Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

I will only say this and hope the moderator sees fits to review all the posts to discover that anyone who questions whether or not Simpson was dealt with fairly or in anyway tries to defend him to include the lawyers, reporters, and the jury have negative comments, insults and unwarranted accusations hurled their way. I hope the moderator will not act hastily but take the time to see who starts this and send them some warning because I believe that all are allowed to express opinions and links on this board, even if they are unpopular so long as they are done within the rules.

[Jayme K]

I found no listing of his testimony in the criminal trial.

please give a link to his criminal trial testimony if you are so sure.

Date and who called him.

LMFAO. Leave it to you to be so demanding. :rolleyes:

[Jayme K]

I will only say this and hope the moderator sees fits to review all the posts to discover that anyone who questions whether or not Simpson was dealt with fairly or in anyway tries to defend him to include the lawyers, reporters, and the jury have negative comments, insults and unwarranted accusations hurled their way. I hope the moderator will not act hastily but take the time to see who starts this and send them some warning because I believe that all are allowed to express opinions and links on this board, even if they are unpopular so long as they are done within the rules.

Yeah, I sure do hope the moderator reviews the garbage of you and martin.

[martin II]

LOL, doesn't take long to figure that out! This forum is going to end up tanking again because of those two. But it never fails when you've got two guys with chips on their shoulder who try to beat up every new person that tries to come here and chat about their thoughts.

i have not tried to beat up anyone.i have posted trial testimony and given my opinions i am allowed to do by the rules.I also try to stay away from personal attacks.imo

[William Anthony]

You are SO rude.

Where's your rebuttal to Judge Ito's words? I'm guessing you don't have one and the above response is kinda like a vintage Simpson deal - say something stupid when you've got nothing else.

I think judge Ito change his rules and allowed the defense to recall MF and that's when MF decided to take the 5th. I think that is what Martin was referring to but I might be wrong and he can answer for himself, if he sees fit.

[William Anthony]

Yeah, I sure do hope the moderator reviews the garbage of you and martin.

With this, I bid you good day.

[Jayme K]

I despise the conduct of those who take an oath to serve and protect all citizens and don't uphold the oath. I know of a lot of people, who make jokes about LE drinking coffee and eating pastries and not doing their duty. Those people, who despise LE for breaking their oath, and Serpico was a member of LE himself do not hate the person but do hate their conduct, imho. I am able to separate the two, whether or not you believe it. I loath MF's conduct but I do not hate him. He is not one that I would choose to associate with and I am sure he would feel the same about me. I think that to realize that there are some people who will not see eye to eye does a great deal in stopping hatred. How about the testimonies of Bell, Sanger and Hodge? How about the statement that no Ns lived in the neighborhood in which he grew up? How about the the statement that he would burn all the Ns? How about the statement if he went down the case went down? I think the only fairytale is that he made all those statements in the context of a screenplay.

Why am I not surprised that you don't hold the same amount of distaste for a black dude that says the N word (Jesse Jackson ring a bell) as you do for a white guy that does?

[Jayme K]

I think judge Ito change his rules and allowed the defense to recall MF and that's when MF decided to take the 5th. I think that is what Martin was referring to but I might be wrong and he can answer for himself, if he sees fit.

I think that's what you're telling martin he was referring to but thanks.

[Jayme K]

With this, I bid you good day.

You too:seeya:

[martin II]

LMFAO. Leave it to you to be so demanding. :rolleyes:

i looked for the testimony of Dietz in the criminal trial as suggested by a poster and did not find any.i simply asked for a link.

I have not demanded anything. that is your opinion of my request.
How about we stick to facts of the case rather than personal attacks.

[William Anthony]

Why am I not surprised that you don't hold the same amount of distaste for a black dude that says the N word (Jesse Jackson ring a bell) as you do for a white guy that does?

If you have read my posts, you will find that I have said, just like I have about MF, that JJ is not one of my favorite people. However, with that said, at the time the JJ's remarks were made he and MF were not in the same posture and both are equally as bad, even though MF used it considerably more times.

[Jayme K]

i looked for the testimony of Dietz in the criminal trial as suggested by a poster and did not find any.i simply asked for a link.

I have not demanded anything. that is your opinion of my request.
How about we stick to facts of the case rather than personal attacks.

When you want to stick to the facts and not get personal then let me know, until then ...

[Parker]

Yeah, I sure do hope the moderator reviews the garbage of you and martin.

It's not the truth, most of the time. I've found that out.

I don't know if any moderators are bothered about what's posted on this site.

Jayme, post away. You have as much right as anyone else to post your views.

[Jayme K]

If you have read my posts, you will find that I have said, just like I have about MF, that JJ is not one of my favorite people. However, with that said, at the time the JJ's remarks were made he and MF were not in the same posture and both are equally as bad, even though MF used it considerably more times.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that JJ has uttered that word far more than once in his life. I don't know that we know that MF used the word more often than JJ did.

[Jayme K]

It's not the truth, most of the time. I've found that out.

I don't know if any moderators are bothered about what's posted on this site.

Jayme, post away. You have as much right as anyone else to post your views.

This forum has been locked down so many times and it's going to tank again.

I like William Anthony, just wish he'd remove the chip and not act so condescendingly with everybody else but oh well. Martin ... he could just go away.

[weezer]

Perhaps, the Justice Department had more resources than the police department, and perhaps, the Justice Department was not bound by the ties of the blue wall of silence and perhaps, the Justice Department was able to speak to officers who had retired and were no longer bound by the blue wall of silence, all of which, imho, would have made their investigation more credible. I feel that the magnificent one based his opinion on the report of the police department and perhaps, that is what caused him to become a defense lawyer fighting for those that had been abused by a part of the system to which he had been a part.

Of course MF said he didn't plant evidence, as the statute of limitations had not run out, as he told LHM not to use another incident for that very same reason.

william, did you want to post what the findings of the Justice Department were as to Mark Fuhrman?

cokroach figured out he could make more money as a defense lawyer filing lawsuits against the establishment -- he didn't give squat about the clients. imo

[William Anthony]

william, did you want to post what the findings of the Justice Department were as to Mark Fuhrman?

cokroach figured out he could make more money as a defense lawyer filing lawsuits against the establishment -- he didn't give squat about the clients. imo

I posted what I wanted to post to reinforce my statement.

