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9201968]

I can tell you're not very familiar with using latex gloves.

I have a box in the bathroom now and don't use them as much as i think you do but i use them.
In your work do you use latex gloves UNDER leather gloves on a regular basis?
if not how would you know how they effect the fit under leather gloves?that is what i don't understand.can you help?

[martin II]

I suggest you go to GreenIce's website to find out the answers to these questions.

I posted my questions to another poster. I think.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9202004]

i must have not been paying attention.
was nicoles and rons blood found INSIDE THE FINGERS OF THE GLOVES?
YES, NO IS OK.

you're kidding -- right? 14 years later and you're just now asking where the blood was on the glove? :punch:

[weezer]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9202008]

I have a box in the bathroom now and don't use them as much as i think you do but i use them.
In your work do you use latex gloves UNDER leather gloves on a regular basis?
if not how would you know how they effect the fit under leather gloves?that is what i don't understand.can you help?

martin, you always admire wagner's experiments -- why don't you do your own? put on a pair of latex gloves and then a pair of those fine, thin leather gloves you talk about wearing? let us know the result.

[martin II]

There's a difference between justice and allowing a cold blooded double-murderer to walk free. OJ Simpson was never abused by LE -- he was babied and pampered for years.

you attacked Cochran for making a career of pointing the finger at le.

i asked how citizens can get justice for le abuse against them if not for defence lawyers like Cochran? many defence lawyers represent citizens in abuse cases. whats wrong with Cochran doing the same.

[weezer]

Do you know of any cases where defendants flunked a polygraph test and were later found to be not guilty at trial. Or to ask it another way are all polygraph test 100% proof of guilt?

do you know of any cases where defendants passed a polygraph test and were later found to be guilty?

[weezer]

you attacked Cochran for making a career of pointing the finger at le.

i asked how citizens can get justice for le abuse against them if not for defence lawyers like Cochran? many defence lawyers represent citizens in abuse cases. whats wrong with Cochran doing the same.

cockroach wasn't out for justice against le abuse! good grief -- cockroach was out for cockroach and used his color, the color of his community, and hate for white people to make his money.

[tv]

I have a box in the bathroom now and don't use them as much as i think you do but i use them.
In your work do you use latex gloves UNDER leather gloves on a regular basis?
if not how would you know how they effect the fit under leather gloves?that is what i don't understand.can you help?

Don't be silly -- of course I don't wear them under leather gloves but I have worn them under other things and used them to do many different things. If you don't understand that they would affect the fit of anything whether it's leather or some other material...oh well... :shrug:

[tv]

you attacked Cochran for making a career of pointing the finger at le.

i asked how citizens can get justice for le abuse against them if not for defence lawyers like Cochran? many defence lawyers represent citizens in abuse cases. whats wrong with Cochran doing the same.

Now if a statement is made that criticizes Johnny Cochran it's an attack? How do murder victims get justice when defense attorneys with no ethics or scruples twist the facts to blame LE for everything just to win a case? Why did he blame the LAPD instead of the thugs that attacked and nearly killed Reginald Denny?

[tv]

martin, you always admire wagner's experiments -- why don't you do your own? put on a pair of latex gloves and then a pair of those fine, thin leather gloves you talk about wearing? let us know the result.Excellent idea. :)

[tv]

I posted my questions to another poster. I think.

Sorry. I didn't know you'd made up a new rule. I must not have been paying attention.

[martin II]

Barry Scheck asked Fung if he poured blood out of the vial. Please stop twisting this to mean something else.

You must think I'm the most forgetful person in the universe because you're always telling me I'm forgetting something. The funny thing is it's usually something that isn't true or is meaningless so there's no reason for me to remember it in the first place.

BTW, here's the testimony that you keep saying doesn't exist -- Scheck questioning Fung --

Q: AND AT SOME POINT THAT MORNING, BEFORE YOU LEFT TO GO SEARCH THE BRONCO AT THE PRINT SHED, YOU POURED OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN POURING OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WITH MR. YAMAUCHI?

A: NO.

you posted Scheck asking a question. see??? at end of question.That is not the same as making a claim or acusing him of doing it.

[martin II]

Sorry. I didn't know you'd made up a new rule. I must not have been paying attention.

you always pay attention.
can you do so now?
do you work using latex gloves under leather gloves?

[tv]

you posted Scheck asking a question. see??? at end of question.That is not the same as making a claim or acusing him of doing it.

You're always saying that they're guilty of planting and evidence manipulation so why are you denying that Scheck made the accusation against Fung and Yamauchi?

[tv]

you always pay attention.
can you do so now?
do you work using latex gloves under leather gloves?

Please see post #12024. I think you're the one not paying attention.

[martin II]

Now if a statement is made that criticizes Johnny Cochran it's an attack? How do murder victims get justice when defense attorneys with no ethics or scruples twist the facts to blame LE for everything just to win a case? Why did he blame the LAPD instead of the thugs that attacked and nearly killed Reginald Denny?

i bet the plaintiffs Cochran helped get justice have different opinions of his skills than you. Not everyone believes that le never abuses citizens.I think some have long records of doing so.

[martin II]

Don't be silly -- of course I don't wear them under leather gloves but I have worn them under other things and used them to do many different things. If you don't understand that they would affect the fit of anything whether it's leather or some other material...oh well... :shrug:

Thanks
i conclude that you have no experience in wearing latex under leather and therefore would not be able to know what the effect would be.:cool:

[martin II]

You're always saying that they're guilty of planting and evidence manipulation so why are you denying that Scheck made the accusation against Fung and Yamauchi?

you know the differance between a question and a claim.stop twisting. haha

[weezer]

i bet the plaintiffs Cochran helped get justice have different opinions of his skills than you. Not everyone believes that le never abuses citizens.I think some have long records of doing so.

they nor cockroach were looking for justice -- they were looking for money!

[weezer]

Thanks
i conclude that you have no experience in wearing latex under leather and therefore would not be able to know what the effect would be.:cool:

but you do -- right? so you're able to say how that would be.

[weezer]

you posted Scheck asking a question. see??? at end of question.That is not the same as making a claim or acusing him of doing it.

oh I get it! like this? who did cockroach beat -- his wife or his mistress? or, did orenthal and james woods really have a sexual encounter?

[tv]

oh I get it! like this? who did cockroach beat -- his wife or his mistress? or, did orenthal and james woods really have a sexual encounter?

How about this? Did OJ Simpson do more downers or more cocaine? Did OJ Simpson fail a lie detector test? Did OJ Simpson beat Nicole on numerous occasions? Hey, this is fun. :D

[weezer]

How about this? Did OJ Simpson do more downers or more cocaine? Did OJ Simpson fail a lie detector test? Did OJ Simpson beat Nicole on numerous occasions? Hey, this is fun. :D

yep -- no wonder cockroach and company liked it!

[tv]

yep -- no wonder cockroach and company liked it!

The possibilities are endless!

[martin II]

if cochran was looking for money PETRO was looking for the same.

[weezer]

what was petro looking for money or fame.i say money.

cockroach and his client were the ones driving the rolls -- ;)

[martin II]

Petro took his fame, went to Texas , received many millions to defend the Enron crook and promptly got him a lot of time in jail. the defendant then accused PETRO of using a faulty defense that got him convicted. Petro kept the millions.

[GreenIce]

Yep, they got deliberated by Johnny Cochran -- the man who had built a career on pointing the finger at the LAPD.

TV,

I do think you are being unfair. You can't blame Johnnie Cochran for the racism that was installed in the LAPD decades before Mr. Cochran was born. To blame the racism that existed before the Simpson case and still exists today after the Simpson case is not fair.

IMO, the Defense only labeled and proved that one member of the LAPD was was a racist cop and they used his own official paperwork, they used eyewitnesses as well as catching him on tape. They could have gone after another LAPD cop who was involved in the 1989 case and they did not do this. Officer John Edwards had several complaints made against him and he was mentioned in one of the commissions.

What about MF's attitude toward Chris Darden because of Darden pressing charges against one of his buddies for saying racist remarks, etc. against an undercover African-American LAPD member?

Johnnie Cochran was clear, he believed that all 4 lead detectives thought Simpson was guilty and that one of MF's motives could be his known and documented hatered of minorities and seeing black men with white women.

How can you blame the defense for MF's hatered?

[tv]

TV,

I do think you are being unfair. You can't blame Johnnie Cochran for the racism that was installed in the LAPD decades before Mr. Cochran was born. To blame the racism that existed before the Simpson case and still exists today after the Simpson case is not fair.

IMO, the Defense only labeled and proved that one member of the LAPD was was a racist cop and they used his own official paperwork, they used eyewitnesses as well as catching him on tape. They could have gone after another LAPD cop who was involved in the 1989 case and they did not do this. Officer John Edwards had several complaints made against him and he was mentioned in one of the commissions.

What about MF's attitude toward Chris Darden because of Darden pressing charges against one of his buddies for saying racist remarks, etc. against an undercover African-American LAPD member?

Johnnie Cochran was clear, he believed that all 4 lead detectives thought Simpson was guilty and that one of MF's motives could be his known and documented hatered of minorities and seeing black men with white women.

How can you blame the defense for MF's hatered?

You mentioned a rubber room a few days ago -- is that where you're posting from? :biggrin:

[GreenIce]

You mentioned a rubber room a few days ago -- is that where you're posting from? :biggrin:

TV,

Now was that nice?!:) Here I do everything to prevent you from going into the rubber room and you throw me under the door of the rubber room. I really think we need to talk about our relationship!:)

Here is the link:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ota/

[GreenIce]

O.J. has always denied taking a polygraph test.

The fact is if O.J. had passed a second polygraph test then you can bet that the defense would have let everyone know.

But the facts are is that O.J. took a polygraph test and he flunked it which tells most Americans that he murdered Nicole and Ron.

Hipcheck,

Why do you ignore the SOP's of the poloygraph test? Why do you work so hard to ignore the FACT there there are several "controls" that must be put in place to get the most accurate results?

Do you know the questions he asked? Do you know for a fact that when the test was stopped, the examiner had even gotten to the murder of Nicole?

Did the person who gave Simpson the test ever testify or give an interview about this? It would be very intersting to see what the examiner's opinon was on this test.

If Simpson went back two days later and passed the test and passed a polygraph everday for the rest of his life, who would change their mind about his guilt?

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9201935]

Ron and Nicoles blood was found INSIDE THE FINGERS of the gloves?

Martin,

In Goldberg's book, he does say that Ron and Nicole's blood was found inside the glove. I asked TV if she had any idea how that happened but she had no clue. To the best of both of our knowledge, neither glove had any holes or tears in that would have allowed this to happen.

I did ask if it was possible the they were so worn that the blood seeped into the lining of the glove but neither of us knew the answer.

IMO, this is even more damaging to the DA's case in reference to that glove. The murderer could not have deposited their blood inside the glove. Neither of the linings were found to be hanging out of the gloves. There were no holes in the gloves---so that blood had to get their by accident, ie: Collin Y or it was put there on purpose.

[tv]

TV,

Now was that nice?!:) Here I do everything to prevent you from going into the rubber room and you throw me under the door of the rubber room. I really think we need to talk about our relationship!:)

Here is the link:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ota/

Not nice -- but it had to be asked. :)

I've reviewed the information from your link and it's very good. However, I see nothing that indicates that when someone fails a polygraph because they took it 'too soon' after the event in question it means that they passed it. :shrug: Could you tell me what section it's in?

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=martin II;9202000]

Martin,

In Goldberg's book, he does say that Ron and Nicole's blood was found inside the glove. I asked TV if she had any idea how that happened but she had no clue. To the best of both of our knowledge, neither glove had any holes or tears in that would have allowed this to happen.

I did ask if it was possible the they were so worn that the blood seeped into the lining of the glove but neither of us knew the answer.

IMO, this is even more damaging to the DA's case in reference to that glove. The murderer could not have deposited their blood inside the glove. Neither of the linings were found to be hanging out of the gloves. There were no holes in the gloves---so that blood had to get their by accident, ie: Collin Y or it was put there on purpose.
I think you are jumping to conclusions. I don't think that Collin Y. or any one else would have put it there on purpose, and it is hard to see how it could have gotten there by accident. I think someone examining the glove who also knew about criminology would be in a better position to tell. It does seem odd. Is there a descripton of where on the inside of the glove the blood was?

[tv]

Hipcheck,

Why do you ignore the SOP's of the poloygraph test? Why do you work so hard to ignore the FACT there there are several "controls" that must be put in place to get the most accurate results?

Do you know the questions he asked? Do you know for a fact that when the test was stopped, the examiner had even gotten to the murder of Nicole?

Did the person who gave Simpson the test ever testify or give an interview about this? It would be very intersting to see what the examiner's opinon was on this test.

If Simpson went back two days later and passed the test and passed a polygraph everday for the rest of his life, who would change their mind about his guilt?

If he went back two days later and failed it again would you change your mind about his innocence?

[GreenIce]

Barry Scheck asked Fung if he poured blood out of the vial. Please stop twisting this to mean something else.

You must think I'm the most forgetful person in the universe because you're always telling me I'm forgetting something. The funny thing is it's usually something that isn't true or is meaningless so there's no reason for me to remember it in the first place.

BTW, here's the testimony that you keep saying doesn't exist -- Scheck questioning Fung --

Q: AND AT SOME POINT THAT MORNING, BEFORE YOU LEFT TO GO SEARCH THE BRONCO AT THE PRINT SHED, YOU POURED OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN POURING OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WITH MR. YAMAUCHI?

A: NO.

TV,

Didn't the DA's also ask their own witnesses these same questions? Didn't Hank Goldberg ask Gary Sims this question?

Didn't Fung testify that he did not see blood on the socks but collected them anyway--don't you think if we was involved in planting any evidence that he would have a much better witness for the DA's side.

Fung was called out on his procedures, on his sloppy paperwork, etc., was never accused of planting any evidence. For the defense to give the impression that they suspected Fung of planting evidence, would have proved a diaster, IMO, in front of the jury.

I never said that Scheck did ask these types of questions, what I said was that he was not accusing Fung of being involved with the evidence planting and why he would not have done it. It wouldn't help their case and would have been much more helpful to the DA's case.

[tv]

I think you are jumping to conclusions. I don't think that Collin Y. or any one else would have put it there on purpose, and it is hard to see how it could have gotten there by accident. I think someone examining the glove who also knew about criminology would be in a better position to tell. It does seem odd. Is there a descripton of where on the inside of the glove the blood was?

9 Inside/back of wrist -- Nicole and Ron
G1 Inside/back index finger -- Nicole and Ron
G2 Inside/side middle finger -- Nicole and Ron
G3 Inside-back ring finger -- Ron
G4 Inside-back of hand -- Nicole and Ron
G9 Inside-by wrist notch -- Ron
G10 Inside-by wrist notch -- Ron and OJS
G11 Outside - near wrist notch -- Ron, Nicole, OJS
G12 Outside - near wrist notch -- Ron and Nicole
G13 Stitching, wrist notch -- Ron, Nicole, OJS
G14 Inside - back of cuff -- Ron and Nicole

[GreenIce]

If he went back two days later and failed it again would you change your mind about his innocence?

TV,

I have posted before that I do not believe these tests should even be given because there are 2 many risk factors involved. I truly believe a guilty person can pass one and an innocent person can fail one.

I believed Simpson was guilty until the scientific evidence in the DA's case. Again, IMO, I don't think Simpson would have taken the test if he was guilty. He was asked about taking one by Lange and VA during his interview and he asked some question about it being "true blue" and that he would consider taking one if the tests were "true blue".

For most part, I feel the same way about this issue that you feel about Nicole buying the gloves. If there was a scale to weight the evidence, I doubt it would even register. Again, IMO.

[tv]

TV,

Didn't the DA's also ask their own witnesses these same questions? Didn't Hank Goldberg ask Gary Sims this question?

Didn't Fung testify that he did not see blood on the socks but collected them anyway--don't you think if we was involved in planting any evidence that he would have a much better witness for the DA's side.

Fung was called out on his procedures, on his sloppy paperwork, etc., was never accused of planting any evidence. For the defense to give the impression that they suspected Fung of planting evidence, would have proved a diaster, IMO, in front of the jury.

I never said that Scheck did ask these types of questions, what I said was that he was not accusing Fung of being involved with the evidence planting and why he would not have done it. It wouldn't help their case and would have been much more helpful to the DA's case.

If you don't think Scheck was being accusatory that's up to you. I remember his questioning of Fung very clearly and remember it as being very accusatory in tone.

[tv]

TV,

I have posted before that I do not believe these tests should even be given because there are 2 many risk factors involved. I truly believe a guilty person can pass one and an innocent person can fail one.

I believed Simpson was guilty until the scientific evidence in the DA's case. Again, IMO, I don't think Simpson would have taken the test if he was guilty. He was asked about taking one by Lange and VA during his interview and he asked some question about it being "true blue" and that he would consider taking one if the tests were "true blue".

For most part, I feel the same way about this issue that you feel about Nicole buying the gloves. If there was a scale to weight the evidence, I doubt it would even register. Again, IMO.

Then why insist that he really passed it? If you don't believe they're valid then why not just say he failed it -- so what?

[GreenIce]

Not nice -- but it had to be asked. :)

I've reviewed the information from your link and it's very good. However, I see nothing that indicates that when someone fails a polygraph because they took it 'too soon' after the event in question it means that they passed it. :shrug: Could you tell me what section it's in?

TV,

You must be awesome at interventions!

The point I am trying to make is that so many hours must pass before a person can be given a polygraph and one of the reasons is because the person is just too emotional to take it. For example, if Mrs. Brown took a polygraph before she should have, her heart rate and other factors would be elevated to a point where an examiner could conclude that her answers are being deceptive, when if in fact, she wasn't even being asked about the murder of her daughter.

Had Simpson remained, calm, cool and collected and was able to complete the test, which lasts several overs and never bat an eye. IMO, that would indicate to me that he was guilty.

Do remember Susan Smith and her press conference, did you think right away she was guilty? And if you did, why?

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

Why do you ignore the SOP's of the poloygraph test? Why do you work so hard to ignore the FACT there there are several "controls" that must be put in place to get the most accurate results?

Do you know the questions he asked? Do you know for a fact that when the test was stopped, the examiner had even gotten to the murder of Nicole?

Did the person who gave Simpson the test ever testify or give an interview about this? It would be very intersting to see what the examiner's opinon was on this test.

If Simpson went back two days later and passed the test and passed a polygraph everday for the rest of his life, who would change their mind about his guilt?

I do know what type questions the polygraph operator would ask O.J. and those questions would all be pertains to the murders of Nicole and Ron and nothing else.

Those questions would go something like this.

Did you murder Nicole/Ron?

Were you the one at Nicole's where the murders happened?

Do you know who murdered Nicole/Ron?

Did you have anything to do with the murder of Nicole/Ron?

We do know that O.J. flunked his est when answering questions like above which proves he did in fact murder Nicole and Ron.

The fact is O.J. has never passed a polygraph test and I don't believe he ever will because he's going to die in prison.

If he did pass a police polygraph test then I would believe him to be innocent but that will never happen.

[GreenIce]

If you don't think Scheck was being accusatory that's up to you. I remember his questioning of Fung very clearly and remember it as being very accusatory in tone.

TV,

I am being honest with you, I don't think he tone was accusatory on this issue with Fung. However, I agree that it is really up to the indvidual on how they read it. Like Dr. Cotton, some people thought she talked down to the jurors while others said that she was a perfect witness, she was like a school teacher.

[GreenIce]

Then why insist that he really passed it? If you don't believe they're valid then why not just say he failed it -- so what?

TV,

I am not insisting that he passed it by failing it. If I gave that impression, I am sorry. The point that I am trying to make is the poloy graph is based on emotions and Simpson getting emotional every time Nicole's name was mentioned was a normal reaction under the circumstances.

Also, what if Simpson showed deception on answers that he answered truthfully, like how long was he and Nicole married? How old is Nicole, when is Nicole's birthday, etc. If the test was stopped even before he was asked about the murders because he was doing so badly, then what does that tell you?