The American way, smile.

[William Anthony]

This forum has been locked down so many times and it's going to tank again.

I like William Anthony, just wish he'd remove the chip and not act so condescendingly with everybody else but oh well. Martin ... he could just go away.

I like you as well. We can disagree without pointing fingers and I believe, if you will review the posts you will understand. I do not have a chip or an ax to grind and I realize that America's history is not perfect and is sometimes hard to look at. I don't think we should shun it as it has led to something we can embrace, today. I think that taking a look at the trial and what LE and the prosecution as well as the defense did or did not do, helps us to understand the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt and why people with different life experiences can view things differently as to whether or not there was reasonable doubt. It is easy to criticize others and sometimes painful to try to understand them. Hopefully, all this will change.

[martin II]

But it was '96. And the civil trial was when...? And the experts( William Anthony and Martin say)....? That's what, 12 years difference?

Parker

If the criminal trial verdict was given in october 95 how could DIETZ have given evidence after the verdict was given and the trial had ended?

[weezer]

I posted what I wanted to post to reinforce my statement.

The American way, smile.

you're not referring to the anonymous "somebody" post are you? why not just use the report?

". . .In investigating Fuhrman's claims of brutality and harassment of female officers, the department found that many of the brutality incidents did not take place as he had described or were impossible to confirm due to failed memories and flawed record-keeping. . ."

[tv]

If you have read my posts, you will find that I have said, just like I have about MF, that JJ is not one of my favorite people. However, with that said, at the time the JJ's remarks were made he and MF were not in the same posture and both are equally as bad, even though MF used it considerably more times.
You're so funny. :D You have no way of knowing how many times Jesse Jackson has said the N word but you're right about Det. Fuhrman and Jesse Jackson not being in the same posture...the Reverend Jackson made it clear he'd like to cut off Mr. Obama's unmentionables. :)

[weezer]

You're so funny. :D You have no way of knowing how many times Jesse Jackson has said the N word. You're right about Det. Fuhrman and Jesse Jackson not being in the same posture...the Reverend Jackson made it clear he'd like to cut off Mr. Obama's unmentionables. :)

looks like jackson has a propensity for knives like 'you know who' -- :eek:

[William Anthony]

you're not referring to the anonymous "somebody" post are you? why not just use the report?

". . .In investigating Fuhrman's claims of brutality and harassment of female officers, the department found that many of the brutality incidents did not take place as he had described or were impossible to confirm due to failed memories and flawed record-keeping. . ."

I am not sure we are talking about the same report and I find the NY Times to be credible and I am sure that you realize the source, as a member of LE, was in an uncomfortable position and can respect his/her right to privacy and desire to remain anonymous.

[William Anthony]

You're so funny. :D You have no way of knowing how many times Jesse Jackson has said the N word but you're right about Det. Fuhrman and Jesse Jackson not being in the same posture...the Reverend Jackson made it clear he'd like to cut off Mr. Obama's unmentionables. :)

You are right but we do know how many times MF used it in his conversations with LHM and JJ did not take an oath to serve and protect all citizens. :)

[William Anthony]

looks like jackson has a propensity for knives like 'you know who' -- :eek:

My guess would be Jack the Ripper. :)

[William Anthony]

You're so funny. :D You have no way of knowing how many times Jesse Jackson has said the N word but you're right about Det. Fuhrman and Jesse Jackson not being in the same posture...the Reverend Jackson made it clear he'd like to cut off Mr. Obama's unmentionables. :)

Cut off one person's unmentionables versus burning an entire race.:)

[weezer]

I am not sure we are talking about the same report and I find the NY Times to be credible and I am sure that you realize the source, as a member of LE, was in an uncomfortable position and can respect his/her right to privacy and desire to remain anonymous.

LOL -- rather than rely on an 'anonymous' comment, there were three major investigations -- plus the defense -- into Fuhrman. Please post a link to support your accusation.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- rather than rely on an 'anonymous' comment, there were three major investigations -- plus the defense -- into Fuhrman. Please post a link to support your accusation.

Asked and answered. Where is the link to those pigeon-toed foot prints found at bundy or the one to Simpson being a hoodlum in his youth?

[tv]

You are right but we do know how many times MF used it in his conversations with LHM and JJ did not take an oath to serve and protect all citizens. :)

I was going to say the RJJ took an oath before God to serve him but now I'm reading that might be a bogus claim on his part. Even so, I don't think God would approve of the Reverend Jackson hacking off someone's body parts. :)

[William Anthony]

I was going to say the RJJ took an oath before God to serve him but now I'm reading that might be a bogus claim on his part. Even so, I don't think God would approve of the Reverend Jackson hacking off someone's body parts. :)

You are probably right and I don't think God would approve of burning an entire race. One can live without his unmentionables, albeit without much pleasure, but burning an entire race is far more sinister and fatal, imho.:)

[Parker]

I'm still amazed at all the stuff that William Anthony and Martin post on here as proof. No-one has replied to my post about why so many of the threads on here are locked.

I'll say again. I figure it's because of William Anthony and Martin.

And what I've just read reinforces my belief.

[martin II]

If you have read my posts, you will find that I have said, just like I have about MF, that JJ is not one of my favorite people. However, with that said, at the time the JJ's remarks were made he and MF were not in the same posture and both are equally as bad, even though MF used it considerably more times.

To evade personal attack and arguments i am taking the moderators advice and looking for the ignore button.

[William Anthony]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm

[Jayme K]

To evade personal attack and arguments i am taking the moderators advice and looking for the ignore button.

THANK GOD!

But we already know that you ignore the things you can't handle.:rolleyes:

[tv]

You are probably right and I don't think God would approve of burning an entire race. One can live without his unmentionables, albeit without much pleasure, but burning an entire race is far more sinister and fatal, imho.:)

Wiliam, bantering with you makes my day sometimes. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

Wiliam, bantering with you makes my day sometimes. :tongue:

I have to say that recently I have looked forward to your posts, because we are able to disagree without being disagreeable. May we keep up the good work.:)

[weezer]

Asked and answered. Where is the link to those pigeon-toed foot prints found at bundy or the one to Simpson being a hoodlum in his youth?