While I have no problem with anyone giving their opinons on these issues, I think to many times we do know have all the information to base our opinons on. IE--Simpson showing deception when he was actually the truth about issues that had nothing to do with the murders. Again, just IMO.

[GreenIce]

I do know what type questions the polygraph operator would ask O.J. and those questions would all be pertains to the murders of Nicole and Ron and nothing else.

Those questions would go something like this.

Did you murder Nicole/Ron?

Were you the one at Nicole's where the murders happened?

Do you know who murdered Nicole/Ron?

Did you have anything to do with the murder of Nicole/Ron?

We do know that O.J. flunked his est when answering questions like above which proves he did in fact murder Nicole and Ron.

The fact is O.J. has never passed a polygraph test and I don't believe he ever will because he's going to die in prison.

If he did pass a police polygraph test then I would believe him to be innocent but that will never happen.

Hipcheck,

How do you know what questions he was asked? Did you see the list of questions and the results? What were the control questions?

[tv]

TV,

You must be awesome at interventions!

The point I am trying to make is that so many hours must pass before a person can be given a polygraph and one of the reasons is because the person is just too emotional to take it. For example, if Mrs. Brown took a polygraph before she should have, her heart rate and other factors would be elevated to a point where an examiner could conclude that her answers are being deceptive, when if in fact, she wasn't even being asked about the murder of her daughter.

Had Simpson remained, calm, cool and collected and was able to complete the test, which lasts several overs and never bat an eye. IMO, that would indicate to me that he was guilty.

Do remember Susan Smith and her press conference, did you think right away she was guilty? And if you did, why?

Actually, I've never attended an intervention but I never say never... :)

I understand your point but the response to nervousness or emotion is different from the response when the person being examined is being untruthful. A polygraph examiner is trained to know the difference.

I'm not sure what Susan Smith has to do with this but I'm sure you'll tell me. I thought she was guilty because aside from OJ Simpson's story of what he was doing on the night of the murders it was one of the most cockamamie stories I ever heard.

When I took the FBI exam I was cool, calm, collected and lying. I failed the test. They were paying extra money if you could pass it and I was hoping to get it because I had a new baby...I was very disappointed.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9202131]
I think you are jumping to conclusions. I don't think that Collin Y. or any one else would have put it there on purpose, and it is hard to see how it could have gotten there by accident. I think someone examining the glove who also knew about criminology would be in a better position to tell. It does seem odd. Is there a descripton of where on the inside of the glove the blood was?

fgump2,

IMO, the blood found inside the glove, with the knowledge we have, had to get there by accident or was put there on purpose and I don't think Collin Y., would have planted any evidence.

To you use your famous, "carlessness", may very well apply to Collin Y. However, I don't even know if Collin was the person who took the lining out of the glove and found it. I do believe accidents can happen when a lab is as busy as the LAPD's is.

[GreenIce]

Actually, I've never attended an intervention but I never say never... :)

I understand your point but the response to nervousness or emotion is different from the response when the person being examined is being untruthful. A polygraph examiner is trained to know the difference.

I'm not sure what Susan Smith has to do with this but I'm sure you'll tell me. I thought she was guilty because aside from OJ Simpson's story of what he was doing on the night of the murders it was one of the most cockamamie stories I ever heard.

When I took the FBI exam I was cool, calm, collected and lying. I failed the test. They were paying extra money if you could pass it and I was hoping to get it because I had a new baby...I was very disappointed.

TV,

I thought Susan Smith was guilty because she able to talk at all and when she did talk, she never looked up and pleaded for her children's return. To me, Susan's reactions were not of a grieving mother but of a woman who was hiding something and it was horrible.

[tv]

TV,

I am not insisting that he passed it by failing it. If I gave that impression, I am sorry. The point that I am trying to make is the poloy graph is based on emotions and Simpson getting emotional every time Nicole's name was mentioned was a normal reaction under the circumstances.

Also, what if Simpson showed deception on answers that he answered truthfully, like how long was he and Nicole married? How old is Nicole, when is Nicole's birthday, etc. If the test was stopped even before he was asked about the murders because he was doing so badly, then what does that tell you?

While I have no problem with anyone giving their opinons on these issues, I think to many times we do know have all the information to base our opinons on. IE--Simpson showing deception when he was actually the truth about issues that had nothing to do with the murders. Again, just IMO.

The examiner's control questions are something like what is your full name, date of birth etc. Questions that they know he is answering truthfully. Why do you think he wasn't asked any questions about the murders? That makes no sense.

[tv]

TV,

I thought Susan Smith was guilty because she able to talk at all and when she did talk, she never looked up and pleaded for her children's return. To me, Susan's reactions were not of a grieving mother but of a woman who was hiding something and it was horrible.

I recall her asking for their return but my memory may be faulty about this. I just thought her story was too incredible to be believed. The same with Mary Winkler, Casey Anthony, Darlie Routier and several others.

[GreenIce]

I recall her asking for their return but my memory may be faulty about this. I just thought her story was too incredible to be believed. The same with Mary Winkler, Casey Anthony, Darlie Routier and several others.

TV,

She did "ask" but she didn't "plead" IMO. Her request came across as empty and void of emotion.

I didn't follow the Winkler case that much, however, for her to have basically to have "won" her case because of the light sentence she got, I have to believe that the jury did find her credible. As you know, the BWS is a very, very risky and difficult defense. Rarely does a woman win using this defense because most people feel bottom line that no matter how bad they were abused, the woman could always leave and her take her children.

From the few details that I heard about the case, the man being shot in the back, the money problems, I would have bet anything she would have lost the case.

I can't even read about Casey Anthony and only hope that women in prison are just as nasty to other woman who have committed crimes against children as male prisoners are said to be. No, I don't believe she should be phyically harmed but I do like the idea that if she is convicted, she will look over her shoulder every second she is in jail. Again, IMO.

The Darlie Routier case is different. I'm not convinced she did it but I do believe her actions at the cemetary did not help her in the eyes of the jury.

[GreenIce]

The examiner's control questions are something like what is your full name, date of birth etc. Questions that they know he is answering truthfully. Why do you think he wasn't asked any questions about the murders? That makes no sense.

TV,

The reason why the question matters is because OJ's reaction to his own name or questions about himself don't pose a threat to have him become emotional. I know he hated his first name but I don't think he hated enough to become emotional over it.

The examiner would have to ask questions about Nicole and Simpson's reaction to hearing them. For example, did his heart rate go up and did he indicate deception on questions that they knew he was telling the truth?

The results are examined and several key factors enter into it, one are the questions and the procedures of the examiner. Simpson did not finish the test and if the reports are true that he failed every question, then he failed questions that the examiner and his lawyer knew to be true.

Also, I think Robert Shapiro was in a position to observe the polograph because I think the story goes that Shapiro called Baily to tell him it was going badly. However, I also remember Rikki Kleinman explaining a polograph to her clients. She would go in with them, and the person would be put in place and ever single step of the procedure would be done and she would explain why and what was happening now.

The real key to this issue, IMO, is what questions was he asked and was he asked about the murder of Nicole. I also have to wonder if Shapiro was a silent observer of this test, why was he allowing his client to be tested this early when in fact he knew he should have waited. Perhaps that was his way out of it if it became public? But that doesn't explain the examiner who gave the test either, IMO.

[martin II]

I do know what type questions the polygraph operator would ask O.J. and those questions would all be pertains to the murders of Nicole and Ron and nothing else.

Those questions would go something like this.

Did you murder Nicole/Ron?

Were you the one at Nicole's where the murders happened?

Do you know who murdered Nicole/Ron?

Did you have anything to do with the murder of Nicole/Ron?

We do know that O.J. flunked his est when answering questions like above which proves he did in fact murder Nicole and Ron.

The fact is O.J. has never passed a polygraph test and I don't believe he ever will because he's going to die in prison.

If he did pass a police polygraph test then I would believe him to be innocent but that will never happen.

This is total noinsense,

[weezer]

This is total noinsense,

orenthal failed the polygraph -22. :eek:

[martin II]

The whole question of oj and the polygraph test were never tested in a court. It was a series of media reports and various book reports by people that were not involverd in the actual test.the tester never testified and i am not sure the testor ever made direct comment to a responsible media on the issue. There is no proof of what questions were asked and ojs response to those questions. A media story surfaced that a score of .21 was recorded but
without knowledge of the total test and how the questions asked would impact on the total test if completed, there is no way to know what it means.

Most courts still believe the test is still junk science at some level, so i don't think the test can offer any real insight into the question of who killed Nicole amd Ron.

Regardless of the results of these test,they don't prove guilt or innocence.
Those that believe oj to be guilty use a score of.21 to say he is guilty.IMO

[martin II]

Actually, I've never attended an intervention but I never say never... :)

I understand your point but the response to nervousness or emotion is different from the response when the person being examined is being untruthful. A polygraph examiner is trained to know the difference.

I'm not sure what Susan Smith has to do with this but I'm sure you'll tell me. I thought she was guilty because aside from OJ Simpson's story of what he was doing on the night of the murders it was one of the most cockamamie stories I ever heard.

When I took the FBI exam I was cool, calm, collected and lying. I failed the test. They were paying extra money if you could pass it and I was hoping to get it because I had a new baby...I was very disappointed.

TV

You failed the test but were innocent. It is reported that oj failed by a score of -21 yet some say this proves he was guilty.

[tv]

TV

You failed the test but were innocent. It is reported that oj failed by a score of -21 yet some say this proves he was guilty.

I wasn't innocent. I was really lying.

[weezer]

The whole question of oj and the polygraph test were never tested in a court. It was a series of media reports and various book reports by people that were not involverd in the actual test.the tester never testified and i am not sure the testor ever made direct comment to a responsible media on the issue. There is no proof of what questions were asked and ojs response to those questions. A media story surfaced that a score of .21 was recorded but without knowledge of the total test and how the questions asked would impact on the total test if completed, there is no way to know what it means. orenthal's defense attorney, flee, said that there was a test and that shapiro told him it was going badly so flee told him to stop it. This wasn't 'some media story' -- this was from the defense. The score of -22 was said in the civil trial. it was NOT disputed by the defense.

Most courts still believe the test is still junk science at some level, so i don't think the test can offer any real insight into the question of who killed Nicole amd Ron.

Regardless of the results of these test,they don't prove guilt or innocence.
Those that believe oj to be guilty use a score of.21 to say he is guilty.IMO

the score was -22 and yes, it does point to his guilt. In fact, I'm surprised that you acknowledge orenthal would even be upset over Nicole's death since according to you, she was nothing to him, he was busy with Paula.

[martin II]

I wasn't innocent. I was really lying.

lying on purpose? instructed to lie?

could you have controlled your breathing?

[tv]

lying on purpose? instructed to lie?

could you have controlled your breathing?

Some of the participants had to steal money, some had knowledge of the theft. I had knowledge of the theft. They tell you to breathe normally so I didn't try to breathe any other way.

[tv]

The whole question of oj and the polygraph test were never tested in a court. It was a series of media reports and various book reports by people that were not involverd in the actual test.the tester never testified and i am not sure the testor ever made direct comment to a responsible media on the issue. There is no proof of what questions were asked and ojs response to those questions. A media story surfaced that a score of .21 was recorded but
without knowledge of the total test and how the questions asked would impact on the total test if completed, there is no way to know what it means.

Most courts still believe the test is still junk science at some level, so i don't think the test can offer any real insight into the question of who killed Nicole amd Ron.

Regardless of the results of these test,they don't prove guilt or innocence.
Those that believe oj to be guilty use a score of.21 to say he is guilty.IMO

The question wasn't who killed Ron and Nicole -- it was whether or not OJ Simpson did it. Everything is junk science to you but if someone else had taken the polygraph on the same subject and failed it you would believe it because it would exonerate OJ Simpson. You know this is true.

[martin II]

" Point to guilt" means absolutely nothing unless one believes that the test are 100% accurate. Real guilt can only be obtained by the test of a court trial.

[martin II]

The question wasn't who killed Ron and Nicole -- it was whether or not OJ Simpson did it. Everything is junk science to you but if someone else had taken the polygraph on the same subject and failed it you would believe it because it would exonerate OJ Simpson. You know this is true.

tv

I am not sure you have the ability to know what i would think unless you are again reading minds. You do seem to think you have the ability to determine that a person failed a test that was never completed. imo

[tv]

tv

I am not sure you have the ability to know what i would think unless you are again reading minds. You do seem to think you have the ability to determine that a person failed a test that was never completed. imo

I'm not the one that released the score or who stopped the test because he was flunking it.

[tv]

" Point to guilt" means absolutely nothing unless one believes that the test are 100% accurate. Real guilt can only be obtained by the test of a court trial.

If that were always true then OJ Simpson would have been sitting in jail since being arrested in June of 1994.

[weezer]

If that were always true then OJ Simpson would have been sitting in jail since being arrested in June of 1994.

:beer::beer:

[martin II]

If that were always true then OJ Simpson would have been sitting in jail since being arrested in June of 1994.

A trial is the best we have so far.Would you accept a public poll with the majority opinions making the determination?

The defence hired the tester. The test was cancelled and the tester released the results to the public?

It seems that the product would belong to the defence who paid for it. How did that happen and why?

[martin II]

If that were always true then OJ Simpson would have been sitting in jail since being arrested in June of 1994.

You do remember that there was a criminal trial and the prosecutions claims were tested in that trial and found to be too faulty for a conviction.
It is the American courts that think polygraph test is still junk science. I happen to agree. I also believe that people have flunked the test and were found not guilty in the trial. You agree?

[weezer]

You do remember that there was a criminal trial and the prosecutions claims were tested in that trial and found to be too faulty for a conviction.
It is the American courts that think polygraph test is still junk science. I happen to agree. I also believe that people have flunked the test and were found not guilty in the trial. You agree?

you do remember that there was a civil trial and orenthal james simpson was found liable for the death of Ron Goldman and the battery of Nicole Brown? of course, the case was presented minus the 'we are the victims of LE mentality' and a modicum of justice was achieved.

[weezer]

A trial is the best we have so far.Would you accept a public poll with the majority opinions making the determination?

The defence hired the tester. The test was cancelled and the tester released the results to the public?

It seems that the product would belong to the defence who paid for it. How did that happen and why?

flee was the one that told about the polygraph. ;)

[Hipcheck]

You do remember that there was a criminal trial and the prosecutions claims were tested in that trial and found to be too faulty for a conviction.
It is the American courts that think polygraph test is still junk science. I happen to agree. I also believe that people have flunked the test and were found not guilty in the trial. You agree?

O.J.'s criminal trial took many months with lots of witnesses and evidence presented to the jury.

The jury deliberated for four hours. There is no way the jury could have went over all the evidence and testimony.

[GreenIce]

O.J.'s criminal trial took many months with lots of witnesses and evidence presented to the jury.

The jury deliberated for four hours. There is no way the jury could have went over all the evidence and testimony.

Hipcheck,

The jury had more then enough time to come back with the only legal verdict they could---not guilty.

The most "damning" blood evidence was all found weeks and months later, how often can this happen in one case? The DA's tried to make the jury and the public believe that the defense was questioning who's DNA it was, they were not, they questions always were how and when did the blood get there.

You had witnesses who said that Simpson's demeanor was normal and they saw no cuts on his hands.

You have the DA's who used a dog as their timeline witness and the defense who used real people to challenge it.

Then you have the glove, no explaination on how it got back there, thumps that neither side can recreate, no murder weapon, no murder clothes, no murder shoes.

IMO, the jurors may have felt that he did do it or had something to do with it but with the evidence presented the lies of the 4 lead detectives, they knew what verdict they had to give.

It appears to me that many people who trash and bash the jury want them to "cherry pick" the evidence and the testimony. If they think the glove was planted, then go onto the socks, if they think the blood on the socks was planted, then go the blood on the back gate and if they think that was planted then go to the blood in the Bronco, if you think that was planted then use the credibility to the LAPD and the SID department for your verdict.

It doesn't take long to find reasonable doubt when the same problems of evidence keep popping up, over and over again. IMO.

[GreenIce]

A trial is the best we have so far.Would you accept a public poll with the majority opinions making the determination?

The defence hired the tester. The test was cancelled and the tester released the results to the public?

It seems that the product would belong to the defence who paid for it. How did that happen and why?

Martin,

2 books talk about this test, Jeff Toobin's book and American Tragedy. It appears to me that all roads lead back to Robert Shapiro. IIRC, during the civil trial, FLB said that Shapiro took the results and when Shapiro was asked about them, he said he destroyed them. I don't know if any of this is true.

[martin II]

Martin,

2 books talk about this test, Jeff Toobin's book and American Tragedy. It appears to me that all roads lead back to Robert Shapiro. IIRC, during the civil trial, FLB said that Shapiro took the results and when Shapiro was asked about them, he said he destroyed them. I don't know if any of this is true.

I think it makes sense that the testor would have to give the results to the owner. The defence, Shapiro in this case since he arranged and paid for the test.i don't think the testor would release any results.

Shapiro was known for making pleas for his clients with the DA which is why he arranged for the test in the first place. imo He and Bailey had their personal problems so i don't know if he later leaked the results or not. But it seemed he had control of the results.
But if he did not leak the info and neither did the testor,then it is possible that the media report of the failing score was all just made up by someone.

[martin II]

O.J.'s criminal trial took many months with lots of witnesses and evidence presented to the jury.

The jury deliberated for four hours. There is no way the jury could have went over all the evidence and testimony.

By law the jury is only required to deliberate up to the point that they are deadlocked or all 12 are in agreement. This jury deliberated untill there were no more questions by any jury member on the evidence. They then decided to take a second vote which was 12 for not guilty.
As a matter history juries have been known to deliberate for 30 minutes to several weeks. All legal. There is no requirement beyond that.

[tv]

A trial is the best we have so far.Would you accept a public poll with the majority opinions making the determination?

The defence hired the tester. The test was cancelled and the tester released the results to the public?

It seems that the product would belong to the defence who paid for it. How did that happen and why?It's the best in the world but not infallible as the OJ Simpson criminal trial illustrates.

You'd have to ask the defense that question or if you want the truth you could ask the examiner. I don't have any idea how it happened or why -- I'm just glad it did. :)

[tv]

By law the jury is only required to deliberate up to the point that they are deadlocked or all 12 are in agreement. This jury deliberated untill there were no more questions by any jury member on the evidence. They then decided to take a second vote which was 12 for not guilty.
As a matter history juries have been known to deliberate for 30 minutes to several weeks. All legal. There is no requirement beyond that.

They'd been sequestered for nine months and had their bags packed -- rush to judgement in the deliberation room? I vote yes.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

The jury had more then enough time to come back with the only legal verdict they could---not guilty.

The most "damning" blood evidence was all found weeks and months later, how often can this happen in one case? The DA's tried to make the jury and the public believe that the defense was questioning who's DNA it was, they were not, they questions always were how and when did the blood get there.

You had witnesses who said that Simpson's demeanor was normal and they saw no cuts on his hands.

You have the DA's who used a dog as their timeline witness and the defense who used real people to challenge it.

Then you have the glove, no explaination on how it got back there, thumps that neither side can recreate, no murder weapon, no murder clothes, no murder shoes.

IMO, the jurors may have felt that he did do it or had something to do with it but with the evidence presented the lies of the 4 lead detectives, they knew what verdict they had to give.

It appears to me that many people who trash and bash the jury want them to "cherry pick" the evidence and the testimony. If they think the glove was planted, then go onto the socks, if they think the blood on the socks was planted, then go the blood on the back gate and if they think that was planted then go to the blood in the Bronco, if you think that was planted then use the credibility to the LAPD and the SID department for your verdict.

It doesn't take long to find reasonable doubt when the same problems of evidence keep popping up, over and over again. IMO.

The defence timeline proved that oj did not have time to commit the murders. The jury could have though that that was true and everything else was manufactured and planted. imo

[martin II]

They'd been sequestered for nine months and had their bags packed -- rush to judgement in the deliberation room? I vote yes.

During the 9 months of testimony they could know what they believed and what they did not believe they had heard.the first vote was 10 to 2 think.
after answering most of the questions they focused on Park and concluded that he could not have seen what he said he saw. Not guilty followed.
After 9 mos its time to pack bags.

[tv]

Hipcheck,

The jury had more then enough time to come back with the only legal verdict they could---not guilty.

The most "damning" blood evidence was all found weeks and months later, how often can this happen in one case? Absolutely not true. The DA's tried to make the jury and the public believe that the defense was questioning who's DNA it was, they were not, they questions always were how and when did the blood get there.

You had witnesses who said that Simpson's demeanor was normal and they saw no cuts on his hands.

You have the DA's who used a dog as their timeline witness and the defense who used real people to challenge it. Brian Kaelin and Allan Park aren't real people?

Then you have the glove, no explaination on how it got back there, thumps that neither side can recreate, no murder weapon, no murder clothes, no murder shoes. Murder clothes possibly in the washer but they disappeared, OJ Simpson's blood and the blood of both victims on the glove.

IMO, the jurors may have felt that he did do it or had something to do with it but with the evidence presented the lies of the 4 lead detectives, they knew what verdict they had to give. No evidence that either of the two lead detectives or Fuhrman or Phillips lied about the facts of the case. Please try to remember there were only two lead detectives.

It appears to me that many people who trash and bash the jury want them to "cherry pick" the evidence and the testimony. If they think the glove was planted, then go onto the socks, if they think the blood on the socks was planted, then go the blood on the back gate and if they think that was planted then go to the blood in the Bronco, if you think that was planted then use the credibility to the LAPD and the SID department for your verdict.
No proof that any of it was planted.

It doesn't take long to find reasonable doubt when the same problems of evidence keep popping up, over and over again. IMO. It doesn't take long to find reasonable doubt when you are star struck by the celebrity of the defendant and Johnnie Coch keeps telling you that it's your job to right wrongs against your race.

Marcia Clark's biggest mistake was in not taking the advice of the jury consultant when told that a great percentage of black women in the mock jury hated her. In a telephone poll 40% of black women felt that the use of physical force in a marriage was appropriate. According to the jury consultant, black women felt like Clark was a 'castrating *****' who was attempting to demean a symbol of black masculinity. Marcia Clark decided to go with her gut instincts and put black women on the jury. She fell right into Johnnie Coch's clutches because the defense had similiar information from their jury consultant and decided to go with the recommendations.

With the jury that was finally seated Marcia Clark never stood a chance.

[tv]

During the 9 months of testimony they could know what they believed and what they did not believe they had heard.the first vote was 10 to 2 think.
after answering most of the questions they focused on Park and concluded that he could not have seen what he said he saw. Not guilty followed.
After 9 mos its time to pack bags.

According to you they could have been in deliberations for up to two weeks. Or did they know exactly how it was going to go? If that's so then they violated their obligations by deliberating before going into the jury room.

[tv]

The defence timeline proved that oj did not have time to commit the murders. The jury could have though that that was true and everything else was manufactured and planted. imo

Daniel Petrocelli used the same timeline as the defense in the civil trial and he proved that your guy was guilty.

[tv]

Martin,

2 books talk about this test, Jeff Toobin's book and American Tragedy. It appears to me that all roads lead back to Robert Shapiro. IIRC, during the civil trial, FLB said that Shapiro took the results and when Shapiro was asked about them, he said he destroyed them. I don't know if any of this is true.

Oh yes, it's from Bail that you get your theory that Simpson's emotional state caused him to fail the test. However, the examiner said the -22 was conclusive evidence of his guilt and reported the findings to Shap. I don't think it makes any difference what Shap ultimately did with the results.

[tv]

O.J.'s criminal trial took many months with lots of witnesses and evidence presented to the jury.

The jury deliberated for four hours. There is no way the jury could have went over all the evidence and testimony.

Don't forget they also ate lunch -- so it was probably even less than that.

[martin II]

They'd been sequestered for nine months and had their bags packed -- rush to judgement in the deliberation room? I vote yes.

I saw a case on tv last week. a murder case. the jury deliberated 2 hours and convicted.not a peep of complaints from the public.

[martin II]

Don't forget they also ate lunch -- so it was probably even less than that.

I am sure they could eat ham and cheese while working.:cool:

[martin II]

Don't forget they also ate lunch -- so it was probably even less than that.

if you were a jury member and a vote was taken and the verdict was either 12 not guilty or 12 for guity. Exactly what else would there be for you to do after the vote?

[tv]

I am sure they could eat ham and cheese while working.:cool:

They were working sooo hard I hope it was something besides ham and cheese. :rolleyes:

[tv]

if you were a jury member and a vote was taken and the verdict was either 12 not guilty or 12 for guity. Exactly what else would there be for you to do after the vote?The first vote was 10 -2 as you well know. I think there should have been some discussion -- instead of just following Coch's orders.

[tv]

I saw a case on tv last week. a murder case. the jury deliberated 2 hours and convicted.not a peep of complaints from the public.How long was the trial?

[martin II]

Oh yes, it's from Bail that you get your theory that Simpson's emotional state caused him to fail the test. However, the examiner said the -22 was conclusive evidence of his guilt and reported the findings to Shap. I don't think it makes any difference what Shap ultimately did with the results.

Who was the examiner you speak of and when and to who did he give this information to.

Failing a polygraph equals guilty in a murder case? We might as well toss criminal trials and just give all defendants a polygraph test.

[tv]

Who was the examiner you speak of and when and to who did he give this information to.

Failing a polygraph equals guilty in a murder case? We might as well toss criminal trials and just give all defendants a polygraph test.

The examiner's name was Dennis Nellany. He worked for Edward Gelb who is a well known polygraph expert. Gelb was recommended by Bail but he was out of town so Nellany administered the exam. The examiner gave his conclusions to Shap.

[martin II]

How long was the trial?

two three weeks i think but it does not matter.The jury did not feel it was necessary to go over every piece of testimony when they had reached a verdict. Also the jury can take a vote at any time in deliberations.There is no set time to take a vote.many juries take a vote at the beginning as a means of understanding where they are.

[tv]

two three weeks i think but it does not matter.The jury did not feel it was necessary to go over every piece of testimony when they had reached a verdict. Also the jury can take a vote at any time in deliberations.There is no set time to take a vote.many juries take a vote at the beginning as a means of understanding where they are.

It does matter. Two to three weeks with a two hour deliberation is much more reasonable that nine months with a less than four hour deliberation. The civil jury deliberated much longer than that.

[martin II]

The examiner's name was Dennis Nellany. He worked for Edward Gelb who is a well known polygraph expert. Gelb was recommended by Bail but he was out of town so Nellany administered the exam. The examiner gave his conclusions to Shap.

Who is shap?

Are we to believe the examiners opinion or the criminal trial results.the examinor gave a OPINION on a test that was not completed.

[martin II]

It does matter. Two to three weeks with a two hour deliberation is much more reasonable that nine months with a less than four hour deliberation. The civil jury deliberated much longer than that.

The time of deliberations has nothing to do with the validity of the verdict.
when the jury deliberates on the issues where there are questions and these questions have been answered to the satisfactions of all twelve there is nothing to deliberate on. When all the jury say they have no more questions. it is time to take a vote.

If all 12 say they have no more issues on the evidence exactly what else is there to discuss.What else would you have to discuss?

[weezer]

Who is shap?

Are we to believe the examiners opinion or the criminal trial results.the examinor gave a OPINION on a test that was not completed.

LOL -- how did I know you were going to say that? LOL

[weezer]

The time of deliberations has nothing to do with the validity of the verdict.
when the jury deliberates on the issues where there are questions and these questions have been answered to the satisfactions of all twelve there is nothing to deliberate on. When all the jury say they have no more questions. it is time to take a vote.

If all 12 say they have no more issues on the evidence exactly what else is there to discuss.What else would you have to discuss?

martin, you are wrong. deliberations are not to be done before all evidence and testimony has been given.

[tv]

Who is shap?

Are we to believe the examiners opinion or the criminal trial results.the examinor gave a OPINION on a test that was not completed.
Believe what you want. Last time I looked it was still a free country. I choose to believe he failed the poly because he's a killer. :shrug:

Hey, have you heard from William? Do you know how he's doing?

[martin II]

It does matter. Two to three weeks with a two hour deliberation is much more reasonable that nine months with a less than four hour deliberation. The civil jury deliberated much longer than that.

I think you may be under the impression that the jury is required to review the trial testimony record and discuss in detaill of all the testimony. I don't think that is a requirement of the jury.
if the jury did not follow the law as far as deliberations was concerned then the judge was in a position to force longer deliberations.He didn't.

[tv]

I think you may be under the impression that the jury is required to review the trial testimony record and discuss in detaill of all the testimony. I don't think that is a requirement of the jury.
if the jury did not follow the law as far as deliberations was concerned then the judge was in a position to force longer deliberations.He didn't.

martin, I didn't say they violated the law. I'm saying that I don't think they spent enough time reviewing and discussing the evidence in proportion to the length and complexity of the case.

[martin II]

Believe what you want. Last time I looked it was still a free country. I choose to believe he failed the poly because he's a killer. :shrug:

Hey, have you heard from William? Do you know how he's doing?

He was doing fine the last time there was communications.

[tv]

He was doing fine the last time there was communications.

I'm glad to hear that. I hope he'll be back soon. I'm getting away with way too much with him gone -- there's no one here parsing my words. :tongue:

[martin II]

martin, I didn't say they violated the law. I'm saying that I don't think they spent enough time reviewing and discussing the evidence in proportion to the length and complexity of the case.

When deliberations start and individuals bring up testimony or issues that they want to discuss and all of these questions have been answered, what else do they have to discuss?

[tv]

When deliberations start and individuals bring up testimony or issues that they want to discuss and all of these questions have been answered, what else do they have to discuss?

Apparently that group didn't need to discuss anything. They just followed Coch's mandate and voted not guilty. :shrug:

[weezer]

When deliberations start and individuals bring up testimony or issues that they want to discuss and all of these questions have been answered, what else do they have to discuss?

if one or two of the jurors did have questions but the other jurors teamed up against them and would not discuss, what else is there to do?

[tv]

if one or two of the jurors did have questions but the other jurors teamed up against them and would not discuss, what else is there to do?

They figured it was either give in or not be able to go home for a while. After all, their bags were packed.

[weezer]

They figured it was either give in or not be able to go home for a while. After all, their bags were packed.

I think one of the jurors said the group was hostile and she was frightened

[tv]

I think one of the jurors said the group was hostile and she was frightened

I remember reading or hearing something about that. I wish I could run across it again.

[martin II]

Apparently that group didn't need to discuss anything. They just followed Coch's mandate and voted not guilty. :shrug:

i think you only say this because you did not like the verdict.if it had been guilty you may have sent the jury flowers for their four hours.

[weezer]

I remember reading or hearing something about that. I wish I could run across it again.

I'll keep my eyes open -- if I run across it again, I'll post it. at any rate, I guess she didn't get deliberated.

[martin II]

They figured it was either give in or not be able to go home for a while. After all, their bags were packed.

That is what some say about the civil jury.

[tv]

i think you only say this because you did not like the verdict.if it had been guilty you may have sent the jury flowers for their four hours.

Nah, but then I didn't send the civil jurors anything either.

[tv]

That is what some say about the civil jury.
I'm sure you have a source for this statement.

[weezer]

Nah, but then I didn't send the civil jurors anything either.

don't you know the NG's would have been screaming and ranting a whole different tune if that would have been a guilty verdict!

[weezer]

I'm sure you have a source for this statement.

you understand that they speak as one voice don't you? me = some ;)

[martin II]

I remember reading or hearing something about that. I wish I could run across it again.

Again
it is time for me to go.have fun.

[weezer]

Thursday, July 9, 2009 | 10:10 a.m.
Today is O.J. Simpson’s birthday

happy birthday Butcher of Brentwood-- woot woot

[martin II]

Nah, but then I didn't send the civil jurors anything either.

They had their marching orders. convict or sale your house.

[weezer]

wonder if the birthday 'fairy' visited orenthal today? :eek:

[tv]

you understand that they speak as one voice don't you? me = some ;)

True -- there's never a source for 'some'.

[tv]

They had their marching orders. convict or sale your house.

Uh oh, we're back on the yellow brick road. Somebody send martin a GPS system!

[tv]

wonder if the birthday 'fairy' visited orenthal today? :eek:

Oh, I'm sure the birthday fairy wouldn't neglect the Juice on his special day! :)

[GreenIce]

They'd been sequestered for nine months and had their bags packed -- rush to judgement in the deliberation room? I vote yes.

TV,

The jurors were instructed to pack to their bags and they would have been given this instruction no matter how long it took. If it took them 5 days, they would have have had to packed their bags before leaving for court.

It appears to me that the jurors are kind of treated like the people on some of the reality shows, before you go before the judges or whatever, better have your bags packed because you leave when you are done.

How can be sequestered for nine months and their verdict be a rush to judgement? Would you say the same thing if they voted to convict him? IMO, G's forget that the judge's instructions as to the testimony and the evidence in the case. Yes, he did advise them not to take a straw vote, but many jurors, in other cases feel that this is the only way to find out where people stand in the case. Two jurors voted guilty, one juror spoke up but even as she was speaking up, she already knew that she had to vote not guilty, she believed MF planted the glove and that VA lied to them. She was very clear that she felt he was guilty but believed that the DA's did not prove it. I don't think the other juror came forward or gave an interview, if the person did give an interview, I don't think they said they were the other person.

[fgump2]

TV,

Didn't the DA's also ask their own witnesses these same questions? Didn't Hank Goldberg ask Gary Sims this question?

Didn't Fung testify that he did not see blood on the socks but collected them anyway--don't you think if we was involved in planting any evidence that he would have a much better witness for the DA's side.

Fung was called out on his procedures, on his sloppy paperwork, etc., was never accused of planting any evidence. For the defense to give the impression that they suspected Fung of planting evidence, would have proved a diaster, IMO, in front of the jury.

I never said that Scheck did ask these types of questions, what I said was that he was not accusing Fung of being involved with the evidence planting and why he would not have done it. It wouldn't help their case and would have been much more helpful to the DA's case.
Barry Scheck not only accused Fung of tampering with evidence, he accused Fung of tampering with the evidence because he was afraid of his boss, and of the detectives. This is in Rantala;s book. I don't have a link for that, but I could probably get one.

[GreenIce]

I think it makes sense that the testor would have to give the results to the owner. The defence, Shapiro in this case since he arranged and paid for the test.i don't think the testor would release any results.

Shapiro was known for making pleas for his clients with the DA which is why he arranged for the test in the first place. imo He and Bailey had their personal problems so i don't know if he later leaked the results or not. But it seemed he had control of the results.
But if he did not leak the info and neither did the testor,then it is possible that the media report of the failing score was all just made up by someone.

Martin,

Every lawyer has their own style. Robert Shapiro asks his clients if they are guilty and Johnnie Cochran did not. Any lawyer, is not going to take their client's word for it. They are going to do everything they can to "test" their client to see if they can get them to incriminate themselves.

Yes, Robert Shapiro was "deal maker" but isn't it fair to say that if his client, such as Christian Brando told him he did it, it is up to Shapiro to make the best deal possible for his client who is admitting his guilt? Have any of Shapiro's clients come forward and said that they were innocent and Shapiro forced them to take a deal?

I think any defense lawyer should lose his license if he is not honest with his client. As you know, we have the highest conviction rate in the world. I don't know what I would do if was ever in this situation. Would I plea guilty and take a 7 year prison term or would I risk it with the jury where if I was convicted, I would get life without the possibility of parole?

However, what is interesting in the Simpson case, the defense never went to the DA's for a plea, Gil Garcetti called Johnnie Cochran and talked about a plea. This is standard procedure and I have no problem. However, in this case, if Shapiro was the deal maker, then why didn't he contact Garcetti, why did Garcetti make the first move and why did he wait so long. Perhaps because they never found the murder weapon, the clothes or the shoes? They knew their star witness was a racist and he couldn't figure out how the glove got back there?

I never understood some of Shapiro's actions, like the lie detector test, however, he was brilliant in getting the grand jury dismissed, he was brilliant in putting together the team of experts and how quickly he moved. His best move, IMO, was to demand a speedy trial. The DA's were always on their heels from the moment Shapiro was hired.

IIRC, Skip Taft, Robert Kardashian and Robert Shapiro were with Simpson when he went into the office. Shapiro stopped Simpson from filling out the forms because he did not want to leave a paper trail that could be leaked.

It was protrayed like Shapiro was the one who was using the lie detector test as leverage, however, he had no leverage because all of the lawyers knew the test was useless based on the questions, timing and when it was stopped. So I don't see how he could have used it as leverage.

Also, if was going to use it as leverage, wouldn't that have cost him his license because of the offer he made to the DA's about Simpson taking one?

[tv]

TV,

The jurors were instructed to pack to their bags and they would have been given this instruction no matter how long it took. Untrue, I just finished the juror's book. If it took them 5 days, they would have have had to packed their bags before leaving for court.

It appears to me that the jurors are kind of treated like the people on some of the reality shows, before you go before the judges or whatever, better have your bags packed because you leave when you are done.

How can be sequestered for nine months and their verdict be a rush to judgement? Because they're not supposed to deliberate before entering the jury room. Would you say the same thing if they voted to convict him? I certainly wouldn't say they had to convict or sell their houses. IMO, G's forget that the judge's instructions as to the testimony and the evidence in the case. Yes, he did advise them not to take a straw vote, but many jurors, in other cases feel that this is the only way to find out where people stand in the case. Two jurors voted guilty, one juror spoke up but even as she was speaking up, she already knew that she had to vote not guilty, she believed MF planted the glove and that VA lied to them. IMO, even as she was speaking up she knew she was outnumbered. She was very clear that she felt he was guilty but believed that the DA's did not prove it. I don't think the other juror came forward or gave an interview, if the person did give an interview, I don't think they said they were the other person.

They proved the case but couldn't overcome Coch's pull with the jury and his manipulation of their emotions. Besides, we know that two separate groups of black women made it clear that spousal abuse was no big deal to 40% of them and that they hated Marcia Clark. Unfortunately, Marcia Clark didn't heed the advice of the jury consultant.

[GreenIce]

Barry Scheck not only accused Fung of tampering with evidence, he accused Fung of tampering with the evidence because he was afraid of his boss, and of the detectives. This is in Rantala;s book. I don't have a link for that, but I could probably get one.

fgump2,

I have no problem with anyone writing a book on the Simpson case. I have no problem with any author giving their opinon on the questions that were asked, however, there has to come to a time when you step back and think about the situation.

Why would Scheck accuse Fung of tampering with the evidence? Why would he accuse AM of tampering or planting evidence? They were his best witnesses for this. Yes he asked them if they did do it, but Hank Goldberg and the DA's asked the same type of questions.

Do you think any of the lawyers expected a witness to say, "yes, I did tamper with the evidence"?

Lange testified that he ordered Fung to collect the blood on the back gate. Fung said Lange never told him about the blood on the back gate. Fung had the advantage over Lange on this issue because Fung worked closely with the photographer and there were not close ups of the blood evidence on the back date until July 3rd, the same day Fung collected it.

Why would Scheck destroy his best witness for the planting theory? It was obvious that Fung was not guilty of planting any evidence.

However, to be fair, if you truly believe that by asking a witness if he or she did plant evidence or whatever, then the DA's are just as guilty of accusing their own witnesses of planting and tampering of evidence, IMO.

[tv]

Barry Scheck not only accused Fung of tampering with evidence, he accused Fung of tampering with the evidence because he was afraid of his boss, and of the detectives. This is in Rantala;s book. I don't have a link for that, but I could probably get one.

Just like they accused Fung of being a master evidence manipulator but also said he was incompetent and botched the evidence collection. Which is it?

I really enjoyed Rantala's book. :)

[fgump2]

TV,

I have posted before that I do not believe these tests should even be given because there are 2 many risk factors involved. I truly believe a guilty person can pass one and an innocent person can fail one.