I remain surprised that you don't know your hero's history:

The third key player in this drama, Orenthal James Simpson, was born on July 9th, 1947, at Stanford University Hospital near San Francisco, the son of Jimmie and Eunice Durden Simpson. He was two years old when he contracted rickets and had to wear braces on his legs until he reached five. At thirteen he was a street gang member of the Persian Warriors and, in 1962 when he was fifteen, he spent time in custody at the San Francisco Youth Guidance Center. His father left his mother for another man and died of AIDS in 1986.

[tv]

I have to say that recently I have looked forward to your posts, because we are able to disagree without being disagreeable. May we keep up the good work.:)My recent break from the board did me a lot of good. I've learned not to take it so seriously and I enjoy it more now. By the way, I'm not sure it's good work but it's definitely hard work sometimes. :)

[William Anthony]

I remain surprised that you don't know your hero's history:

The third key player in this drama, Orenthal James Simpson, was born on July 9th, 1947, at Stanford University Hospital near San Francisco, the son of Jimmie and Eunice Durden Simpson. He was two years old when he contracted rickets and had to wear braces on his legs until he reached five. At thirteen he was a street gang member of the Persian Warriors and, in 1962 when he was fifteen, he spent time in custody at the San Francisco Youth Guidance Center. His father left his mother for another man and died of AIDS in 1986.

He is not my hero or my obsession. To me he was a person tried and acquitted of murder; named as a defendant in what called basically, a civil murder trial, and convicted of robbery and other counts in a trial which I believe has some very serious issues to be considered on appeal-nothing more and nothing less. Could you, please, provide the link or tell me from whence you got this information?

[William Anthony]

My recent break from the board did me a lot of good. I've learned not to take it so seriously and I enjoy it more now. By the way, I'm not sure it's good work but it's definitely hard work sometimes. :)

Believe you me when I say I understand. It is like taking a crash course in diplomacy, sometimes.:)

[martin II]

Wiliam, bantering with you makes my day sometimes. :tongue:


I miss the poetry.That makes my day.:)

[William Anthony]

I miss the poetry.That makes my day.:)

I have tried though my tears
with supreme vigor for many years
to keep alive the rhyme in verse
but alas I fear it becomes terse.

[martin II]

I remain surprised that you don't know your hero's history:

The third key player in this drama, Orenthal James Simpson, was born on July 9th, 1947, at Stanford University Hospital near San Francisco, the son of Jimmie and Eunice Durden Simpson. He was two years old when he contracted rickets and had to wear braces on his legs until he reached five. At thirteen he was a street gang member of the Persian Warriors and, in 1962 when he was fifteen, he spent time in custody at the San Francisco Youth Guidance Center. His father left his mother for another man and died of AIDS in 1986.

Remember the moderators warning about bashing of simpsons family members
and the victims.

[weezer]

Cut off one person's unmentionables versus burning an entire race.:)

so you believe that jackson was going to do what he said? or maybe he's done it in the past since he said it so casually. . .:eek:

[William Anthony]

I have tried a search for Simpson being arrested as a juvenile and can find nothing. Although I hate to use this source, here is what I am able to find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson#Early_life

[William Anthony]

so you believe that jackson was going to do what he said? or maybe he's done it in the past since he said it so casually. . .:eek:

I am not sure. I am sure of this much. He took an oath to serve God and MF took an oath to serve Cesar. The Bible says render unto God what is God's and render onto Cesar what is Cesar's. I will let God judge JJ, just as Cesar judged MF.

[martin II]

Am i to assume that Park Dietz did not testify in the criminal trial after the verdict was given?

[tv]

Believe you me when I say I understand. It is like taking a crash course in diplomacy, sometimes.:)

Not to mention you have to have a good sense of humor and a thick skin. Just picture me as a laughing rhinoceros...or Betty White. ;)

[tv]

Am i to assume that Park Dietz did not testify in the criminal trial after the verdict was given?I think it's safe for you to assume that.

[tv]

I miss the poetry.That makes my day.:)

Shhh! Never mind, it's too late. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Not to mention you have to have a good sense of humor and a thick skin. Just picture me as a laughing rhinoceros...or Betty White. ;)


Betty works better for me. :)

[weezer]

I am not sure. I am sure of this much. He took an oath to serve God and MF took an oath to serve Cesar. The Bible says render unto God what is God's and render onto Cesar what is Cesar's. I will let God judge JJ, just as Cesar judged MF.

what did Fuhrman do that is different than jackson? other than the obvious -- Fuhrman was helping to write a screenplay and jackson was talking about the man who would be President.

[William Anthony]

what did Fuhrman do that is different than jackson? other than the obvious -- Fuhrman was helping to write a screenplay and jackson was talking about the man who would be President.

I have never said that they did anything different. You may see it as a screen play assistant, while most of the rest of the world (secular), including those that originally vouched for him (Cesar) judge him as a racist and a liar. I do not understand nor will I try to understand the infinite wisdom of God or be so presumptuous as to usurp his power of judgment.

In regard to the proclivity to use a knife, Lorena Bobbitt comes to mind.

[weezer]

I have never said that they did anything different. You may see it as a screen play assistant, while most of the rest of the world (secular), including those that originally vouched for him (Cesar) judge him as a racist and a liar. I do not understand nor will I try to understand the infinite wisdom of God or be so presumptuous as to usurp his power of judgment.

In regard to the proclivity to use a knife, Lorena Bobbitt comes to mind.

then you are as vocal in your condemnation of jackson as you are of Fuhrman? you like to make up little rhymes and stuff about Fuhrman -- I'm waiting to see what you come up with for jackson.

let me help you out: jackson = simpson :eek:

[William Anthony]

then you are as vocal in your condemnation of jackson as you are of Fuhrman? you like to make up little rhymes and stuff about Fuhrman -- I'm waiting to see what you come up with for jackson.

let me help you out: jackson = simpson :eek:

Perhaps I was not clear. MF violated his oath to Cesar and I am part of that domain to pass judgment. JJ answers to a higher power and has not been charged with a crime for violating a secular oath and I respect the authority of the higher power alone to pass judgment on JJ. He, like MF, is not one of my favorite people, but that doesn't mean that I am judging him for his transgressions as his oath, as I have said, was made to a higher power and will say that he has not lived up to the standard I expected of him. To the best of my knowledge JJ wasn't part of the trials and to criticize him, should I so do, would be off topic and possibly against the rules.