I believed Simpson was guilty until the scientific evidence in the DA's case. Again, IMO, I don't think Simpson would have taken the test if he was guilty. He was asked about taking one by Lange and VA during his interview and he asked some question about it being "true blue" and that he would consider taking one if the tests were "true blue".

For most part, I feel the same way about this issue that you feel about Nicole buying the gloves. If there was a scale to weight the evidence, I doubt it would even register. Again, IMO.
I agree that lie detector tests are often unaccurate, only a rough indication. Some cops in the Seattle area decided that the green river killer (prostitutes) was innocent because he passed a lied detector test, and seemed innocent, still how a person seems and how they do on a lie detector test is a rough indicator, and can be useful for detectives if they don't give it too much weight. Bugliosi and others thought SImpson seemed guilty answering the detectives questions on the day after the murder.

You seem to think that the lie detector examiner either didn't realize that SImpson would have strong emotions about his wife's murder, or didn't realize that strong emotons can influence a test. I don't think that is giving the examiner much credit.

I also don't think that the gloves should have been ignored. It is a big coincidence that there were photos of Simpson wearing gloves that resembled the murder gloves. It is true that it isn't certain that the gloves in the pictures were that brand and model of glove but nobody found any other model or make of glove that could have been the gloves Simpson wore in the broadcasting pictures.

That coincidence isn't enough to convict him; but good juries and good detectives don't ignore coincidences.

[tv]

fgump2,

I have no problem with anyone writing a book on the Simpson case. I have no problem with any author giving their opinon on the questions that were asked, however, there has to come to a time when you step back and think about the situation.

Why would Scheck accuse Fung of tampering with the evidence? Why would he accuse AM of tampering or planting evidence? They were his best witnesses for this. Yes he asked them if they did do it, but Hank Goldberg and the DA's asked the same type of questions.

Do you think any of the lawyers expected a witness to say, "yes, I did tamper with the evidence"?

Lange testified that he ordered Fung to collect the blood on the back gate. Fung said Lange never told him about the blood on the back gate. Fung had the advantage over Lange on this issue because Fung worked closely with the photographer and there were not close ups of the blood evidence on the back date until July 3rd, the same day Fung collected it.

Why would Scheck destroy his best witness for the planting theory? It was obvious that Fung was not guilty of planting any evidence.

However, to be fair, if you truly believe that by asking a witness if he or she did plant evidence or whatever, then the DA's are just as guilty of accusing their own witnesses of planting and tampering of evidence, IMO.

Questions that the defense asks have a different meaning and tone than the the ones that the prosecution asks. Do you think the questions that the defense in the civil trial asked OJ Simpson were meant to be accusatory? It's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to say that Scheck wasn't accusing Fung. What is the reason for the NGs to deny this?

[fgump2]

fgump2,

I have no problem with anyone writing a book on the Simpson case. I have no problem with any author giving their opinon on the questions that were asked, however, there has to come to a time when you step back and think about the situation.

Why would Scheck accuse Fung of tampering with the evidence? Why would he accuse AM of tampering or planting evidence? They were his best witnesses for this. Yes he asked them if they did do it, but Hank Goldberg and the DA's asked the same type of questions.

Do you think any of the lawyers expected a witness to say, "yes, I did tamper with the evidence"?

Lange testified that he ordered Fung to collect the blood on the back gate. Fung said Lange never told him about the blood on the back gate. Fung had the advantage over Lange on this issue because Fung worked closely with the photographer and there were not close ups of the blood evidence on the back date until July 3rd, the same day Fung collected it.

Why would Scheck destroy his best witness for the planting theory? It was obvious that Fung was not guilty of planting any evidence.

However, to be fair, if you truly believe that by asking a witness if he or she did plant evidence or whatever, then the DA's are just as guilty of accusing their own witnesses of planting and tampering of evidence, IMO.

Scheck asked Fung the following questions:
Mr. Fung are you fearful of these detectives, Vannatter and Lange?

Are you fearful, sir, that in a dispute between yourself and either Detective Lange or Vannatter that you could not count on the Support of Michele Kestler?

I regard these questions as insulting accusations. It may have been done to get Fung rattled.
I think if I was asked these questions in a court of law or elsewhere, I would regard them as accusations.

[GreenIce]

They proved the case but couldn't overcome Coch's pull with the jury and his manipulation of their emotions. Besides, we know that two separate groups of black women made it clear that spousal abuse was no big deal to 40% of them and that they hated Marcia Clark. Unfortunately, Marcia Clark didn't heed the advice of the jury consultant.

TV,

They were not supposed to talk about the case with each other, there was no instruction that they could not even think about the case once they left the courtroom. There is no evidence that they "deliberated" before they were instructed to do so, inside the jury room.

You are nurse, haven't you ever had a case where you just couldn't think about anything else but the case?

Female DA's are judged much harsher as DA's. Clark, like millions of women before her and after her suffer from the same thing. An aggressive man inside the courtroom is a leader, a woman, using the exact same tools as the man is called a "bi--ch". I will never forget how Clark was blasted by Dominick Dunne for wearing her skirts too short! Or when she engaged in "guy humor". She was nailed for it but the guys weren't. She is not unique in this aspect.

You know, I have been able to find those numbers or who wrote that black women do not feel spousal abuse is a big deal. Can you give me a source on this?

Marcia Clark did heed the advice the jury consultant--she just used it to her advantage. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Scheck asked Fung the following questions:
Mr. Fung are you fearful of these detectives, Vannatter and Lange?

Are you fearful, sir, that in a dispute between yourself and either Detective Lange or Vannatter that you could not count on the Support of Michele Kestler?

I regard these questions as insulting accusations. It may have been done to get Fung rattled.
I think if I was asked these questions in a court of law or elsewhere, I would regard them as accusations.

Fgump2,

What is unfair about these questions? Why would they be insulting? Don't you think Fung was rattled when Lange testified that he told Fung to collect the stains on the back gate when in fact, he didn't? That would rattle me, wouldn't it rattle you?

And why didn't Michelle Kestler testify in the DA's case and defend her people?

[fgump2]

Martin,

Every lawyer has their own style. Robert Shapiro asks his clients if they are guilty and Johnnie Cochran did not. Any lawyer, is not going to take their client's word for it. They are going to do everything they can to "test" their client to see if they can get them to incriminate themselves.

Yes, Robert Shapiro was "deal maker" but isn't it fair to say that if his client, such as Christian Brando told him he did it, it is up to Shapiro to make the best deal possible for his client who is admitting his guilt? Have any of Shapiro's clients come forward and said that they were innocent and Shapiro forced them to take a deal?

I think any defense lawyer should lose his license if he is not honest with his client. As you know, we have the highest conviction rate in the world. I don't know what I would do if was ever in this situation. Would I plea guilty and take a 7 year prison term or would I risk it with the jury where if I was convicted, I would get life without the possibility of parole?

However, what is interesting in the Simpson case, the defense never went to the DA's for a plea, Gil Garcetti called Johnnie Cochran and talked about a plea. This is standard procedure and I have no problem. However, in this case, if Shapiro was the deal maker, then why didn't he contact Garcetti, why did Garcetti make the first move and why did he wait so long. Perhaps because they never found the murder weapon, the clothes or the shoes? They knew their star witness was a racist and he couldn't figure out how the glove got back there?

I never understood some of Shapiro's actions, like the lie detector test, however, he was brilliant in getting the grand jury dismissed, he was brilliant in putting together the team of experts and how quickly he moved. His best move, IMO, was to demand a speedy trial. The DA's were always on their heels from the moment Shapiro was hired.

IIRC, Skip Taft, Robert Kardashian and Robert Shapiro were with Simpson when he went into the office. Shapiro stopped Simpson from filling out the forms because he did not want to leave a paper trail that could be leaked.

It was protrayed like Shapiro was the one who was using the lie detector test as leverage, however, he had no leverage because all of the lawyers knew the test was useless based on the questions, timing and when it was stopped. So I don't see how he could have used it as leverage.

Also, if was going to use it as leverage, wouldn't that have cost him his license because of the offer he made to the DA's about Simpson taking one?

Shapiro may have wanted to find out about Simpson's state of mind. In other words, it wouldn't have been just the test, it would have been how SImpson reacted to it.

I think you are making some unsupported assumtions about both the usefulness of the lie detector test, and Shapiro risking disbarement by offering to have Simpson take a lie detector test.

The defense team was adding new people at that time, and if the DAs had accepted, Shapiro could have changed his mind and said something like this: The defense team has changed their mnd on this because of some new members of the team we have decided to go to court and fight it. That way we can clear Simpson's name. There might have been some other plan. I am not an expert on either law, poker, or international relations, but I think there is a lot of bluffing in all three of these areas. Ever heard of used car salesmen who say ' you have 10 minutes to accept or reject this offer, after that it is gone'. Do you think some of them might be bluffing.

[GreenIce]

Questions that the defense asks have a different meaning and tone than the the ones that the prosecution asks. Do you think the questions that the defense in the civil trial asked OJ Simpson were meant to be accusatory? It's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to say that Scheck wasn't accusing Fung. What is the reason for the NGs to deny this?

TV,

The defense was accusing of Fung of CYA, they were not accusing him of tampering or planting evidence.

Why would they accuse Fung of planting the very same evidence that Fung called in to doubt? Like the blood on the socks, why would they accuse Fung of planting blood on the socks when he could have said that he saw blood on the socks when he collected them or looked at them back at the lab?

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

What is unfair about these questions? Why would they be insulting? Don't you think Fung was rattled when Lange testified that he told Fung to collect the stains on the back gate when in fact, he didn't? That would rattle me, wouldn't it rattle you?

And why didn't Michelle Kestler testify in the DA's case and defend her people?

That is subjective about whether this is insulting. I think it is.

As for why Michelle Kestler didn't testify. Maybe the prosecution thought the trial took too long as it was. I don't know if she could have helped any. I would prefer to have put the bronco chase recoring in.

[fgump2]

They had their marching orders. convict or sale your house.

Do you have a link for that?

[GreenIce]

Shapiro may have wanted to find out about Simpson's state of mind. In other words, it wouldn't have been just the test, it would have been how SImpson reacted to it.

I think you are making some unsupported assumtions about both the usefulness of the lie detector test, and Shapiro risking disbarement by offering to have Simpson take a lie detector test.

The defense team was adding new people at that time, and if the DAs had accepted, Shapiro could have changed his mind and said something like this: The defense team has changed their mnd on this because of some new members of the team we have decided to go to court and fight it. That way we can clear Simpson's name. There might have been some other plan. I am not an expert on either law, poker, or international relations, but I think there is a lot of bluffing in all three of these areas. Ever heard of used car salesmen who say ' you have 10 minutes to accept or reject this offer, after that it is gone'. Do you think some of them might be bluffing.

Fgump,

Without a doubt, any lawyer would have wanted to know his client's state of mind. A lie detector test, some believe is a great tool to find this out. Simpson's reactions were that of a normal grieving man at that time. His state of mind and his reactions to Nicole's name was "normal" at that time.

You are making unsupported assumptions, such as knowing when the questions that were asked. You are making the absolute false assumption that the timing of the test does not matter.

If the DA's took Shapiro's offer with the conditions that he gave, would have been documented. Simpson would have had to have been the only person who could have approved this. Shapiro never could have made the offer without Simpson's knowledge or approval. Shapiro making this offer, beliving that Simpson was going to lie is just like letting him take the stand knowing he is going to lie. How long do you think it would have taken the bar to bring charges against Shapiro?

If the DA's were so convinced of Simpson's guilt, then why didn't they accept the offer? Didn't Lange and Vanatter talk about what a great tool the lie detector test was in their interview with Simpson? So why didn't the DA's jump at the chance?

Shapiro would not risk his reputation or his lifestyle with a bluff like this, IMO. Don't forget, it was Clark who knew of Shapiro, who couldn't even stand him before the trial let alone during it. She never failed to call him nothing but a deal maker and was not a "real" lawyer.

So why didn't she take him up on this offer?

[tv]

TV,

They were not supposed to talk about the case with each other, there was no instruction that they could not even think about the case once they left the courtroom. There is no evidence that they "deliberated" before they were instructed to do so, inside the jury room. The short deliberation time indicates to me that their minds were made up.

You are nurse, haven't you ever had a case where you just couldn't think about anything else but the case? No.

Female DA's are judged much harsher as DA's. Clark, like millions of women before her and after her suffer from the same thing. An aggressive man inside the courtroom is a leader, a woman, using the exact same tools as the man is called a "bi--ch". I will never forget how Clark was blasted by Dominick Dunne for wearing her skirts too short! Or when she engaged in "guy humor". She was nailed for it but the guys weren't. She is not unique in this aspect. Your point?

You know, I have been able to find those numbers or who wrote that black women do not feel spousal abuse is a big deal. Can you give me a source on this?

Marcia Clark did heed the advice the jury consultant--she just used it to her advantage. IMO. No, she did not. She was advised that black women would not be sympathetic to her case or to her and she rejected it. She was pleased that she ended up with eght black women on the jury. Would you like to tell us what you mean by 'used it to her advantage'?

They said they didn't consider the DNA or Mark Fuhrman. They also said their request to have a read back of Allan Park's testimony was insignificant. It makes me wonder what they based their decision on. :shrug:

[tv]

TV,

The defense was accusing of Fung of CYA, they were not accusing him of tampering or planting evidence.

Why would they accuse Fung of planting the very same evidence that Fung called in to doubt? Like the blood on the socks, why would they accuse Fung of planting blood on the socks when he could have said that he saw blood on the socks when he collected them or looked at them back at the lab?

Scheck accused Fung of pouring off the blood from the vial or in assisting Yamauchi to do it. Why are you twisting this around?

[GreenIce]

That is subjective about whether this is insulting. I think it is.

As for why Michelle Kestler didn't testify. Maybe the prosecution thought the trial took too long as it was. I don't know if she could have helped any. I would prefer to have put the bronco chase recoring in.

fgump2,

I agree with you that it is subjective about whether it is insulting. IMO, I think most people would feel insulted if they were asked any type of question that call their honor and integrity into question, regardless of how the question was asked. Even knowing the questions have to asked, it still is going to be painful and insulting. Also, I do think many lawyers are really wannabe actors and sometimes their tone goes against them more then actual questions. I thought Peter N was a great lawyer but I wanted to scream at him to please say Andrea's last name right! And I am a New Yorker!:)

[GreenIce]

They said they didn't consider the DNA or Mark Fuhrman. They also said their request to have a read back of Allan Park's testimony was insignificant. It makes me wonder what they based their decision on. :shrug:

TV,

Bottom line, it was never really a question of DNA, it wasn't a question of who's blood it was, it was how and when the did the blood get there and why did the DA's blood evidence age better then a fine wine?

Marcia Clark denounced MF in the strongest possible terms, in fact, she called his a racist, she called him a liar and she said that he never should have been a cop in the first place---so how much time were they suppose to spend on him? They knew he was a liar, they knew there were crucial descrpancies between his testimony and Vanatter's, how much time were they suppose to spend on him?

MF's words did not shock any black member of the jury. IMO, it was Vanatter who hurt the DA's case more along with the job performance of the SID. Like the one juror said, to say they saw no blood on the sock because they didn't use the "right" light was unacceptable to her. How can you argue with that? How can argue the fact that the blood evidence had the same consistent pattern of problems? What did the SID team that instilled any confidence in their work?

I have always felt the timeline was the only neutral evidence in the case. Either you believed he had the time to commit the murders or he didn't--at least not alone.

Also, it is important to remember that the jurors did visit both crime scenes. They were able to evaluate some of the testimony and the evidence, such as could Park have seen what he said he saw? If it was obvious to them that he could not, that does not mean Park was lying but that he was mistaken.

I understand the attraction to just look at the evidence at face value, however, all the evidence was processed and evaluated by human beings. You just can't take the "human" factor out of the evidence or the testimony, IMO.

[GreenIce]

As for why Michelle Kestler didn't testify. Maybe the prosecution thought the trial took too long as it was. I don't know if she could have helped any. I would prefer to have put the bronco chase recoring in.

fgump2,

Michelle Kestler was Fung's and Mozzola's boss. She was head of the crime lab. She evaluated evidence, she went out to the Bronco and saw how much blood she claimed Fung missed. She should have been a DA's witness, not the defense's witness.

How could the DA's not call her? Was it because the defense knew that she had questioned AM about the evidence being tampered? She just another long list of witnesses that the DA's should have been able to use to put their case to bed and they couldn't. IMO.

[tv]

Fgump2,

What is unfair about these questions? Why would they be insulting? Don't you think Fung was rattled when Lange testified that he told Fung to collect the stains on the back gate when in fact, he didn't? That would rattle me, wouldn't it rattle you?

And why didn't Michelle Kestler testify in the DA's case and defend her people?

Michelle Kestler did testify and the defense asked to have her declared a hostile witness.

[GreenIce]

KING: Joining us now from West Palm Beach, Florida is famed criminal defense attorney F. Lee Bailey. He was the attorney for O.J. Simpson and handled many, many other famous cases in this country. He's as well known as there is in the field.

Lee, there has been much made this week over O.J. taking a lie detector test. Did he take a lie detector? Was it stopped? And as I remember, you're being on the program sometime back saying you did stop a lie detector test that was being -- I seem to remember that. So give us tonight, the full story, did he? Didn't he? What happened?

F. LEE BAILEY, FORMER SIMPSON DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I'll give you exactly the story I testified to, which many in the media sought to totally misrepresent. I said that I was brought into the O.J. case officially when Robert Shapiro called me, said I'm in the middle of a lie detector test with O.J. I don't know what's happening here. Why don't you talk to the examiner? Whom I knew. You don't test a guy 48 hours after what we call an exoricide (ph), that is the killing of a spouse. It just doesn't work, and I shut the test down. O.J. wanted to continue, but that was the end of it. We almost tested him again in the civil case, but Judge Fujisaki, having let it in to begin with, changed his mind, and threw it out, and said I don't want to hear about it again.

But it's still out there, still can be done, and I hope that it will be done, because like DNA, anybody who wants to take a polygraph test should have that opportunity before they're condemned.

KING: We did a tape with Alan Dershowitz last night. It's going to play next week. He doesn't like the lie detector test. He would never have it as evidence in court. He doesn't trust it. He thinks it's really up in the air. You don't?

BAILEY: Well, I've been at it for better than 45 years. I've been an expert witness in more than a dozen cases. I know it like the back of my hand. I can read the charts, and it's something that Alan Dershowitz doesn't know about. Between Alan and I, we know everything, but this is one of the things I know. So Alan can distrust it all he want, but if Alan were charged with a murder he didn't commit and I told him to take a polygraph, I bet he'd do it.

KING: OK. You stopped the polygraph, you said, because it was two days after the incident. Why would that make a difference in telling the truth or lying?

BAILEY: Because the emotions are in such a terrible state that you can't calm down enough to permit the examiner to differentiate between one question and another. For instance, O.J. was reacting to his daughter's name, his mother's name. I think he would have reacted to the name Larry King. He simply was not in a testable condition and it shouldn't have been attempted.

Now, Shapiro's motive was he was under the gun. He wanted to get that the test into the hands of the prosecutor before O.J. got arrested. But he simply should not have attempted it at that time. And if had called me before instead of in the middle of the test, it wouldn't have happened. He would have been tested later that week. KING: Did you...

BAILEY: And he should have been tested not on Nicole but on Ron Goldman, because whoever killed Ron killed the other.

KING: Oh, so, and Ron Goldman, he would have had -- wouldn't have had the same emotion.

BAILEY: Well, he hardly knew Ron Goldman, and I think he would have done much -- a clearer chart on that, but who knows.

KING: Did you look at how he was doing? Did you look at the test?

BAILEY: I am the only person that I know who is qualified to read polygraph charts that looked at those charts, other than the examiner, whose name was Dennis Neleni (ph) and used to work on the lie detector show with me and Ed Gelb. And I thought the charts were totally unreadable for any purposes of detecting deception. They were just wild.

KING: So they would have been called what had they been...

BAILEY: Well, they would have been called inconclusive by any examiner who took a look at them, and I appreciated the circumstances.