[martin II]

Shhh! Never mind, it's too late. :rolleyes:

haha
William is fast on the draw.

[weezer]

Perhaps I was not clear. MF violated his oath to Cesar and I am part of that domain to pass judgment. JJ answers to a higher power and has not been charged with a crime for violating a secular oath and I respect the authority of the higher power alone to pass judgment on JJ. He, like MF, is not one of my favorite people, but that doesn't mean that I am judging him for his transgressions as his oath, as I have said, was made to a higher power and will say that he has not lived up to the standard I expected of him. To the best of my knowledge JJ wasn't part of the trials and to criticize him, should I so do, would be off topic and possibly against the rules.

funny how you select who should be held to what standards -- LOL

show me exactly where Fuhrman violated his oath and I will show you where jackson violated his.

you know william, the commandmants were given to us to live by -- the fact that you feel they apply to some and not others is very troubling.

[William Anthony]

haha
William is fast on the draw.

Why do you think I chose Doc as may avatar?:)

[weezer]

Perhaps I was not clear. MF violated his oath to Cesar and I am part of that domain to pass judgment. JJ answers to a higher power and has not been charged with a crime for violating a secular oath and I respect the authority of the higher power alone to pass judgment on JJ. He, like MF, is not one of my favorite people, but that doesn't mean that I am judging him for his transgressions as his oath, as I have said, was made to a higher power and will say that he has not lived up to the standard I expected of him. To the best of my knowledge JJ wasn't part of the trials and to criticize him, should I so do, would be off topic and possibly against the rules.

from jackson:

''If my mind can conceive it and my heart can believe it then I can achieve it.'' :eek:

[William Anthony]

funny how you select who should be held to what standards -- LOL

show me exactly where Fuhrman violated his oath and I will show you where jackson violated his.

you know william, the commandmants were given to us to live by -- the fact that you feel they apply to some and not others is very troubling.

I am sorry, if you fail to understand. That is my personal view and you do not have to share it.

When he committed perjury.

It is within God's power to determine who has violated his law, imho, and to dole out punishment for their transgressions. I believe all those who love the Lord should live by His Commandments. However, I can say in all honesty that I have violated some of them. So, let he that is without sin cast the first stone.

[martin II]

then you are as vocal in your condemnation of jackson as you are of Fuhrman? you like to make up little rhymes and stuff about Fuhrman -- I'm waiting to see what you come up with for jackson.

let me help you out: jackson = simpson :eek:

A little extreme for me.
Furhman = Furhman sounds more accurate

[William Anthony]

from jackson:

''If my mind can conceive it and my heart can believe it then I can achieve it.'' :eek:

With God all things are possible.

[William Anthony]

A little extreme for me.
Furhman = Furhman sounds more accurate

MF=racist and a liar, according to Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden.

[martin II]

Why do you think I chose Doc as may avatar?:)

That is exactly what i was referring to.

[Jayme K]

MF=racist and a liar, according to Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden.

According to you Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden were pretty much off on everything they speculated and did so ...

[William Anthony]

That is exactly what i was referring to.

Ah Wyatt, it seems I might be slowing down a tad bit.:)

[William Anthony]

According to you Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden were pretty much off on everything they speculated and did so ...

They were wrong quite a bit of the time in how they presented the evidence but they did not present that particular evidence. :) I hope you can stick around for a while, today. It's nice to have you input.

[martin II]

MF=racist and a liar, according to Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden.

Darden on the Oprah show said Furhman was worse than oj as far as he was concerned.That furhman knew of his past but never informed the prosecution until he was caught in the lie on the strand which blindsided them. That Furhman had informed Clarke that he did not want Darden to interview or handel him on the stand.imo

[Jayme K]

With God all things are possible.

Ugh ... sorry if it makes anyone a hater but I don't believe in the whole "God" as presented in the catholic bible I grew up with. I believe in a power higher than me, just not the God that most believe in.

Wish the RAPP thread was open. :(

[Jayme K]

Darden on the Oprah show said Furhman was worse than oj as far as he was concerned.That furhman knew of his past but never informed the prosecution until he was caught in the lie on the strand which blindsided them. That Furhman had informed Clarke that he did not want Darden to interview or handel him on the stand.imo

I thought it was Darden that said he didn't want Fuhrman, not the other way around.

Can anyone confirm or deny?

[William Anthony]

Ugh ... sorry if it makes anyone a hater but I don't believe in the whole "God" as presented in the catholic bible I grew up with. I believe in a power higher than me, just not the God that most believe in.

Wish the RAPP thread was open. :(

I am truly unfamiliar with the Catholic religion but I believe in God, as the Father, Son and Holly Ghost. Perhaps, a request will get it open.

[William Anthony]

I thought it was Darden that said he didn't want Fuhrman, not the other way around.

Can anyone confirm or deny?

I will confirm that I cannot confirm or deny.:)

[Jayme K]

They were wrong quite a bit of the time in how they presented the evidence but they did not present that particular evidence. :) I hope you can stick around for a while, today. It's nice to have you input.

I'd be super curious as to your thoughts on all the black victims of crime that talked about how Fuhrman was so good and respectful and professional to them. Seemed to be that way alot. Or the black guy who was criminally charged with I foget what, but he said that Fuhrman believed his story and put in overtime on the case to eventually prove his innocence.

[weezer]

I am sorry, if you fail to understand. That is my personal view and you do not have to share it.

When he committed perjury.

It is within God's power to determine who has violated his law, imho, and to dole out punishment for their transgressions. I believe all those who love the Lord should live by His Commandments. However, I can say in all honesty that I have violated some of them. So, let he that is without sin cast the first stone.

really? you give jackson a pass on his vile threat but condem Fuhrman. have you asked yourself why you're willing to do that? They both used words -- neither took action. investigations into Fuhrman have proven that the screenplay stuff he talked about he didn't do. jackson on the other hand is still out there and is quite possibly still a threat.

[weezer]

MF=racist and a liar, according to Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden.

a liar -- okay. a racist? prove it.

[William Anthony]

I'd be super curious as to your thoughts on all the black victims of crime that talked about how Fuhrman was so good and respectful and professional to them. Seemed to be that way alot. Or the black guy who was criminally charged with I foget what, but he said that Fuhrman believed his story and put in overtime on the case to eventually prove his innocence.

I don't know if they were informants or not but I will say that they should use caution around him if he had gas and a match handy.:)

[martin II]

They were wrong quite a bit of the time in how they presented the evidence but they did not present that particular evidence. :) I hope you can stick around for a while, today. It's nice to have you input.

Well Clarke was wrong when she claimed that Oj entered his property by jumping the fence at the south walkway where the glove was found.At least according to Vanhatter and two other le that investigated that area.Also her theory that the murders took place at 10:20 on 6/12. imo

[William Anthony]

a liar -- okay. a racist? prove it.

I already did. I posted what Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden said about MF.

[weezer]

I already did. I posted what Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden said about MF.

according to you, that's the only time during the whole trial they told the truth! LOL

what's that little diddy you're always spouting? if you can't believe one thing, then you can't believe any (my paraphrase)

[Mojo]

Of course, you want to deny what was said by those that conducted the investigation into MF's corrupt conduct.

I am not an NG and the trial was about how LE conducted their investigation, whether or not LE had done anything untoward and the credibility of LE witnesses.

What accused needs to be wrongly convicted to satisfy the thirst of most of America?

I'm sorry this is my first time reading this thread and felt the need to inject my 2 cents. What the heck are you trying to say? All of America is racist? I'm pretty damn sick and tired of every white person being accused of being a racist when most of us are not. Wrongly convicted? Are you serious? Did you not see the evidence? Especially the blood evidence? Since you are so sure that the "white racist cop" was the only reason he was even arrested, please explain who you think did it. Roving band of wild gypsies? Oh excuse me, racist gypsies since they planted evidence to try and convict Simpson.
And if you call that scumbag Cochran "the magnificent one" again, I'm going to throw up.

[William Anthony]

according to you, that's the only time during the whole trial they told the truth! LOL

what's that little diddy you're always spouting? if you can't believe one thing, then you can't believe any (my paraphrase)

I have never said that they did not tell the truth. I said they were sanctioned. I said the put forth a miserable prosecution and part of that was due to MF taking such an active role in the investigation. They tried to persuade the jury to see the evidence their way and I am sure there are parts, such as this, although the jury, IIRC, did not hear those remarks, with which the jury agreed.

[William Anthony]

[/B]

I'm sorry this is my first time reading this thread and felt the need to inject my 2 cents. What the heck are you trying to say? All of America is racist? I'm pretty damn sick and tired of every white person being accused of being a racist when most of us are not. Wrongly convicted? Are you serious? Did you not see the evidence? Especially the blood evidence? Since you are so sure that the "white racist cop" was the only reason he was even arrested, please explain who you think did it. Roving band of wild gypsies? Oh excuse me, racist gypsies since they planted evidence to try and convict Simpson.
And if you call that scumbag Cochran "the magnificent one" again, I'm going to throw up.

Hello and, least I forget my manners, welcome aboard.

[martin II]

I will confirm that I cannot confirm or deny.:)

Dardens comments on Furhman can be found in his last appearance on the Oprah show if it is still available. It was last year that i saw the interview.

[martin II]

[/B]

I'm sorry this is my first time reading this thread and felt the need to inject my 2 cents. What the heck are you trying to say? All of America is racist? I'm pretty damn sick and tired of every white person being accused of being a racist when most of us are not. Wrongly convicted? Are you serious? Did you not see the evidence? Especially the blood evidence? Since you are so sure that the "white racist cop" was the only reason he was even arrested, please explain who you think did it. Roving band of wild gypsies? Oh excuse me, racist gypsies since they planted evidence to try and convict Simpson.
And if you call that scumbag Cochran "the magnificent one" again, I'm going to throw up.


I don't think anyone here has said All AMERICA IS RACIST. that would not be accurate.

Welcome to the thread.

[Jayme K]

Dardens comments on Furhman can be found in his last appearance on the Oprah show if it is still available. It was last year that i saw the interview.

You're right-I just googled the interview and found where Darden said that Fuhrman didn't want him to ask the questions.

[William Anthony]

You're right-I just googled the interview and found where Darden said that Fuhrman didn't want him to ask the questions.

He should have feared being asked questions by Bailey.

[martin II]

Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., a trial lawyer in Los Angeles, is known for his landmark victories against official misconduct within the legal system and for his work with high-profile clients including Michael Jackson, Reginald Denny, and O.J. Simpson.
After receiving his law degree from Loyola University School of Law in 1962, Mr. Cochran served as Deputy City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles, assigned to the Criminal Division from 1963 to 1965. He then founded the law firm of Cochran, Atkins & Evans, where he handled both civil and criminal cases.

Mr. Cochran was named Criminal Trial Lawyer of the Year in February 1977 by the Los Angeles Criminal Courts Bar Association and then served as the Assistant District Attorney for Los Angeles County from 1978-1980, the first African-American to hold the position. In 1979, he was instrumental in founding the Los Angeles County Domestic Violence Council.

In 1981, Mr. Cochran returned to private practice as a plaintiff's trial lawyer and won a number of landmark decisions against police misconduct. In 1992, he received the highest jury award in the history of the city of Los Angeles in a police misconduct matter on behalf of a 13-year-old girl molested by an LAPD officer. Mr. Cochran has also handled several cases for high-profile clients such as Todd Bridges, Michael Jackson, former Black Panther Geronimo Pratt, Reginald Denny, and O.J. Simpson.

Mr. Cochran is the only attorney ever to be the recipient of the Trial Lawyer of the Year Award from both the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association and the Criminal Courts Bar Association. Mr. Cochran is a member of the prestigious International Academy of Trial Lawyers and The American College of Trial Lawyers, whose membership consists of the top one percent of trial attorneys in the United States. Mr. Cochran was inducted into The Inner Circle of Advocates, an organization of the country's top 100 plaintiff lawyers. His autobiography, Journey to Justice, a national bestseller written with Tim Rutten, was recently published by One World/Ballantine Books

http://aalbc.com/authors/johnnie_cochran.htm

[martin II]

He should have feared being asked questions by Bailey.