KING: All right. Now, you're telling us -- we're going to take a break -- that O.J. is willing to take a lie detector test.

By the way, does it matter when a lie detector test is taken? Could you give a lie detector test 10 years after a crime?

BAILEY: Larry, we gave a lie detector test 36 years after the crime, and it came out very nicely. The man was lying and admitted it.

KING: All right, we're going -- we're going to take a break, and when we come back, we'll ask you how he proposes to do this.

During his deposition for the civil trial, O.J. was asked about a lie detector test by plaintiff's attorney Daniel Petrocelli.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, JANUARY 25, 1998)

DANIEL PETROCELLI, ATTORNEY FOR GOLDMAN FAMILY: Did you do one?

SIMPSON: We offered one.

PETROCELLI: Excuse me?

SIMPSON: We offered it to the prosecution, yes.

PETROCELLI: To whom?

SIMPSON: To the prosecution office. I guess Marcia Clark, Gil Garcetti. PETROCELLI: You personally did or your lawyers.

SIMPSON: My lawyer did.

PETROCELLI: When did they do that?

SIMPSON: Oh, I would imagine a day or so after that Monday, but that week I'm sure it was.

PETROCELLI: And what did they say?

SIMPSON: They declined.

PETROCELLI: But you -- you didn't take a test on the 13th, correct?

SIMPSON: Correct.

PETROCELLI: And you didn't want to then, correct?

SIMPSON: Well, I had to talk to my lawyers about it. I was -- and then they didn't want me to either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: OK. I'm told that you, F. Lee Bailey, will announce tonight that O.J. is willing to take a new lie detector test. What are the circumstances?

[GreenIce]

BAILEY: All right. Here's the deal. For anyone who will put up a line of credit of $3 million, O.J. will take a test where we pick an examiner, that party picks an examiner, and they agree on an examiner to run the test. There will be collaboration in question formulation and the other important ingredients of the test.

If he passes the test, the 3 million goes into a trust fund as reward money for anyone that can come forward and say who did these killings. And it would be paid out in increments by some retired judge that will be selected by the parties. If he flunks the test, the letter of credit is dissolved.

We need to get enough money out there to bring somebody forward, because that's the only way this case is going to break.

KING: And will that test be publicly seen?

BAILEY: It will be publicly seen win, lose or draw. It could come out inconclusive, but I doubt that that will happen. Good examiners -- and only good examiners will be candidates here -- don't get many inconclusive results. As a matter of fact, I took a test myself a couple of weeks ago.

KING: If it's inconclusive, does the party get the 3 million back? BAILEY: It's called a draw. Yes, he gets it back. O.J. has got to get a positive result.

KING: Now, who would be inclined to put this up, do you think?

BAILEY: Oh, I think there are people out there that would consider it to be a valuable asset in a way. I mean, what have they got to lose? They're not paying O.J. the money. They're not -- this is not checkbook journalism.

But the public needs to know -- just as if DNA could solve this case, which it did not -- the polygraph has never been reached for. And O.J. is dead right. We offered the prosecution a polygraph test. They could have participated. They said, well, we'd like to have it, but we would never agree to let it in evidence. And that's the kind of people they were.

KING: So if O.J. took this test, took this test and passed it, the $3 million then goes -- none goes to him?

BAILEY: No!

KING: It goes into a trust fund that's used to find the perpetrator of the crimes.

BAILEY: It is reward money in the classic sense that reward money has been posted over and over again, and as you may recall, in the death, I think, it was of Bill Cosby's son, that reward money found the killer.

KING: Will that -- when you -- will be made public. Will -- can a lie detector test be telecast live?

BAILEY: No, not while it's being done, although we did that for, I think, 120 tests. Ed Gelb, who recently passed the Ramseys and myself, in 1983. Most it must be done -- and there are three charts run, because the last two are confirmatory. We ran two charts, then brought the party on the air, ran the third one on the air, and we had very good results.

But normally, you must videotape any polygraph. That is now part of the American Polygraph Association code of ethics. I agree with that. So the video is there for posterity.

KING: And what about the stories that O.J. wanted to do a pay- per-view showing the lie detector test? Is that true?

BAILEY: Well, that's another way simply to raise a fund. O.J. is not trying to make O.J. rich. He's trying to get enough money out there, which he doesn't have and I don't have -- or frankly, I'd be inclined to put it up -- to smoke out someone. There's got to be more than one person who knows what happened and who was there, because I remain convinced, as I always have been, that he was not.

KING: You remain firm, right? You have you never doubted this, have you, since your first day on? When you're the lawyer, you can't say you doubt it. But as I know, you have never doubted his innocence?

BAILEY: Larry, let me tell you something. I'll defend a client. I'll defend a client to the best of my ability. If he did it, I'll still defend him. But I will not, after the trial is over, particularly after he's been acquitted, pick up the banner and carry it unless I totally, completely and sincerely believe that he is innocent. And I know enough about this case, perhaps more than any other living human being, to be satisfied to my dying day that he didn't do it, and to hope that some day he'll be cleared.

KING: Someone wants to put this up, they contact you in West Palm Beach?

BAILEY: They can contact anybody in the world. I'm sure the word will filter back to me. We can sit down at the table and draw up a contract, because that's what it's going to be.

KING: As we go to break, here's what the Ramseys had to say. They were on our show last week with a detective who thought that Mrs. Ramsey was the perpetrator of that crime -- what they had to say about a lie detector test. Watch.

[GreenIce]

Michelle Kestler did testify and the defense asked to have her declared a hostile witness.

TV,

Michelle Kestler was never called by the DA's. She was called by the defense. I don't remember that they declared her a hostile witness, but it wouldn't surprise me. Did they declare Roger Martz a hostile witness as well?

Just to be clear, Kestler did testify in the prelim hearing but I don't know about the grand jury.

[tv]

TV,

Bottom line, it was never really a question of DNA, it wasn't a question of who's blood it was, it was how and when the did the blood get there and why did the DA's blood evidence age better then a fine wine?

Marcia Clark denounced MF in the strongest possible terms, in fact, she called his a racist, she called him a liar and she said that he never should have been a cop in the first place---so how much time were they suppose to spend on him? They knew he was a liar, they knew there were crucial descrpancies between his testimony and Vanatter's, how much time were they suppose to spend on him?

MF's words did not shock any black member of the jury. IMO, it was Vanatter who hurt the DA's case more along with the job performance of the SID. Like the one juror said, to say they saw no blood on the sock because they didn't use the "right" light was unacceptable to her. How can you argue with that? How can argue the fact that the blood evidence had the same consistent pattern of problems? What did the SID team that instilled any confidence in their work?

I have always felt the timeline was the only neutral evidence in the case. Either you believed he had the time to commit the murders or he didn't--at least not alone.

Also, it is important to remember that the jurors did visit both crime scenes. They were able to evaluate some of the testimony and the evidence, such as could Park have seen what he said he saw? If it was obvious to them that he could not, that does not mean Park was lying but that he was mistaken.

I understand the attraction to just look at the evidence at face value, however, all the evidence was processed and evaluated by human beings. You just can't take the "human" factor out of the evidence or the testimony, IMO.

There was no proof that there was any planting in this case. Just the outrageous claims of the defense.

The jury did see both crime scenes. Nicole's empty, sterile looking home and Simpson's lived in and comfy home including the trophy room and all the pictures changed out by the defense.

I don't take the human factor out of the case. I understand all too well that the black women jurors hated Marcia Clarke and were unsympathetic to Nicole.

[tv]

TV,

Michelle Kestler was never called by the DA's. She was called by the defense. I don't remember that they declared her a hostile witness, but it wouldn't surprise me. Did they declare Roger Martz a hostile witness as well?

Just to be clear, Kestler did testify in the prelim hearing but I don't know about the grand jury.

I realize that Kestler was a defense witness. You'll have to check to see of Martz was declared a hostile witness.

[GreenIce]

From Robert Shapiro's book on the test:

They would let OJ take a lie detector test if the results would be admitted to court; Marcia Clark refused this (pp.26-7). This test makes charts that can be interpreted in different ways, and challenged on the basis of wrong questions framed the wrong way!!

[tv]

BAILEY: All right. Here's the deal. For anyone who will put up a line of credit of $3 million, O.J. will take a test where we pick an examiner, that party picks an examiner, and they agree on an examiner to run the test. There will be collaboration in question formulation and the other important ingredients of the test.

If he passes the test, the 3 million goes into a trust fund as reward money for anyone that can come forward and say who did these killings. And it would be paid out in increments by some retired judge that will be selected by the parties. If he flunks the test, the letter of credit is dissolved.

We need to get enough money out there to bring somebody forward, because that's the only way this case is going to break.

KING: And will that test be publicly seen?

LOL, this is too funny. Why didn't OJ Simpson put up his own 3 million to find the 'real killer'?
BAILEY: It will be publicly seen win, lose or draw. It could come out inconclusive, but I doubt that that will happen. Good examiners -- and only good examiners will be candidates here -- don't get many inconclusive results. As a matter of fact, I took a test myself a couple of weeks ago.

KING: If it's inconclusive, does the party get the 3 million back? BAILEY: It's called a draw. Yes, he gets it back. O.J. has got to get a positive result.

KING: Now, who would be inclined to put this up, do you think?

BAILEY: Oh, I think there are people out there that would consider it to be a valuable asset in a way. I mean, what have they got to lose? They're not paying O.J. the money. They're not -- this is not checkbook journalism.

But the public needs to know -- just as if DNA could solve this case, which it did not -- the polygraph has never been reached for. And O.J. is dead right. We offered the prosecution a polygraph test. They could have participated. They said, well, we'd like to have it, but we would never agree to let it in evidence. And that's the kind of people they were.

KING: So if O.J. took this test, took this test and passed it, the $3 million then goes -- none goes to him?

BAILEY: No!

KING: It goes into a trust fund that's used to find the perpetrator of the crimes.

BAILEY: It is reward money in the classic sense that reward money has been posted over and over again, and as you may recall, in the death, I think, it was of Bill Cosby's son, that reward money found the killer.

KING: Will that -- when you -- will be made public. Will -- can a lie detector test be telecast live?

BAILEY: No, not while it's being done, although we did that for, I think, 120 tests. Ed Gelb, who recently passed the Ramseys and myself, in 1983. Most it must be done -- and there are three charts run, because the last two are confirmatory. We ran two charts, then brought the party on the air, ran the third one on the air, and we had very good results.

But normally, you must videotape any polygraph. That is now part of the American Polygraph Association code of ethics. I agree with that. So the video is there for posterity.

KING: And what about the stories that O.J. wanted to do a pay- per-view showing the lie detector test? Is that true?

BAILEY: Well, that's another way simply to raise a fund. O.J. is not trying to make O.J. rich. He's trying to get enough money out there, which he doesn't have and I don't have -- or frankly, I'd be inclined to put it up -- to smoke out someone. There's got to be more than one person who knows what happened and who was there, because I remain convinced, as I always have been, that he was not.

KING: You remain firm, right? You have you never doubted this, have you, since your first day on? When you're the lawyer, you can't say you doubt it. But as I know, you have never doubted his innocence?

BAILEY: Larry, let me tell you something. I'll defend a client. I'll defend a client to the best of my ability. If he did it, I'll still defend him. But I will not, after the trial is over, particularly after he's been acquitted, pick up the banner and carry it unless I totally, completely and sincerely believe that he is innocent. And I know enough about this case, perhaps more than any other living human being, to be satisfied to my dying day that he didn't do it, and to hope that some day he'll be cleared.

KING: Someone wants to put this up, they contact you in West Palm Beach?

BAILEY: They can contact anybody in the world. I'm sure the word will filter back to me. We can sit down at the table and draw up a contract, because that's what it's going to be.

KING: As we go to break, here's what the Ramseys had to say. They were on our show last week with a detective who thought that Mrs. Ramsey was the perpetrator of that crime -- what they had to say about a lie detector test. Watch.

This is too funny. Why didn't OJ Simpson put up his own 3 million to find the 'real killer' of the mother of his children? What made them think an uninterested third party would pony up? Some investigators offered their services pro bono and he wasn't interested. Good heavens, his gall never ceases to amaze me.

[GreenIce]

There was no proof that there was any planting in this case. Just the outrageous claims of the defense.

The jury did see both crime scenes. Nicole's empty, sterile looking home and Simpson's lived in and comfy home including the trophy room and all the pictures changed out by the defense.

I don't take the human factor out of the case. I understand all too well that the black women jurors hated Marcia Clarke and were unsympathetic to Nicole.

TV,

There is no proof that evidence wasn't planted in this case. The DA's could not prove how the glove got back there. They could not prove how and when the blood got on the back gate. They could not even prove the size, model and color of the gloves that Nicole bought, let alone that she gave them to Simpson. They could not prove that EDTA was not in the two stains and when it was proved that EDTA was in the stains, they could not prove that it did not come from the reference samples.

The only thing that the DA's could prove was that Nicole and Ron were murdered and the murder weapon was a knife. They could not prove how many killers, they could not prove what type of knife it was or how many were used. They could not prove the time of death and they could not prove that OJ Simpson killed them.

[GreenIce]

This is too funny. Why didn't OJ Simpson put up his own 3 million to find the 'real killer' of the mother of his children? What made them think an uninterested third party would pony up? Some investigators offered their services pro bono and he wasn't interested. Good heavens, his gall never ceases to amaze me.

TV,

This interview was done in 2000. I am pretty sure that he didn't have 3 million then. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

Do me a favor, when you become a rich and an interested third party, can you explain how you think. And when I become one, I will tell you how I think.:)

I have no clue what they hoped to gain from this but look at how much Simpson was paid to write a book.

Sadly, there are people who just have too much damn money and they don't know what to do with it.

But least FLB told the truth, it was being done to raise money.

[tv]

TV,

There is no proof that evidence wasn't planted in this case. The DA's could not prove how the glove got back there. They could not prove how and when the blood got on the back gate. They could not even prove the size, model and color of the gloves that Nicole bought, let alone that she gave them to Simpson. They could not prove that EDTA was not in the two stains and when it was proved that EDTA was in the stains, they could not prove that it did not come from the reference samples.

The only thing that the DA's could prove was that Nicole and Ron were murdered and the murder weapon was a knife. They could not prove how many killers, they could not prove what type of knife it was or how many were used. They could not prove the time of death and they could not prove that OJ Simpson killed them.

His blood was all over the crime scene and his blood mixed with the blood of the victims was found in his car, his house and on the glove found on his property. They proved there was one killer -- all the evidence pointed only to OJ Simpson. It wasn't required they produce the knife. Maybe you think all murders without a murder weapon in evidence shouldn't be prosecuted?

It amazes me that you judged Susan Smith to be guilty based on her demeanor in one press conference yet you continue to deny all the evidence against OJ Simpson who, by the way, had a very inappropriate demeanor after the murders.

[tv]

TV,

This interview was done in 2000. I am pretty sure that he didn't have 3 million then. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

Do me a favor, when you become a rich and an interested third party, can you explain how you think. And when I become one, I will tell you how I think.:)

I have no clue what they hoped to gain from this but look at how much Simpson was paid to write a book.

Sadly, there are people who just have too much damn money and they don't know what to do with it.

But least FLB told the truth, it was being done to raise money.

Book (I want to tell you) $991,743
Video 303,500
Star Photos 433,693
Interviews 75,300
Autographs/Memorbilia 1,013,900
_____________________________
Total $2,818,136

All this from murdering two people. When you're ready to leave the dark side and walk into the light I'll welcome you with open arms. :)

[martin II]

Martin,

Every lawyer has their own style. Robert Shapiro asks his clients if they are guilty and Johnnie Cochran did not. Any lawyer, is not going to take their client's word for it. They are going to do everything they can to "test" their client to see if they can get them to incriminate themselves.

Yes, Robert Shapiro was "deal maker" but isn't it fair to say that if his client, such as Christian Brando told him he did it, it is up to Shapiro to make the best deal possible for his client who is admitting his guilt? Have any of Shapiro's clients come forward and said that they were innocent and Shapiro forced them to take a deal?

I think any defense lawyer should lose his license if he is not honest with his client. As you know, we have the highest conviction rate in the world. I don't know what I would do if was ever in this situation. Would I plea guilty and take a 7 year prison term or would I risk it with the jury where if I was convicted, I would get life without the possibility of parole?

However, what is interesting in the Simpson case, the defense never went to the DA's for a plea, Gil Garcetti called Johnnie Cochran and talked about a plea. This is standard procedure and I have no problem. However, in this case, if Shapiro was the deal maker, then why didn't he contact Garcetti, why did Garcetti make the first move and why did he wait so long. Perhaps because they never found the murder weapon, the clothes or the shoes? They knew their star witness was a racist and he couldn't figure out how the glove got back there?

I never understood some of Shapiro's actions, like the lie detector test, however, he was brilliant in getting the grand jury dismissed, he was brilliant in putting together the team of experts and how quickly he moved. His best move, IMO, was to demand a speedy trial. The DA's were always on their heels from the moment Shapiro was hired.

IIRC, Skip Taft, Robert Kardashian and Robert Shapiro were with Simpson when he went into the office. Shapiro stopped Simpson from filling out the forms because he did not want to leave a paper trail that could be leaked.

It was protrayed like Shapiro was the one who was using the lie detector test as leverage, however, he had no leverage because all of the lawyers knew the test was useless based on the questions, timing and when it was stopped. So I don't see how he could have used it as leverage.

Also, if was going to use it as leverage, wouldn't that have cost him his license because of the offer he made to the DA's about Simpson taking one?


i agree with all you have said about Shapiros work in the case.he was also the one that got Park to say oj was wearing a black overcoat when he came out to get into the limo.which was not true.
one point. oj demoted Shapiro and upgraded Cochran because Shapiro had talked to GG about a plea.

[martin II]

Do you have a link for that?

i cannot believe you would ask for a link from me. i and others have made many request of you for links for your claims which you have never honored.

[weezer]

fgump2,

Michelle Kestler was Fung's and Mozzola's boss. She was head of the crime lab. She evaluated evidence, she went out to the Bronco and saw how much blood she claimed Fung missed. She should have been a DA's witness, not the defense's witness.

How could the DA's not call her? Was it because the defense knew that she had questioned AM about the evidence being tampered? She just another long list of witnesses that the DA's should have been able to use to put their case to bed and they couldn't. IMO.

please post the date Michelle Kessler testified in either trial.

[martin II]

His blood was all over the crime scene and his blood mixed with the blood of the victims was found in his car, his house and on the glove found on his property. They proved there was one killer -- all the evidence pointed only to OJ Simpson. It wasn't required they produce the knife. Maybe you think all murders without a murder weapon in evidence shouldn't be prosecuted?

It amazes me that you judged Susan Smith to be guilty based on her demeanor in one press conference yet you continue to deny all the evidence against OJ Simpson who, by the way, had a very inappropriate demeanor after the murders.

if the time line did not fit just forget the blood crap.

[weezer]

This is too funny. Why didn't OJ Simpson put up his own 3 million to find the 'real killer' of the mother of his children? What made them think an uninterested third party would pony up? Some investigators offered their services pro bono and he wasn't interested. Good heavens, his gall never ceases to amaze me.

not only was orenthal not willing to put up any of his money or accept the free work of private investigators, he wanted an individual to put up the $3 million while he raised 'funds' for himself with a pay per view. he's such a slime.

[rovaan]

please post the date Michelle Kessler testified in either trial.

Michele Kestler testified on August 14th and August 16th in the criminal trial.

[tv]

if the time line did not fit just forget the blood crap.
The timeline fit very well in the civil trial so that leaves the blood crap on the table.

[tv]

i agree with all you have said about Shapiros work in the case.he was also the one that got Park to say oj was wearing a black overcoat when he came out to get into the limo.which was not true.
one point. oj demoted Shapiro and upgraded Cochran because Shapiro had talked to GG about a plea.
Shap knew Simpson was dead guilty but he didn't understand what Coch did -- that it was going to be easy for him to manipulate the emotions of the jurors.