In another media story i read that Clarke and Darden decided to hug in front of furhman to guage his reaction to them as mixed couple.His reaction was negative but he did not arrest either.imo
I have no link to this

[martin II]

He should have feared being asked questions by Bailey.

That is the same interview where Darden said Furhman was worse than oj in his mind.Fred was also on that program when Darden made these comments.

[weezer]

I don't know if they were informants or not but I will say that they should use caution around him if he had gas and a match handy.:)

and for goodness sakes -- don't let jesse jackson pray over you!

[William Anthony]

In another media story i read that Clarke and Darden decided to hug in front of furhman to guage his reaction to them as mixed couple.His reaction was negative but he did not arrest either.imo
I have no link to this

If true, they were a couple of brave souls.:) Just joking all.

[William Anthony]

and for goodness sakes -- don't let jesse jackson pray over you!

When God is with me, he is more than the world against me.

[martin II]

j cochran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran

[William Anthony]

j cochran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran

If only I can show half the magnificence he showed in the courtroom, I would be happy.

[old_soul]

Hello All ~
Martin, thanks for the background on JC. I found him a truly charming, intelligent Criminal Atty, with a wonderful gift of gab. With that being said, make no mistake, Simpson's Dream Team all knew their client was guilty, but, they performed their jobs to the best of their ability. No, he did not tell them, of course, they would have had to excuse themselves if so. JC was smart enough to do what he was hired for, but no dummy was JC~ he knew the truth.

Martin, out to you. In his own words, Kato Kaelin told the story of the alarming thud which made the wall shake in his room. As OJ's vehicle was seen just prior flying through the streets and almost hitting someone, and at the time of the 'thud', Mark Fuhrman was not even aware of a case yet ~ what do you attribute this to?

I feel MF's information re racism cast a negative light on his testimony, and the case as a whole. The jury was offended, as were many others. But the fact remains, this murder was so Personal, so emotionally motivated, that I am hard pressed to find evidence pointing to drugs or a random killing. This person looked them both in the eyes, to let them know.

Jealously, Rage and basic human emotions can make a killer out of the meekest of men. We cannot make excuses.

[martin II]

NOot all saw Cochran as a cockroach.

Awards from the legal organizations in recognition of his great work.

Awards:

Criminal Trial Lawyer of the Year, Los Angeles Criminal Courts Bar Association, 1977;
Pioneer of Black Legal Leadership Award, Los Angeles Brotherhood Crusade, August, 1979;

Outstanding Law Enforcement Office of 1979,

California Trial Lawyers Association; Trial Lawyer of the Year, Hon. Loren Miller Award, John M. Langston Bar Association, 1982-1983;

Equal Justice in Law Award, Legal Defense Fund, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Distinguished Alumni Award, UCLA Black Alumni Association, March, 1988;

Alumni Award of Excellence in Professional Achievement, UCLA, June, 1988;

Outstanding Criminal Defense Attorneys, Southern California, July, 1989;

1995 National Law Journal Trial Lawyer of the Year.

[martin II]

Hello All ~
Martin, thanks for the background on JC. I found him a truly charming, intelligent Criminal Atty, with a wonderful gift of gab. With that being said, make no mistake, Simpson's Dream Team all knew their client was guilty, but, they performed their jobs to the best of their ability. No, he did not tell them, of course, they would have had to excuse themselves if so. JC was smart enough to do what he was hired for, but no dummy was JC~ he knew the truth.

Martin, out to you. In his own words, Kato Kaelin told the story of the alarming thud which made the wall shake in his room. As OJ's vehicle was seen just prior flying through the streets and almost hitting someone, and at the time of the 'thud', Mark Fuhrman was not even aware of a case yet ~ what do you attribute this to?

I feel MF's information re racism cast a negative light on his testimony, and the case as a whole. The jury was offended, as were many others. But the fact remains, this murder was so Personal, so emotionally motivated, that I am hard pressed to find evidence pointing to drugs or a random killing. This person looked them both in the eyes, to let them know.

Jealously, Rage and basic human emotions can make a killer out of the meekest of men. We cannot make excuses.

Thanks.

I have no idea as to what Cochrans personal knowledge of who did the killings was. I think defence lawyers never ask clients about guilt. etc.They just defend as required by law.

As i watched the slow speed ride i asked myself and my wife did he kill those people.Gees. The media prior to the trial did not help.

As the trial proceeded with prosecutions presentations, quality of some of their witnesses and the gaps in the evidence, especially since no knife, bloody clothes or shoes were found in extensives searches of Rockingham.
I wondered.

The prosecution had too many problems with witnesses. martz comes to mind especially.
I saw the complete criminal trial daliy on tv and came to the same conclusion as the jury.The prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I waited for the prosecution to tell a comprehensive believable plain story that made sense without all the problems. They never did.
imo

I don't dissagree that Kato said he heard something. what he heard and who made the noise i don't know. But the prosecution failed to present any evidence that oj simpson was in the south walkway on the night of 6/12 Vanhatter and two le detectives testified that in their opinion no one jumped that fence that night and this was a result of their examination of the bushes,fence and walkway.

Im my previous post i have given specific testimony and evidence that i dissagreed with.

[William Anthony]

Hello All ~
Martin, thanks for the background on JC. I found him a truly charming, intelligent Criminal Atty, with a wonderful gift of gab. With that being said, make no mistake, Simpson's Dream Team all knew their client was guilty, but, they performed their jobs to the best of their ability. No, he did not tell them, of course, they would have had to excuse themselves if so. JC was smart enough to do what he was hired for, but no dummy was JC~ he knew the truth.

Martin, out to you. In his own words, Kato Kaelin told the story of the alarming thud which made the wall shake in his room. As OJ's vehicle was seen just prior flying through the streets and almost hitting someone, and at the time of the 'thud', Mark Fuhrman was not even aware of a case yet ~ what do you attribute this to?

I feel MF's information re racism cast a negative light on his testimony, and the case as a whole. The jury was offended, as were many others. But the fact remains, this murder was so Personal, so emotionally motivated, that I am hard pressed to find evidence pointing to drugs or a random killing. This person looked them both in the eyes, to let them know.