[weezer]

Michele Kestler testified on August 14th and August 16th in the criminal trial.

thank you

[tv]

not only was orenthal not willing to put up any of his money or accept the free work of private investigators, he wanted an individual to put up the $3 million while he raised 'funds' for himself with a pay per view. he's such a slime.
He knew the private investigators would only confirm what everyone already knows -- that all the evidence leads back to him. I wonder what would have really happened to the $3 mil if someone had been crazy enough to take him up on it?

[tv]

i cannot believe you would ask for a link from me. i and others have made many request of you for links for your claims which you have never honored.

martin, you're continually asked for links which you do not provide. I asked you for a link yesterday which you haven't come up with yet. Geez.

[tv]

TV,

There is no proof that evidence wasn't planted in this case. The DA's could not prove how the glove got back there. They could not prove how and when the blood got on the back gate. They could not even prove the size, model and color of the gloves that Nicole bought, let alone that she gave them to Simpson. They could not prove that EDTA was not in the two stains and when it was proved that EDTA was in the stains, they could not prove that it did not come from the reference samples.

The only thing that the DA's could prove was that Nicole and Ron were murdered and the murder weapon was a knife. They could not prove how many killers, they could not prove what type of knife it was or how many were used. They could not prove the time of death and they could not prove that OJ Simpson killed them.

This statement is pure nonsense. There's also no proof that martians didn't land their spaceship on Nicole's roof that night but we know it's not a likely scenario. Why are you always asking for proof that something didn't happen?

[weezer]

He knew the private investigators would only confirm what everyone already knows -- that all the evidence leads back to him. I wonder what would have really happened to the $3 mil if someone had been crazy enough to take him up on it?

well, he said if he failed, the person would get their money back. the money he made off of the pay per view was going into a 'fund' -- probably the same fund that his confession book went to -- orenthal james simpson's back pocket.

[tv]

well, he said if he failed, the person would get their money back. the money he made off of the pay per view was going into a 'fund' -- probably the same fund that his confession book went to -- orenthal james simpson's back pocket.

I don't put anything past a man who would write, authorize or in any way participate in a book about how he participated in the murder of the mother of his children. I hope he had fun spending the money he got from the confession book -- who do you think is driving that car he bought with it?

[weezer]

I don't put anything past a man who would write, authorize or in any way participate in a book about how he participated in the murder of the mother of his children. I hope he had fun spending the money he got from the confession book -- who do you think is driving that car he bought with it?

I bet I know -- arnelle. LOL

[GreenIce]

His blood was all over the crime scene and his blood mixed with the blood of the victims was found in his car, his house and on the glove found on his property. They proved there was one killer -- all the evidence pointed only to OJ Simpson. It wasn't required they produce the knife. Maybe you think all murders without a murder weapon in evidence shouldn't be prosecuted?

It amazes me that you judged Susan Smith to be guilty based on her demeanor in one press conference yet you continue to deny all the evidence against OJ Simpson who, by the way, had a very inappropriate demeanor after the murders.

TV,

Again, it is not a question of who's blood it was, but when and how did it get there. There is also the testimony of the Dr. who did perform the autopsy and his testimony was that the forsenic evidence placed the murders closer to 11:00 p.m. and that he could not rule out a second knife. Dr. L, in the criminal trial could not testify with any medical degree of certainity that only one knife was used. That is the testimony. It was his opinon and his opinon only that one knife was used. However, he did not perform the actual the autospsy.

No, they did not prove only killer was involved. Just because one of the killers didn't step in blood, does not mean that he was not there. There were several fingerprints that were identified but were labeled unknown. Simpson's fingerprints were not found at the scene---even knowing that one glove was off.

According to you, the DA's had plenty of witnesses that could testify about knife, they used none of the them in the criminal trial. The knife the DA's used in the prelim hearing had a few problems, like that was not the same type of knife that Simpson bought. They never linked him to a knife. I never said that had to find it, but they even established a link. Also, there is the debate if it was serrated, if was a single edge or a double edge.

But the biggest problem with the murder weapon, it left a distinctive mark on either Ron's or Nicole's body. This mark was believed to be from some sort of raised mark on the knife. Something like a raised logo or something. So how come with this very distinctive piece of evidence, there was no linkage to Simpson?

I have never denied the evidence in the Simpson case, what I have done is to consistently point at that there are at least two sides of the evidence and the defense presented a strong case for each piece of evidence. They challenged each piece of evidence they presnted a solid case based on science. The only thing the DA's had was the hope that the jury would believe them, that they would not put on this evidence unless they believed in it--the jury can't base their verdict on that.

[GreenIce]

Shap knew Simpson was dead guilty but he didn't understand what Coch did -- that it was going to be easy for him to manipulate the emotions of the jurors.

TV,

You often make comments about JC manipulate the emotions of the jurors, what about what the LAPD and the DA's did to manipulate the white populations emotions? Why do think Clark allowed the jury she allowed? Why did Clark "ignore" the warnings about MF? What about the major descrepancies between the detectives and others testimony?

Have you read any of fgump2's posts? How many times does she excuse the piss poor performance of the DA's witnesses because they were careless, because they were tired, because their mamma's didn't breast feed them?

Clark in her closing arguments slammed her own witnesses, she said that one was a racist, a couple of them were dumber then a box a rocks, that the LAPD couldn't even organize a beer run let alone a conspiracy (which we all know that to be untrue) and that the SID members picked the wrong career field.

What about releasing the 911 tape that had the grand jury dismissed, that was not manipulation by the LAPD? What about the round of interviews that the Clark and Garcetti did so quickly after Simpson's arrest? That was not manpulation?

Clark proved Simpson could be a jerk when drank and allegedly said somethings to Nicole that her sister didn't like--that is not manipulation? I don't know if OJ Simpson told Nilcole she was a fat pig when she was carrying his child--but even if he did, that does mean he murdered her. If he grabbed her crotch and said it was hers, if this did happen, again, where is the link to murder?

The defense methoically ripped apart the DA's case. They used emotion to get a conviction in the only court they knew they could get one because it is not a legal verdict, and that is the court of public opinion.

I found it outrageous that both Clark and Darden, after supporting their case and their witnessess for months saying that no racism was involved and when they couldn't deny it any longer, they proceeded on like racism is no big deal, that it has no place in this courtroom, it was for another courtroom and another case--how times has this been said through the years? Well what is the right case? When is the right time to address this cancer in our legal system? When, please tell me when?

[martin II]

This is too funny. Why didn't OJ Simpson put up his own 3 million to find the 'real killer' of the mother of his children? What made them think an uninterested third party would pony up? Some investigators offered their services pro bono and he wasn't interested. Good heavens, his gall never ceases to amaze me.

why would he spend his only money looking for her killer 14 years later.
because he initially said he would. long time ago it was time to move on.

[GreenIce]

This statement is pure nonsense. There's also no proof that martians didn't land their spaceship on Nicole's roof that night but we know it's not a likely scenario. Why are you always asking for proof that something didn't happen?

TV,

When did the DA's prove how Simpson got behind the wall? How is it that Clark and MF have him running into the alley and not out of it?

When did the DA's recreate the thumps? According to them and you, that should have been a piece of cake, so when did they do this?

What was proven about the thumps is that MF knew about them and his actions were after that were highly questionable. Either MF is telling the truth, that he did not tell VA about the thumps or VA is telling the truth that MF did tell him about the thumps---so who is lying? You pick one, who is the liar?

It was proven that MF could not have seen the blood on the bottom sill of the Bronco unless the door was open. So who is lying? "Strangely" a picture of this blood was not photographed---why? MF watched the photographer take one picture of the tiny blood drop, he didn't feel the need to point out the other blood that he said was visable?

It was also proven that blood was not seen on the socks, on the back gate and in the Bronco when it should have been seen. It was also proven that the bindles were tampered with and that the person who insisted she wrote her initials and made sure the swatches were dry has no answer for this.

It was proven that the detectives lied. It was proven that evidence that was so obvious was either destroyed or simply missed.

What was not proven was what Simpson was wearing, who's gloves they were, that they fit (which by the way, you never did give the measurements on how much the latex would impede the fit), that Simpson even knew what type of shoes he wore, other then sneakers, let alone that he bought a pair.

What also was proven is the man who claimed to have found the glove is a lying racist. However, even if MF is tellling the "truth" that he found the glove there, there is no evidence to support that it was Simpson how dropped it there. In fact, MF is very specific on this this, he claims it was placed there. Could be play on words on his part, but who ever put that glove back there, placed it. Didn't drop it, placed it. IMO.

[GreenIce]

i agree with all you have said about Shapiros work in the case.he was also the one that got Park to say oj was wearing a black overcoat when he came out to get into the limo.which was not true.
one point. oj demoted Shapiro and upgraded Cochran because Shapiro had talked to GG about a plea.

Martin,

In American Tragedy, it has Shapiro tossing out possible theories that included Robert Kardashian in the mix. Simpson lost confidence in Shapiro but did say that he did not want him dismissed from the case and that he owed Shapiro a lot for the team he assembled and the experts he hired.

I never heard that Shapiro went to GG for a plea, I heard it was GG who went to the defense and it was JC. I remember in an interview, GG did say he did approach the defense about a plea but that it was standard practice. JC said that this is standard practice as well and that as a defense lawyer, he feels obligated to listen to any offer that is made as well as bring it to his client. It appeared to me that both men were giving the clear impression that one side approaching the other first does not mean that much.

[tv]

why would he spend his only money looking for her killer 14 years later.
because he initially said he would. long time ago it was time to move on.

He'd rather try to screw other people out of their money. I'm glad no one fell for it. I could show him the real killer very quickly -- just hold up a mirror in front of his face.

If he was moving on why ask someone to put up $3 million to find the 'real' killer. If he was moving on why write a confession book? If he was moving on why try to do a pay per view? Your claim of moving on just doesn't work.

[tv]

TV,

When did the DA's prove how Simpson got behind the wall? How is it that Clark and MF have him running into the alley and not out of it?

When did the DA's recreate the thumps? According to them and you, that should have been a piece of cake, so when did they do this?

What was proven about the thumps is that MF knew about them and his actions were after that were highly questionable. Either MF is telling the truth, that he did not tell VA about the thumps or VA is telling the truth that MF did tell him about the thumps---so who is lying? You pick one, who is the liar?

It was proven that MF could not have seen the blood on the bottom sill of the Bronco unless the door was open. So who is lying? "Strangely" a picture of this blood was not photographed---why? MF watched the photographer take one picture of the tiny blood drop, he didn't feel the need to point out the other blood that he said was visable?

It was also proven that blood was not seen on the socks, on the back gate and in the Bronco when it should have been seen. It was also proven that the bindles were tampered with and that the person who insisted she wrote her initials and made sure the swatches were dry has no answer for this.

It was proven that the detectives lied. It was proven that evidence that was so obvious was either destroyed or simply missed.

What was not proven was what Simpson was wearing, who's gloves they were, that they fit (which by the way, you never did give the measurements on how much the latex would impede the fit), that Simpson even knew what type of shoes he wore, other then sneakers, let alone that he bought a pair.

What also was proven is the man who claimed to have found the glove is a lying racist. However, even if MF is tellling the "truth" that he found the glove there, there is no evidence to support that it was Simpson how dropped it there. In fact, MF is very specific on this this, he claims it was placed there. Could be play on words on his part, but who ever put that glove back there, placed it. Didn't drop it, placed it. IMO.

I'm not even going to address the ridiculous claims you make in this post. We've been over and over this and you still persist in your fantasies. If that's what you choose to believe that's your perogative.

As for me providing 'measurements' on how much the latex would impede the fit -- for once since you've been posting on this board do your own homework. I'm tired of doing it for you and the rest who don't bother to put in the time to provide links and sources.

[tv]

TV,

You often make comments about JC manipulate the emotions of the jurors, what about what the LAPD and the DA's did to manipulate the white populations emotions? Why do think Clark allowed the jury she allowed? Why did Clark "ignore" the warnings about MF? What about the major descrepancies between the detectives and others testimony?

Have you read any of fgump2's posts? How many times does she excuse the piss poor performance of the DA's witnesses because they were careless, because they were tired, because their mamma's didn't breast feed them?

Clark in her closing arguments slammed her own witnesses, she said that one was a racist, a couple of them were dumber then a box a rocks, that the LAPD couldn't even organize a beer run let alone a conspiracy (which we all know that to be untrue) and that the SID members picked the wrong career field.

What about releasing the 911 tape that had the grand jury dismissed, that was not manipulation by the LAPD? What about the round of interviews that the Clark and Garcetti did so quickly after Simpson's arrest? That was not manpulation?

Clark proved Simpson could be a jerk when drank and allegedly said somethings to Nicole that her sister didn't like--that is not manipulation? I don't know if OJ Simpson told Nilcole she was a fat pig when she was carrying his child--but even if he did, that does mean he murdered her. If he grabbed her crotch and said it was hers, if this did happen, again, where is the link to murder?

The defense methoically ripped apart the DA's case. They used emotion to get a conviction in the only court they knew they could get one because it is not a legal verdict, and that is the court of public opinion.

I found it outrageous that both Clark and Darden, after supporting their case and their witnessess for months saying that no racism was involved and when they couldn't deny it any longer, they proceeded on like racism is no big deal, that it has no place in this courtroom, it was for another courtroom and another case--how times has this been said through the years? Well what is the right case? When is the right time to address this cancer in our legal system? When, please tell me when?

You don't even get that the defense knew they couldn't win against all the evidence against Simpson so used the only thing they could -- celebrity and color. You're just another one of cockroach's gullible victims.

[tv]

I bet I know -- arnelle. LOL

What a coincidence -- that's who I was thinking of too!

[weezer]

why would he spend his only money looking for her killer 14 years later.
because he initially said he would. long time ago it was time to move on.

and he did:

orenthal james simpson
felony prisoner
lovelock prison

[fgump2]

Fgump,

Without a doubt, any lawyer would have wanted to know his client's state of mind. A lie detector test, some believe is a great tool to find this out. Simpson's reactions were that of a normal grieving man at that time. His state of mind and his reactions to Nicole's name was "normal" at that time.

You are making unsupported assumptions, such as knowing when the questions that were asked. You are making the absolute false assumption that the timing of the test does not matter. I make no assumptions about the test other than the fact that he flunked it, and as far as I know, never took another one.
If the DA's took Shapiro's offer with the conditions that he gave, would have been documented. Simpson would have had to have been the only person who could have approved this. Shapiro never could have made the offer without Simpson's knowledge or approval. Shapiro making this offer, beliving that Simpson was going to lie is just like letting him take the stand knowing he is going to lie. How long do you think it would have taken the bar to bring charges against Shapiro? I refuse to believe that Shapiro was sticking either his or Simpson's neck out on this. I would believe it if I saw it debated and discussed in some place like TIme, Newsweek, etc. Making meaningless offers a part of public relations. People were probably making meaningless PR offers in ancient Babalonia.
If the DA's were so convinced of Simpson's guilt, then why didn't they accept the offer? Didn't Lange and Vanatter talk about what a great tool the lie detector test was in their interview with Simpson? So why didn't the DA's jump at the chance? Lange and Vannatter might been primarily interested in seeing how Simpson would react to the idea of a lie detector test. I don't think that either Lange or Vannatter necessarily had a high opinion of lie detector tests. Cops often bluff (lie) about things when talking to suspects.
In any case, the DA's made the choice about the lie detector test offer (if it was made).

Shapiro would not risk his reputation or his lifestyle with a bluff like this, IMO. Don't forget, it was Clark who knew of Shapiro, who couldn't even stand him before the trial let alone during it. She never failed to call him nothing but a deal maker and was not a "real" lawyer.

So why didn't she take him up on this offer?
I didn't read her book. I have yet to be convinced that Shapiro made a real offer there. Maybe someone should have asked her back then (1995 or 1996). When did this lie detector offer come up in the media? Is this from the Bailey interview you posted?

[fgump2]

TV,

You often make comments about JC manipulate the emotions of the jurors, what about what the LAPD and the DA's did to manipulate the white populations emotions? Why do think Clark allowed the jury she allowed? Why did Clark "ignore" the warnings about MF? What about the major descrepancies between the detectives and others testimony?

Have you read any of fgump2's posts? How many times does she excuse the piss poor performance of the DA's witnesses because they were careless, because they were tired, because their mamma's didn't breast feed them? First of all I am a 'he', not a 'she'. I don't remember what I wrote about carelessness, mainly that it is an ever present part of human behavior. I also wrote that according the Bugliosi, the LE carelessness level in the SImpson case was about average. I trust Bugliosi. I also wrote that time of day/night estimates are usually not very accurate. My own experience shows this, and Bugliosi agrees with this also. I think the only thing I wrote about tiredness was that Fuhrman would have been sleepy and tired that night, and there fore more cautious than usual. Either Lange, or Vannatter would also have been sleepy for the same reasosn.
I don't claim that this tiredness lead to specific mistakes, i just say it would have made them a bit more cautious than usual, and therefore less likely to tamper with evidence.

Clark in her closing arguments slammed her own witnesses, she said that one was a racist, a couple of them were dumber then a box a rocks, that the LAPD couldn't even organize a beer run let alone a conspiracy (which we all know that to be untrue) and that the SID members picked the wrong career field.

What about releasing the 911 tape that had the grand jury dismissed, that was not manipulation by the LAPD? What about the round of interviews that the Clark and Garcetti did so quickly after Simpson's arrest? That was not manpulation?

Clark proved Simpson could be a jerk when drank and allegedly said somethings to Nicole that her sister didn't like--that is not manipulation? I don't know if OJ Simpson told Nilcole she was a fat pig when she was carrying his child--but even if he did, that does mean he murdered her. If he grabbed her crotch and said it was hers, if this did happen, again, where is the link to murder?

The defense methoically ripped apart the DA's case. They used emotion to get a conviction in the only court they knew they could get one because it is not a legal verdict, and that is the court of public opinion.

I found it outrageous that both Clark and Darden, after supporting their case and their witnessess for months saying that no racism was involved and when they couldn't deny it any longer, they proceeded on like racism is no big deal, that it has no place in this courtroom, it was for another courtroom and another case--how times has this been said through the years? Well what is the right case? When is the right time to address this cancer in our legal system? When, please tell me when?

I didn't agree with every thing that Clark and Darden said or did. I think Darden did write that racism is a serious problem in the United States including in the legal system. I think Darden (and certainly others) objected to the idea of a trial within a trial.

Bugliosi has been involved in legal suits against the LAPD about racist behavior, and I think he has won most of them.

If there was a thread on racism in the legal system would you post on it? You could probably start one. I started one on the blue wall of silence.

[fgump2]

i cannot believe you would ask for a link from me. i and others have made many request of you for links for your claims which you have never honored.

I was needling you because you have asked for links from me. I probably should have researched my posts more and relied less on memory sometimes. Just remember, we are amateurs here.

[GreenIce]

I didn't read her book. I have yet to be convinced that Shapiro made a real offer there. Maybe someone should have asked her back then (1995 or 1996). When did this lie detector offer come up in the media? Is this from the Bailey interview you posted?

fgump2,

I posted an paragraph about what Shapiro said in his book about the lie detector test, he also gave the pages. I don't know if Clark ever mentioned this in her book, if I gave you that impression, I am sorry. I don't remember it if she did.

To the best of my knowledge, Jeff Toobin was the first journalist to write this in his book, "The Run Of His Life". I don't remember if he says how he found out about it.