Jealously, Rage and basic human emotions can make a killer out of the meekest of men. We cannot make excuses.

First, let me welcome you.

I will await Martin's response to your post but I did want to address this issue, before giving a detailed response. I once asked two professors both lawyers and one a magistrate the question of what happens, if a client confesses to you as his lawyer, meaning can you suborn perjury by entering a not guilty plea and they split on that issue.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/786689.html

It is difficult for a lawyer to excuse himself once he has been retained.

I think Martin's answer explains most of my position on the issues you presented.

[martin II]

Hello All ~
Martin, thanks for the background on JC. I found him a truly charming, intelligent Criminal Atty, with a wonderful gift of gab. With that being said, make no mistake, Simpson's Dream Team all knew their client was guilty, but, they performed their jobs to the best of their ability. No, he did not tell them, of course, they would have had to excuse themselves if so. JC was smart enough to do what he was hired for, but no dummy was JC~ he knew the truth.

Martin, out to you. In his own words, Kato Kaelin told the story of the alarming thud which made the wall shake in his room. As OJ's vehicle was seen just prior flying through the streets and almost hitting someone, and at the time of the 'thud', Mark Fuhrman was not even aware of a case yet ~ what do you attribute this to?

I feel MF's information re racism cast a negative light on his testimony, and the case as a whole. The jury was offended, as were many others. But the fact remains, this murder was so Personal, so emotionally motivated, that I am hard pressed to find evidence pointing to drugs or a random killing. This person looked them both in the eyes, to let them know.

Jealously, Rage and basic human emotions can make a killer out of the meekest of men. We cannot make excuses.


Wagner offered a reason why the killing looked so personal and that they were done by someone other than OJ Simpson.

[martin II]

Hello All ~
Martin, thanks for the background on JC. I found him a truly charming, intelligent Criminal Atty, with a wonderful gift of gab. With that being said, make no mistake, Simpson's Dream Team all knew their client was guilty, but, they performed their jobs to the best of their ability. No, he did not tell them, of course, they would have had to excuse themselves if so. JC was smart enough to do what he was hired for, but no dummy was JC~ he knew the truth.

Martin, out to you. In his own words, Kato Kaelin told the story of the alarming thud which made the wall shake in his room. As OJ's vehicle was seen just prior flying through the streets and almost hitting someone, and at the time of the 'thud', Mark Fuhrman was not even aware of a case yet ~ what do you attribute this to?

I feel MF's information re racism cast a negative light on his testimony, and the case as a whole. The jury was offended, as were many others. But the fact remains, this murder was so Personal, so emotionally motivated, that I am hard pressed to find evidence pointing to drugs or a random killing. This person looked them both in the eyes, to let them know.

Jealously, Rage and basic human emotions can make a killer out of the meekest of men. We cannot make excuses.


i see i did not answer one of your concerns. OJ FLYING IN THE CAR.Clarke called JS to the grand jury. After her testimony Clarke did not believe she was truthful and cut her from the witmess list. imo

How could oj be at Bundy in the car at 10:45 and making the noise on Katos wall at that time?

[old_soul]

Wagner offered a reason why the killing looked so personal and that they were done by someone other than OJ Simpson.
Yes, and any other defense atty worth his salt could have came up with 5 more...If we discount drugs, who would want to so emotionally overkill this woman? Ron, he just happened to be there at that moment in time. He was innocent and knew no one but her.
i see i did not answer one of your concerns. OJ FLYING IN THE CAR.Clarke called JS to the grand jury. After her testimony Clarke did not believe she was truthful and cut her from the witmess list. imo

How could oj be at Bundy in the car at 10:45 and making the noise on Katos wall at that time?

Hmmmm, not exactly positive about the eyewitness, didn't she talk to the tabloids and isn't that why marsha, marsha, marsha, didn't want to put her on? Of course, that would have made her story highly questionable....
The timeline showed it was do~able to get from Bundy to his house...I cannot
remember the time (10:45?) itself. The limo driver had taken OJ's bags before..he never carried his own carry on. OJ got downright nasty when he again offered to take the bag, which then stayed next to him in the car. What happened to that carry on? What was in it? It was never seen again and was never found.

:shrug: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[William Anthony]

Kato's testimony

March 22nd

Q: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?

A: AT ABOUT 10:40.

Q: IS THAT EXACT, 10:40?

A: WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40.

Q: DO YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS 10:40 TO 10:45?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Simpson could not have been in two places at 10:45 and if he was at Rockingham before that time he could not have been driving at the time of the thumps. Something wrong, imho.

[William Anthony]

Testimony of Kato's significant other

March 28th,

"Q: RIGHT. YOU ASKED HIM WHAT TIME IT WAS; HE SAID 10:30, CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT HE DESCRIBED AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRING?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: HOW LONG AFTER THAT TIME WHEN HE SAID IT WAS 10:30 DID HE DESCRIBE HEARING AN EARTHQUAKE?

A: APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES.

Q: AND HOW DID HE DESCRIBE THAT EARTHQUAKE SOUND?

A: HE SAID IT WAS A BANG.

Q: AND WHEN HE TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT, HOW DID HE SOUND?

A: HE SOUNDED CONFUSED AND STARTLED AND CONCERNED.

Q: DID HE SOUND SCARED?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID HE INDICATE TO YOU IN ANY WAY THAT HE WAS -- HOW DID HE INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE WAS CONCERNED?

A: WELL, BECAUSE WE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WAS AND HE SAID, "WAS THERE AN EARTHQUAKE?" AND I HAD THE T.V. ON SO I SAID "NO" -- FOR ONE THING, I DIDN'T FEEL ANYTHING AND ALSO BECAUSE THEY USUALLY REPORT IT RIGHT AWAY, SOME SORT OF INDICATION, AND UMM, JUST BECAUSE HE KEPT REFERRING BACK TO IT IN THE CONVERSATION.

Q: OKAY. AFTER HE --

A: AND IT ALSO KNOCKED HIS PICTURE.

Q: HE SAID IT MOVED THE PICTURE ON HIS WALL?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AFTER HE -- AFTER YOU SAID "NO," IT WAS NOT AN EARTHQUAKE --

A: YES.

Q: -- DID HE INDICATE SOME CONCERN TO YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT CONCERN WAS THAT?