I agree with you that cops using a lie detector as a bluffing tool is common and IMO, fair game. I have no problem with cops lying about the evidence to get as much information from their suspects as possible. I draw the line when they lie on the stand about issues that do not have to be lied about and to be honest, they know their credibility is on the line every single time they take the stand. The excuses provided for their lies that are not with in the guidelines to questioning are pitiful and painful reminders just how badly we want our cops to always wear the white hat. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I was needling you because you have asked for links from me. I probably should have researched my posts more and relied less on memory sometimes. Just remember, we are amateurs here.

fgump2,

I have to agree with you on this post. I do think sometimes that all of us, have read so much and heard so much that at times some of things run to together and I don't think any one really means to be delibertly be misleading. Too much passion for that, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Book (I want to tell you) $991,743
Video 303,500
Star Photos 433,693
Interviews 75,300
Autographs/Memorbilia 1,013,900
_____________________________
Total $2,818,136

All this from murdering two people. When you're ready to leave the dark side and walk into the light I'll welcome you with open arms. :)

TV,

Right back at you sister, when you are ready to leave the wrong side and come over to the right side, I will not only welcome you with open arms but my people will cook you a feast and give you the key to our planet!:)

[GreenIce]

I didn't agree with every thing that Clark and Darden said or did. I think Darden did write that racism is a serious problem in the United States including in the legal system. I think Darden (and certainly others) objected to the idea of a trial within a trial.

Bugliosi has been involved in legal suits against the LAPD about racist behavior, and I think he has won most of them.

If there was a thread on racism in the legal system would you post on it? You could probably start one. I started one on the blue wall of silence.

Fgump2,

I am sorry, I just assumed that you were a she. I don't know why I thought this, I mean no offense. I thought the only three men were William, Martin and Bob.

First, a detective's credibility, any witness who takes the stand credibilty it always an issue. It makes no difference which side they are testifying for, credibilty is always an issue. Just like it is fair game to ask how much expert witnessesses are getting paid along with their experience and their profession creditials are fair game.

The "trial" within the "trial" in the Simpson case was of the DA's and MF's making. Also, the City of LA also had a hand in this. Do you honestly believe that the DA's and the LAPD were blindsided by this? The defense did not make Clark and the DA's bury their heads in the sand on this issue or on MF. MF claims he tried to tell Clark about it and what was coming, and again she claimed she buried her head---but she did send investigators to his home town to find out he and his brother were in fact racist punks from way back when--before the trial even opened---according to Jeff Toobin's book.

Marcia Clark never had to call MF to the stand, she didn't need him for the glove or she could have excluded the glove from her case. She knew what was coming and she set up MF perfectly for this. IMO, I think she knew about the tapes, I don't think Darden did, but I think she knew about them.

I know that Ron Phillips knew about the tapes and what they were about, why didn't he go to the DA's? He was MF's boss.

You can't blame the defense for MF lying nor can you blame the civillian witnesses who tried to warn the DA's before the trial even started about MF. And these witneses felt that Simpson was guilty.

If you believe that MF went on trial in the Simpson case, then you have to place the squarely on his shoulders and his shoulders alone. However, if you want to put some blame on the DA's and the City of LA, I won't stop you.:)

The problem with VB and others who have said that racism does exist in our system and that police corruption does exists and that there are corrupt people on the government side, during the trial they denied they existed, when they could no longer deny it, they said that it happens in other trials, not in this one. That "everybody" loved OJ Simpson, he was loved "like a white man", he was a hero to all regardless of race, and because of the love, no one would ever do anything like this to him. The claimed his fame exempted him from police corruption and racism. This is just as silly as any one saying that this very same fame would eliminate his ability to kill his wife.

Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Michele Kestler testified on August 14th and August 16th in the criminal trial.

Rovaan,

Thank you for providing the dates. She did testify in the prelim hearing. She was a total bust for the DA's from the moment she took the stand. She worked very hard at being unprofessional and it worked, IMO.

[GreenIce]

The timeline fit very well in the civil trial so that leaves the blood crap on the table.

TV,

Please note, that Martin did start his statement, with "if".

Why were the timelines different in the civil trial? Petrocelli did a brilliant job on this and he was very wise to adopt the defense's timeline. However, what is overlooked, while Petrocelli adopted the timeline, he also also had to add in at least one accomplice to make his timeline work. And it wasn't a very convincing add on, IMO.

[GreenIce]

You don't even get that the defense knew they couldn't win against all the evidence against Simpson so used the only thing they could -- celebrity and color. You're just another one of cockroach's gullible victims.


TV,

Didn't the DA's use Simpson's celebrity as an excuse for the failure of the detectives and the SID team? Clark was very specific in her book on this and she was very vocal on this during her interviews after the case. She felt that the defense already had the celebrity card, that was the only one they needed--and her comments were not directed about the jury.

IMO, it you that is gullible, not me. It is a reality that the most damning blood evidence in this case was found days, weeks and months later. It is a reality that EDTA was found into two stains the defense wanted tested. It is a reality that the some of the blood drops on Bundy were more degraded then others and that it was the DA's claim this happened because of a faulty evidence truck, yet they made a claim, they never proved this nor did they ever attempt to prove this. Clark knew this these blood drops were an issue which is another reason why she didn't use Simpson's statement.

Yes there was alot of evidence, however, only a gullible person would accept it on face value and that the police, detectives and every state witnesses were just too incompetent to do their jobs so you just have to accept the face value of the evidence.

Only a gullible person would believe that everything that comes out of cops is true and should not be questioned. That every DA's is only interested in the truth and they don't care where the cards may fall.

TV, I am going to be honest with you, I was a pretty gullible person on a lot of issues before the Simpson case, sadly, after the case, I no longer am. I cried many tears over this case, but my very tears were for Ron and Nicole because I knew after the prelim hearing, no one was going to be convicted of these crimes because no one was going to be so gullible to believe the testimony of the detectives. If you think I find comfort how this trial affect my beloved America, you are wrong. I may live on a different planet then you, but my flag is your flag and I love that flag more then you could ever know.

[GreenIce]

Fgump2,

You asked me a question if I would post on a thread about racism and/or the blue wall of silence and while I believe that most people would start off posting their true beliefs, it would quickly turn into a verbal melt down.

Several months ago, I made a post about race. Because this case involved black and white, that is the example I will use. I think as hard as William and Martin have tried to explained their feelings on this and I do believe that some people have tried very hard to understand their feelings, it still boils down to a seeing person trying to explain the color red to a blind person. It is like a hearing person trying to explain to the beauty of a music lyric to a deaf person. Yes, the deaf person can feel the beat of the music, may be able to read the lips of the singer and know the words of the song, but that person is still deaf and can't possibly understand the full beauty of the music.

I feel the same way about gender. There is no way a man can possibily understand the pain of giving birth to a child, however, I do not believe the pain of childbirth makes a woman automatically a better parent or she has a closer bond with the child.

I do believe there are some posters who have made it obvious and they are true, as Americans, we can be the big and baddest racist there is but does that mean you can't do your job? Does that mean you will abuse any position of authority?

There is also the very real "accidential" racist. I will use people who have been POW's or were interned in camps during the various wars, most notably WWII. Can you blame any Jew who hates Germans and Germany even after all these years? Can you blame an Japanese person who still harbors deep distrust in white people because of how they were interned in their own country? Can you blame a white person who surivied the Baatan Death March for shaking every time they see a Japanese person, regardless of where they were born?

During the Simpson trial, I have never heard so many ignorant statements being made about race. The truth of Simpsons love was never talked about it. Simpson only married Nicole because he wanted a white wife for advancement into the white world. Nicole only stayed with Simpson because of the money.

That black people on the jury should have voted to convict Simpson based on the color of his wife's skin and that he left his 'hood and never went back to it. Simpson's civil rights actions weren't on trial, yet they were put on trial. Many people like to talk about how MF went on trial during the case, but no one talks about how Simpson's "blackness" went on trial.

As for the Blue Wall of Silence, again, I think that is great a topic but I consider the cops denying that there is this wall is like members of the mob denying their is a "mafia".

I do believe that the Blue of Wall of Silence is considered to be a major part of the "Brotherhood" of the cops. I think cops do have a unique bond, like that of service people and while a majority of them are honest and believe in the principals of their job, they feel the need to bury the "bad apples" and the truth--one bad apple does spoil the whole bunch.

I have also posted that I didn't know what I would do if I was a cop in the Simpson case and I believed or knew that evidence was tampered with and/or planted. Would I have the courage to risk the wrath of my fellow officers if I spoke out? Would I risk my ability to feed my family or even my life? Especially, if I thought he was guilty?

I have also posted I think it is very easy to convince someone they did or didn't do something when the alternative is just to hard to think about. Many times you mention that DF was asked if he did this out of "fear" his boss or Lange and Vanatter. What if he did do it out of fear but it wasn't done out of fear of humans but it was done out of fear how it would make his beloved department look?

Do any of us want to believe our coworkers are capable of doing such things?

Again, these are just my feelings.

[tv]

if the time line did not fit just forget the blood crap.

GreenIce pointed out your use of the word 'If'. Does that mean you aren't sure the timeline didn't fit?

[tv]

TV,

Please note, that Martin did start his statement, with "if".

Why were the timelines different in the civil trial? Petrocelli did a brilliant job on this and he was very wise to adopt the defense's timeline. However, what is overlooked, while Petrocelli adopted the timeline, he also also had to add in at least one accomplice to make his timeline work. And it wasn't a very convincing add on, IMO.

No, he didn't add an accomplice to the murders themselves. He thinks Simpson had help in washing the sweats but Petrocelli never said there had to be an accomplice in order for his timeline to work. He's talking about an accessory after the fact. I just love how you throw that little grain of truth in there. ;)

[tv]

TV,

Right back at you sister, when you are ready to leave the wrong side and come over to the right side, I will not only welcome you with open arms but my people will cook you a feast and give you the key to our planet!:)
So kind of you to extend the invitation but I must decline. Nothing will ever make me defend a man who is obviously a cold blooded double-murderer. :)

[martin II]

GreenIce pointed out your use of the word 'If'. Does that mean you aren't sure the timeline didn't fit?

my use of the word if does not mean that i have not made my position clear on the time line.i think you know this.

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

I am sorry, I just assumed that you were a she. I don't know why I thought this, I mean no offense. I thought the only three men were William, Martin and Bob. My feelings weren't hurt by that.
First, a detective's credibility, any witness who takes the stand credibilty it always an issue. It makes no difference which side they are testifying for, credibilty is always an issue. Just like it is fair game to ask how much expert witnessesses are getting paid along with their experience and their profession creditials are fair game.

The "trial" within the "trial" in the Simpson case was of the DA's and MF's making. Also, the City of LA also had a hand in this. Do you honestly believe that the DA's and the LAPD were blindsided by this? The defense did not make Clark and the DA's bury their heads in the sand on this issue or on MF. MF claims he tried to tell Clark about it and what was coming, and again she claimed she buried her head---but she did send investigators to his home town to find out he and his brother were in fact racist punks from way back when--before the trial even opened---according to Jeff Toobin's book.

Marcia Clark never had to call MF to the stand, she didn't need him for the glove or she could have excluded the glove from her case. She knew what was coming and she set up MF perfectly for this. IMO, I think she knew about the tapes, I don't think Darden did, but I think she knew about them.

I know that Ron Phillips knew about the tapes and what they were about, why didn't he go to the DA's? He was MF's boss.

You can't blame the defense for MF lying nor can you blame the civillian witnesses who tried to warn the DA's before the trial even started about MF. And these witneses felt that Simpson was guilty.

If you believe that MF went on trial in the Simpson case, then you have to place the squarely on his shoulders and his shoulders alone. However, if you want to put some blame on the DA's and the City of LA, I won't stop you.:)

The problem with VB and others who have said that racism does exist in our system and that police corruption does exists and that there are corrupt people on the government side, during the trial they denied they existed, when they could no longer deny it, they said that it happens in other trials, not in this one. That "everybody" loved OJ Simpson, he was loved "like a white man", he was a hero to all regardless of race, and because of the love, no one would ever do anything like this to him. The claimed his fame exempted him from police corruption and racism. This is just as silly as any one saying that this very same fame would eliminate his ability to kill his wife.

Again, IMO.
One thing I know about a lot of white racists is that many of them will consider black celebrities as honorary white people. Years ago I read about a black college football player who was mistreated by the police. A cop apologized to him and said 'If we had known who you were we wouldn't have treated you that way'. The football star replied 'What difference does it make who I am?’ Of course I don't know how many white racists would act this way. This doesn't add much to the discussion but it does give a possible explanation for why Fuhrman didn't arrest Simpson or at least hassle him a bit when he saw the car with the windshield that Simpson broke, and Nicole was nearby crying.

Pro OJS people almost never comment on the fact that the police coddled Simpson for years. The police had at least one tape of him yelling insults at Nicole and at least one arrest report that they could have released to the police. It would have been easy for them to turn the stuff over to the news media that deals with this.

I got two replies to this when I posted this information before. The first reply was that it wouldn't have ruined his career. The second reply is that a murder conviction would have harmed him more than the facts about his problems with Nicole.

The fact is that if it didn't destroy his career and or reputation; it would have damaged it. The feminist movement was strong then, and violence against women was a public issue. Also if we assume that there was significant resentment against Mr. Simpson for marrying a white woman, this would have given white racists an excuse to slam him.

As for the fact that a murder conviction would have damaged him more. That is true, he couldn’t do PR work from prison. But the fact is that if police framed him, they were taking a big risk. They would have taken almost no risk in sending information to the Nat. Enq. or some similar part of the news media.

I don't think that Bugliosi denied that racial prejudice was a factor in the trial.

[martin II]

Fgump2,

You asked me a question if I would post on a thread about racism and/or the blue wall of silence and while I believe that most people would start off posting their true beliefs, it would quickly turn into a verbal melt down.

Several months ago, I made a post about race. Because this case involved black and white, that is the example I will use. I think as hard as William and Martin have tried to explained their feelings on this and I do believe that some people have tried very hard to understand their feelings, it still boils down to a seeing person trying to explain the color red to a blind person. It is like a hearing person trying to explain to the beauty of a music lyric to a deaf person. Yes, the deaf person can feel the beat of the music, may be able to read the lips of the singer and know the words of the song, but that person is still deaf and can't possibly understand the full beauty of the music.

I feel the same way about gender. There is no way a man can possibily understand the pain of giving birth to a child, however, I do not believe the pain of childbirth makes a woman automatically a better parent or she has a closer bond with the child.

I do believe there are some posters who have made it obvious and they are true, as Americans, we can be the big and baddest racist there is but does that mean you can't do your job? Does that mean you will abuse any position of authority?

There is also the very real "accidential" racist. I will use people who have been POW's or were interned in camps during the various wars, most notably WWII. Can you blame any Jew who hates Germans and Germany even after all these years? Can you blame an Japanese person who still harbors deep distrust in white people because of how they were interned in their own country? Can you blame a white person who surivied the Baatan Death March for shaking every time they see a Japanese person, regardless of where they were born?

During the Simpson trial, I have never heard so many ignorant statements being made about race. The truth of Simpsons love was never talked about it. Simpson only married Nicole because he wanted a white wife for advancement into the white world. Nicole only stayed with Simpson because of the money.

That black people on the jury should have voted to convict Simpson based on the color of his wife's skin and that he left his 'hood and never went back to it. Simpson's civil rights actions weren't on trial, yet they were put on trial. Many people like to talk about how MF went on trial during the case, but no one talks about how Simpson's "blackness" went on trial.

As for the Blue Wall of Silence, again, I think that is great a topic but I consider the cops denying that there is this wall is like members of the mob denying their is a "mafia".

I do believe that the Blue of Wall of Silence is considered to be a major part of the "Brotherhood" of the cops. I think cops do have a unique bond, like that of service people and while a majority of them are honest and believe in the principals of their job, they feel the need to bury the "bad apples" and the truth--one bad apple does spoil the whole bunch.

I have also posted that I didn't know what I would do if I was a cop in the Simpson case and I believed or knew that evidence was tampered with and/or planted. Would I have the courage to risk the wrath of my fellow officers if I spoke out? Would I risk my ability to feed my family or even my life? Especially, if I thought he was guilty?

I have also posted I think it is very easy to convince someone they did or didn't do something when the alternative is just to hard to think about. Many times you mention that DF was asked if he did this out of "fear" his boss or Lange and Vanatter. What if he did do it out of fear but it wasn't done out of fear of humans but it was done out of fear how it would make his beloved department look?

Do any of us want to believe our coworkers are capable of doing such things?

Again, these are just my feelings.

Your post rings true in many areas.:beer:

[martin II]

One thing I know about a lot of white racists is that many of them will consider black celebrities as honorary white people. Years ago I read about a black college football player who was mistreated by the police. A cop apologized to him and said 'If we had known who you were we wouldn't have treated you that way'. The football star replied 'What difference does it make who I am?’ Of course I don't know how many white racists would act this way. This doesn't add much to the discussion but it does give a possible explanation for why Fuhrman didn't arrest Simpson or at least hassle him a bit when he saw the car with the windshield that Simpson broke, and Nicole was nearby crying.

Pro OJS people almost never comment on the fact that the police coddled Simpson for years. The police had at least one tape of him yelling insults at Nicole and at least one arrest report that they could have released to the police. It would have been easy for them to turn the stuff over to the news media that deals with this.

I got two replies to this when I posted this information before. The first reply was that it wouldn't have ruined his career. The second reply is that a murder conviction would have harmed him more than the facts about his problems with Nicole.

The fact is that if it didn't destroy his career and or reputation; it would have damaged it. The feminist movement was strong then, and violence against women was a public issue. Also if we assume that there was significant resentment against Mr. Simpson for marrying a white woman, this would have given white racists an excuse to slam him.

As for the fact that a murder conviction would have damaged him more. That is true, he couldn’t do PR work from prison. But the fact is that if police framed him, they were taking a big risk. They would have taken almost no risk in sending information to the Nat. Enq. or some similar part of the news media.

I don't think that Bugliosi denied that racial prejudice was a factor in the trial.

Many cities are forced to pay large civil judgememts to citizens for le physical abuse, planting, lying in testimony and framing of defendants.If there was framing of oj the cops would not be taking any more chance than they had taken in other cases where misconduct was proven. Remember the city of la paid $100,000 to a defendant to get rid of a planting claim involving furhman
just before the oj case started.

[tv]

my use of the word if does not mean that i have not made my position clear on the time line.i think you know this.

Maybe you need to tell this to GreenIce. She doesn't seem to know.

[martin II]

No, he didn't add an accomplice to the murders themselves. He thinks Simpson had help in washing the sweats but Petrocelli never said there had to be an accomplice in order for his timeline to work. He's talking about an accessory after the fact. I just love how you throw that little grain of truth in there. ;)

Ptoro also offered his goofy idea that oj had entered his property by climbing up on the salingers car garage and jumping over onto his walkway.

[tv]

TV,

Didn't the DA's use Simpson's celebrity as an excuse for the failure of the detectives and the SID team? Clark was very specific in her book on this and she was very vocal on this during her interviews after the case. She felt that the defense already had the celebrity card, that was the only one they needed--and her comments were not directed about the jury. I haven't read Clark's book so I can't say if this is truthful or not.

IMO, it you that is gullible, not me. It is a reality that the most damning blood evidence in this case was found days, weeks and months later. No matter how many times you make this statement it's not true. It is a reality that EDTA was found into two stains the defense wanted tested. EDTA is found in human blood. It is a reality that the some of the blood drops on Bundy were more degraded then others and that it was the DA's claim this happened because of a faulty evidence truck, yet they made a claim, they never proved this nor did they ever attempt to prove this. One blood drop wasn't entered into evidence due to degradation. Clark knew this these blood drops were an issue which is another reason why she didn't use Simpson's statement. Balogna.

Yes there was alot of evidence, however, only a gullible person would accept it on face value and that the police, detectives and every state witnesses were just too incompetent to do their jobs so you just have to accept the face value of the evidence. There's that grand conspiracy again.

Only a gullible person would believe that everything that comes out of cops is true and should not be questioned. That every DA's is only interested in the truth and they don't care where the cards may fall. I've been critical of the prosecution. Only a gullible person would believe everything out of OJ Simpson and his defense with all the evidence against him.

TV, I am going to be honest with you, I was a pretty gullible person on a lot of issues before the Simpson case, sadly, after the case, I no longer am. I cried many tears over this case, but my very tears were for Ron and Nicole because I knew after the prelim hearing, no one was going to be convicted of these crimes because no one was going to be so gullible to believe the testimony of the detectives. If you think I find comfort how this trial affect my beloved America, you are wrong. I may live on a different planet then you, but my flag is your flag and I love that flag more then you could ever know. Loving the flag means believing in what it stands for --love of the flag means that everyone has the right to peace and pursuit of happiness. No one should be beaten or have their lives cut short because one man couldn't control his rage and jealousy.

Once again, you're wrong. :shrug:

[tv]

Ptoro also offered his goofy idea that oj had entered his property by climbing up on the salingers car garage and jumping over onto his walkway.
I don't know who Ptoro is but it's never mattered to me how he got back there...next thing you know if the prosecution didn't know what color Simpson's underwear was you'll say they were wrong about everything.

[martin II]

Maybe you need to tell this to GreenIce. She doesn't seem to know.

tv

you should stop trying to use my post as a means to get at GI
i have no problem with anything she has posted therefore i have no need to tell her anything. i am sure you understand my position on the timeline.There is no reason for you to try to drag her into MY position or your dissagreement with it.imo

[tv]

Fgump2,

You asked me a question if I would post on a thread about racism and/or the blue wall of silence and while I believe that most people would start off posting their true beliefs, it would quickly turn into a verbal melt down.

Several months ago, I made a post about race. Because this case involved black and white, that is the example I will use. I think as hard as William and Martin have tried to explained their feelings on this and I do believe that some people have tried very hard to understand their feelings, it still boils down to a seeing person trying to explain the color red to a blind person. It is like a hearing person trying to explain to the beauty of a music lyric to a deaf person. Yes, the deaf person can feel the beat of the music, may be able to read the lips of the singer and know the words of the song, but that person is still deaf and can't possibly understand the full beauty of the music.

I feel the same way about gender. There is no way a man can possibily understand the pain of giving birth to a child, however, I do not believe the pain of childbirth makes a woman automatically a better parent or she has a closer bond with the child.

I do believe there are some posters who have made it obvious and they are true, as Americans, we can be the big and baddest racist there is but does that mean you can't do your job? Does that mean you will abuse any position of authority?

There is also the very real "accidential" racist. I will use people who have been POW's or were interned in camps during the various wars, most notably WWII. Can you blame any Jew who hates Germans and Germany even after all these years? Can you blame an Japanese person who still harbors deep distrust in white people because of how they were interned in their own country? Can you blame a white person who surivied the Baatan Death March for shaking every time they see a Japanese person, regardless of where they were born?

During the Simpson trial, I have never heard so many ignorant statements being made about race. The truth of Simpsons love was never talked about it. Simpson only married Nicole because he wanted a white wife for advancement into the white world. Nicole only stayed with Simpson because of the money.

That black people on the jury should have voted to convict Simpson based on the color of his wife's skin and that he left his 'hood and never went back to it. Simpson's civil rights actions weren't on trial, yet they were put on trial. Many people like to talk about how MF went on trial during the case, but no one talks about how Simpson's "blackness" went on trial.

As for the Blue Wall of Silence, again, I think that is great a topic but I consider the cops denying that there is this wall is like members of the mob denying their is a "mafia".

I do believe that the Blue of Wall of Silence is considered to be a major part of the "Brotherhood" of the cops. I think cops do have a unique bond, like that of service people and while a majority of them are honest and believe in the principals of their job, they feel the need to bury the "bad apples" and the truth--one bad apple does spoil the whole bunch.

I have also posted that I didn't know what I would do if I was a cop in the Simpson case and I believed or knew that evidence was tampered with and/or planted. Would I have the courage to risk the wrath of my fellow officers if I spoke out? Would I risk my ability to feed my family or even my life? Especially, if I thought he was guilty?

I have also posted I think it is very easy to convince someone they did or didn't do something when the alternative is just to hard to think about. Many times you mention that DF was asked if he did this out of "fear" his boss or Lange and Vanatter. What if he did do it out of fear but it wasn't done out of fear of humans but it was done out of fear how it would make his beloved department look?

Do any of us want to believe our coworkers are capable of doing such things?

Again, these are just my feelings.

How about being a white person who feels everyone is the same and has the same rights and privileges but you're continually accused of racism because you believe a black man killed two white people? How about it being insinuated that if you didn't vote for Obama you are against having a black president? How about being told that no matter what you say or do you will always be held accountable for slavery? There are two sides to this issue whether you want to face it or not.

[tv]

tv

you should stop trying to use my post as a means to get at GI
i have no problem with anything she has posted therefore i have no need to tell her anything. i am sure you understand my position on the timeline.There is no reason for you to try to drag her into MY position or your dissagreement with it.imo

Oh, stop, martin. GreenIce knows I like her. :) Besides, she's the one that mentioned your use of the word IF.

Seriously, have you ever considered developing a sense of humor?

[martin II]

I don't know who Ptoro is but it's never mattered to me how he got back there...next thing you know if the prosecution didn't know what color Simpson's underwear was you'll say they were wrong about everything.

PETRO IS HIS NAME.

Since there was no evidence that oj was back there i guess it made sense to say it did not matter.But it did matter to the jury and the prosecution as they tried in vain to explain this problem.

[tv]

PETRO IS HIS NAME.

Since there was no evidence that oj was back there i guess it made sense to say it did not matter.But it did matter to the jury and the prosecution as they tried in vain to explain this problem.

You mean like Shap, Coch and Sche? Since you seem to keep forgetting I'll remind you that the evidence that he was in possession of the glove that night was his DNA on the glove and the DNA of the victims on the glove.

[martin II]

Oh, stop, martin. GreenIce knows I like her. :) Besides, she's the one that mentioned your use of the word IF.

Seriously, have you ever considered developing a sense of humor?

dodge ball

[tv]

dodge ball

I know your position on the timeline. GreenIce brought it into question. You're complaining to the wrong person.

[martin II]

You mean like Shap, Coch and Sche? Since you seem to keep forgetting I'll remind you that the evidence that he was in possession of the glove that night was his DNA on the glove and the DNA of the victims on the glove.

All created in that lab.

[tv]

All created in that lab.

No proof.

[martin II]

How about being a white person who feels everyone is the same and has the same rights and privileges but you're continually accused of racism because you believe a black man killed two white people? How about it being insinuated that if you didn't vote for Obama you are against having a black president? How about being told that no matter what you say or do you will always be held accountable for slavery? There are two sides to this issue whether you want to face it or not.

i don't think anyone has ever accused you of being responsible for slavery.that is nonsense. i have seen no post accusing you of anything for voting republican that was your choice.obama won by such a large margin i don't see how your vote would have changed anything.imo

[martin II]

No proof.

tv
your problem is you have no proof of whose blood was on that glove when it was found in the walkway.you are just accepting what the prosecution told you.
Remember how ojs samples were switched that Mazzola collected.

[tv]

tv
your problem is you have no proof of whose blood was on that glove when it was found in the walkway.you are just accepting what the prosecution told you.
Remember how ojs samples were switched that Mazzola collected.

Even the defense didn't try to say it wasn't OJ Simpson's blood.

[tv]

i don't think anyone has ever accused you of being responsible for slavery.that is nonsense. i have seen no post accusing you of anything for voting republican that was your choice.obama won by such a large margin i don't see how your vote would have changed anything.imo

I don't discuss these issues with you and you know why. Thanks for telling me my vote isn't important. Maybe next time yours won't be. :seeya:

[martin II]

You mean like Shap, Coch and Sche? Since you seem to keep forgetting I'll remind you that the evidence that he was in possession of the glove that night was his DNA on the glove and the DNA of the victims on the glove.

Are you trying to incite anger by the use of Shap,Coch and Sche to identify members of the defence team. Whats up with that.i can spell their names if you don't know how.

[martin II]

I don't discuss these issues with you and you know why. Thanks for telling me my vote isn't important. Maybe next time yours won't be. :seeya:

i did not say your vote was not important. i am sure it was to you. it just did not change anything as most Americans had a different view of the candidates than you.

[tv]

i did not say your vote was not important. i am sure it was to you. it just did not chasnge anything as most Americans had a different view of the candidates than you.

Sometimes you leave me speechless. :rolleyes:

[tv]

Are you trying to incite anger by the use of Shap,Coch and Sche to identify members of the defence team. Whats up with that.i can spell their names if you don't know how.

I can spell Petrocelli for you if you don't know how.

[martin II]

Sometimes you leave me speechless. :rolleyes:

i had no idea.
Is that a good thing?

[tv]

i had no idea.
Is that a good thing?

I'm sure to you it is.

[martin II]

I can spell Petrocelli for you if you don't know how.

Petrocelli

[martin II]

I'm sure to you it is.

i never gave it a thought.

[weezer]

I don't discuss these issues with you and you know why. Thanks for telling me my vote isn't important. Maybe next time yours won't be. :seeya:

:beer::beer::patriot:

[tv]

:beer::beer::patriot:

Love your quote.:patriot:

[GreenIce]

How about being a white person who feels everyone is the same and has the same rights and privileges but you're continually accused of racism because you believe a black man killed two white people? How about it being insinuated that if you didn't vote for Obama you are against having a black president? How about being told that no matter what you say or do you will always be held accountable for slavery? There are two sides to this issue whether you want to face it or not.

TV,

Your post is an example of what I have I have been trying to say. I believe OJ fell in love with a younger woman named, Nicole. Nicole fell in love with an older man, named OJ. OJ did fall in love with Nicole because she was white and Nicole did not fall in love with OJ because he was black. I know that you believe Simpson is guilty, but do believe he killed Nicole because she was white? Their love and in your case, her murder had nothing to do with race.

One of the major problems I have with the media is how they said that by marrying Nicole, OJ was betraying his race. That he loved Nicole's white skin and not the woman. That Nicole, only loved OJ because he was was more "green" then black---in other words, she married him even though he was black because he was a millionaire. OJ and Nicole both went on trial because they married outside their race, was that an issue that should have ever come up in the trial? Should OJ's "civil rights" and what he had done or hasn't done to help his race been a trial within a trial of him?

Be honest TV, how many times have you posted comments about a majority black jury aquitting a man who you feel should turned his back on his own people by marrying her? By committing the crime aganist of humanity of having several friends, close friends who were white?

One of the reasons why I have have issue with with VB's book, "Outrage" is because of a comment he made that appeared was so racist and disgusting to me but was applauded by many white people. His comment was, "OJ Simpson couldn't find his way to back his 'hood if he was given a map." Or something very close to that.

Tell me TV, what does that comment mean to you? Is that a fair comment to make?

BTW, I didn't vote President Obama.

[GreenIce]

No, he didn't add an accomplice to the murders themselves. He thinks Simpson had help in washing the sweats but Petrocelli never said there had to be an accomplice in order for his timeline to work. He's talking about an accessory after the fact. I just love how you throw that little grain of truth in there. ;)

TV,

Why did the DA's give one timeline of the murders and plaintiffs give another?
DA's timeline included Simpson getting rid of the evidence between Bundy and Rockingham. Petrocelli knew he had to adopt the defense's timeline and he had to add an complice--to get rid of that said evidence. IMO.

[tv]

TV,

Your post is an example of what I have I have been trying to say. I believe OJ fell in love with a younger woman named, Nicole. Nicole fell in love with an older man, named OJ. OJ did fall in love with Nicole because she was white and Nicole did not fall in love with OJ because he was black. I know that you believe Simpson is guilty, but do believe he killed Nicole because she was white? Their love and in your case, her murder had nothing to do with race. Do you acutally believe it's possible that I think Simpson killed Nicole because she's white?

One of the major problems I have with the media is how they said that by marrying Nicole, OJ was betraying his race. That he loved Nicole's white skin and not the woman. That Nicole, only loved OJ because he was was more "green" then black---in other words, she married him even though he was black because he was a millionaire. OJ and Nicole both went on trial because they married outside their race, was that an issue that should have ever come up in the trial? Should OJ's "civil rights" and what he had done or hasn't done to help his race been a trial within a trial of him? Where do you get that they both went on trial for marrying outside their race?

Be honest TV, how many times have you posted comments about a majority black jury aquitting a man who you feel should turned his back on his own people by marrying her? Never. By committing the crime aganist of humanity of having several friends, close friends who were white? Never.

One of the reasons why I have have issue with with VB's book, "Outrage" is because of a comment he made that appeared was so racist and disgusting to me but was applauded by many white people. His comment was, "OJ Simpson couldn't find his way to back his 'hood if he was given a map." Or something very close to that. Since when is stating the truth disgusting?

Tell me TV, what does that comment mean to you? Is that a fair comment to make? Very fair and very true.

BTW, I didn't vote President Obama.

Then your vote wasn't important and didn't count -- according to martin.

[tv]

TV,

Why did the DA's give one timeline of the murders and plaintiffs give another?
DA's timeline included Simpson getting rid of the evidence between Bundy and Rockingham. Petrocelli knew he had to adopt the defense's timeline and he had to add an complice--to get rid of that said evidence. IMO.

Petrocelli knew nothing of the sort. He did not have to add an accomplice to get rid of the evidence to fit the timeline -- that's his theory of why the alarm wasn't activated on the door and why the sweats were in the washer and then disappeared. Sorry he was able to prove that the murders could have been committed in the defense's timeline but that's just the way it is.

[GreenIce]

Then your vote wasn't important and didn't count -- according to martin.

TV,

IMO, that was not what Martin met. Every vote counts because that is how we determine the victor in our elections. Our votes did "not count" in a victory for Senator McCain. However, it is possible to win the office of President but lose the popular vote because of the Electricol (sp?) College.

My quote:
"One of the reasons why I have have issue with with VB's book, "Outrage" is because of a comment he made that appeared was so racist and disgusting to me but was applauded by many white people. His comment was, "OJ Simpson couldn't find his way to back his 'hood if he was given a map." Or something very close to that."

Your Response:
Since when is stating the truth disgusting?


TV,

Do you truly not understand what a racist comment that VB made? I asked you to explain what you thought VB meant by these comments. It appears to me that your response is in full support of VB's comments and I do think that it makes it very easy for someone to believe that if you support this comment, you can be very easily mistaken for a racist.

I don't get the vibe that you are, but some of your comments can very taken that you are.

Our country was founded on a dream and I believe in that dream. IMO, it appears to me that VB feels that only white people are entitled to this dream. White people are the only people who can dream of bigger and better life then the one in which were born into. That only white people have right to fulfill those dreams and have permission to move into the better the homes or mansions and that the only white people have the right to pick the color and creed of their spouses as well as the color of their friends.

What about all the actors---are they all suppose to move only up the road of their parents' home? Not move out of state. Don't spend the money they have earned? Is it only white people who have this luxury?

IMO, VB is saying that the "American Dream" is nothing more then a "White's Only" club.

Does VB and every rich and famous white person need a map to go back to their 'hoods? Or is only black people?

One more thing, in MF's book, I said that I thought it was filled with subtle racist comments, you said you read the same book and didn't find that. I have you an example of what I meant. When MF said that the black jurors didn't care that he beat his white wife. You had no response to that, why?

Either MF is saying that the black jurors would have cared if he beat his black wife or that white people could careless if black husband beats his black wife. How many times did you here the comments had Simpson killed his black wife, it would not have gotten this much press and attention and the country would not have followed this case like it did.

[hellraiser]

His comment was, "OJ Simpson couldn't find his way to back his 'hood if he was given a map." Or something very close to that.

Is that a fair comment to make?



if you present solely that line, sure it sounds racist.

but bugliosi uttered that within the CONTEXT of how he described oj's non-interest in the black community so within that context that line isn't crude or racist or whatsoever.

[tv]

TV,

IMO, that was not what Martin met. Every vote counts because that is how we determine the victor in our elections. Our votes did "not count" in a victory for Senator McCain. However, it is possible to win the office of President but lose the popular vote because of the Electricol (sp?) College. What he said is in black and white -- twist it however you like.

My quote:
"One of the reasons why I have have issue with with VB's book, "Outrage" is because of a comment he made that appeared was so racist and disgusting to me but was applauded by many white people. His comment was, "OJ Simpson couldn't find his way to back his 'hood if he was given a map." Or something very close to that."

Your Response:
Since when is stating the truth disgusting?


TV,

Do you truly not understand what a racist comment that VB made? I asked you to explain what you thought VB meant by these comments. It appears to me that your response is in full support of VB's comments and I do think that it makes it very easy for someone to believe that if you support this comment, you can be very easily mistaken for a racist. That's exactly what's wrong with race relations in this country. No progress can be made because the slightest comment is labeled racist. I don't care what you think of me -- I know who and what I am.

I don't get the vibe that you are, but some of your comments can very taken that you are. Again, I don't care what vibes you're getting but I'm tired of having every comment analyzed to the nth degree.

Our country was founded on a dream and I believe in that dream. IMO, it appears to me that VB feels that only white people are entitled to this dream. White people are the only people who can dream of bigger and better life then the one in which were born into. That only white people have right to fulfill those dreams and have permission to move into the better the homes or mansions and that the only white people have the right to pick the color and creed of their spouses as well as the color of their friends. If you believe this you know nothing about Mr. Bugliosi. He is one of the most outspoken critics of LE and racial inequality.

What about all the actors---are they all suppose to move only up the road of their parents' home? Not move out of state. Don't spend the money they have earned? Is it only white people who have this luxury? You've finally jumped off the deep end.

IMO, VB is saying that the "American Dream" is nothing more then a "White's Only" club. You're very uninformed.

Does VB and every rich and famous white person need a map to go back to their 'hoods? Or is only black people? You shouldn't make these statements when you're so uninformed about what you're trying to sound intelligent commenting on.

One more thing, in MF's book, I said that I thought it was filled with subtle racist comments, you said you read the same book and didn't find that. I have you an example of what I meant. When MF said that the black jurors didn't care that he beat his white wife. You had no response to that, why? If I didn't respond it's because you made a false statement. You are misquoting as usual. Please quote directly or list a page number for this statement.

Either MF is saying that the black jurors would have cared if he beat his black wife or that white people could careless if black husband beats his black wife. How many times did you here the comments had Simpson killed his black wife, it would not have gotten this much press and attention and the country would not have followed this case like it did. I've never heard that and don't believe it.

I've never seen anyone misquote and slant the facts of the case like you do. :shrug:

[martin II]

Then your vote wasn't important and didn't count -- according to martin.

I see you are still making a effort to drag GI into a dissagreement you have with me.

[GreenIce]

Petrocelli knew nothing of the sort. He did not have to add an accomplice to get rid of the evidence to fit the timeline -- that's his theory of why the alarm wasn't activated on the door and why the sweats were in the washer and then disappeared. Sorry he was able to prove that the murders could have been committed in the defense's timeline but that's just the way it is.

TV,

First off, Petrocelli had no proof of his washing the sweats theory. You yourself made this very clear when you slammed me about a question asked about this. Even the interviewers on this book tour made it clear that Petrocelli had no right to make these comments because he could not prove them.

In regards to the alarm, you have no proof that Arnelle was lying and the 4 lead detectives were telling the truth. They lied when they said that Arnelle thought her father was in the house. They lied about their interest in the maid and not knowing where Simpson was after Kato clearly told them at least twice, that Simpson was out of town.

Isn't it the G's theory that someone tried to clean up the Bronco? It couldn't have been Simpson according to Petrocelli's timeline.

And we have been over the "sweats" a million times, there has never been any testimony in either trial of the person who took the video tape of the contents of the washing machine that the dark clothes said to have been a large, man's sweat suit, was in fact a sweat suit. Dennis Fung never testifed that the clothes he took out of the washing machine was a sweat suit.

MF does make an interesting comment. He wants to know why Clark says the sweats were upstairs in the hamper when several other people knew they were located in washing machine. When did Fung testify the sweats were in the hamper?

Kato's thoughts on what Simpson was wearing that night were mistake. If you read Kato's testimony, he was asked about how many times he saw Simpson that day and he was asked what was Simpson wearing every time, how many times did he get it right?

There was no scientific evidence introduced into the trial that the fibers found on Ron's Shirt were in fact from a sweat suit. You your self said that this determination could not be made.

Last point, if Kato is correct, then the sweats should have had a white zipper, where is the picture of sweats laid out? Where is the picture of the white stripes and/or zipper?