A: WE THOUGHT MAYBE SOMEBODY WAS OUTSIDE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU CONTINUED TO TALK TO HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE AFTER THAT, DID YOU?

A: YES.

Q: ABOUT HOW LONG?

A: APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES OR SO."

This testimony is consistent with the thumps being heard closer to the time of 10:40 and ending at !0:50.

[martin II]

Yes, and any other defense atty worth his salt could have came up with 5 more...If we discount drugs, who would want to so emotionally overkill this woman? Ron, he just happened to be there at that moment in time. He was innocent and knew no one but her.


Hmmmm, not exactly positive about the eyewitness, didn't she talk to the tabloids and isn't that why marsha, marsha, marsha, didn't want to put her on? Of course, that would have made her story highly questionable....
The timeline showed it was do~able to get from Bundy to his house...I cannot
remember the time (10:45?) itself. The limo driver had taken OJ's bags before..he never carried his own carry on. OJ got downright nasty when he again offered to take the bag, which then stayed next to him in the car. What happened to that carry on? What was in it? It was never seen again and was never found.

:shrug: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

JS never trstified before the jury.

Heidstra testified that he saw someone in a white suv at Bundy and Dorothy
turning right(opposite ojs house direction) The prosecution said it must have been oj at 10:45. pm Kato and his girlfriend testified that he heard the knocks at the same time 10:45. So was oj in the white suv at 10:45 or was he at kATOS wall.The jury had to try to decide what they believe.

A Park had never driven oj before and had not carried his bags. Oj carried on his LV suiter bag. I think the others were check at the curb.Kato and Park each gave different descriptions to the bags and different testimony as to who loaded which bag where, In the backi seat or the trunk. It was very difficult to keep up with the bags from their testimony.

Oj said i will get it. The bag.I don't know about going crazy.He said golf balls was in the bag.

Oj returned from Chicago with five bags to his house. His lawyer attempeted to bring the bags in to le but was told he could not bring anything to a crime scene so he took them home. Five bags were eventually presented in court the same number that left in the limo.

The problem for the prosecution on this issue is that a person cannot be convicted on what they or we THINK. There must be proof.

Le searched his home, the highway to the airport , the airport trash bins and the trash bins and dumpsters at the Chicago hotel. No shoes, No knife no bag.
Nothing.

I guess the jury was asking themselves where is the proof.


Please note.

When Park drove into the yard up to the front door. he said the first thing he saw at the door was two black Duffle bags. These bags could not have been placed there other than by oj when Park had seen him at the door. imo


Thanks for your comments.

[weezer]

Yes, and any other defense atty worth his salt could have came up with 5 more...If we discount drugs, who would want to so emotionally overkill this woman? Ron, he just happened to be there at that moment in time. He was innocent and knew no one but her.


Hmmmm, not exactly positive about the eyewitness, didn't she talk to the tabloids and isn't that why marsha, marsha, marsha, didn't want to put her on? Of course, that would have made her story highly questionable....
The timeline showed it was do~able to get from Bundy to his house...I cannot
remember the time (10:45?) itself. The limo driver had taken OJ's bags before..he never carried his own carry on. OJ got downright nasty when he again offered to take the bag, which then stayed next to him in the car. What happened to that carry on? What was in it? It was never seen again and was never found.

:shrug: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Clark was ticked because Shively sold her story to the tabloids and then lied about it. Shively's statements about that night never changed. One of the interesting points to what she had to say was that orenthal didn't have a shirt on and then orenthal wrote in his confession book that he drove home naked -- :eek:

[martin II]

Clark was ticked because Shively sold her story to the tabloids and then lied about it. Shively's statements about that night never changed. One of the interesting points to what she had to say was that orenthal didn't have a shirt on and then orenthal wrote in his confession book that he drove home naked -- :eek:

Im sure that any thinking person would know that the murder chapter of that book was intentionally not factual. Or written as a joke.

[martin II]

Clark was ticked because Shively sold her story to the tabloids and then lied about it. Shively's statements about that night never changed. One of the interesting points to what she had to say was that orenthal didn't have a shirt on and then orenthal wrote in his confession book that he drove home naked -- :eek:

I think there was some questions about how JS knew what time it was and le could never find the driver of the other car.imo

[tv]

In another media story i read that Clarke and Darden decided to hug in front of furhman to guage his reaction to them as mixed couple.His reaction was negative but he did not arrest either.imo
I have no link to thisWhy would this do this?

[tv]

Darden on the Oprah show said Furhman was worse than oj as far as he was concerned.That furhman knew of his past but never informed the prosecution until he was caught in the lie on the strand which blindsided them. That Furhman had informed Clarke that he did not want Darden to interview or handel him on the stand.imo
You don't know the reason that he may have said that. You assume it's because Det. Fuhrman didn't like blacks. When Mark Fuhrman went to Darden's office to talk to him several times about his upcoming testimony Darden refused to even look at him -- just sat there with that brooding look on his face which we're all familiar with. I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist of what Mark Fuhrman said happened and why he didn't feel he had a good working relationship with Chris Darden. When I find the exact reference from Mark Fuhrman's book I'll post it even though I know there will be derision and ridicule when I do. I'm ready, but please try to keep it a minimum, if you don't mind. :)

[tv]

Clark was ticked because Shively sold her story to the tabloids and then lied about it. Shively's statements about that night never changed. One of the interesting points to what she had to say was that orenthal didn't have a shirt on and then orenthal wrote in his confession book that he drove home naked -- :eek:
I've always thought it was a mistake not to put Jill Shively on. Ewww...you mean he might have been commando? Wonder what he did with his clothes? Maybe he just took them off to keep from getting too much blood in the car and then threw them in the washer when he got home. Det. Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's partner, found blood on the light switch in the maid's bathroom near the laundry room but I don't think it was ever collected by the notorious Mr. Fung.

[tv]

Im sure that any thinking person would know that the murder chapter of that book was intentionally not factual. Or written as a joke.

Oh yeah, it's real funny to joke about the brutal murder of the mother of your children whether you're guilty of it or not.

[martin II]

Why would this do this?

Other than the reason given in my post i assume they had been getting some reports of Furhman and decided to check his reaction. my best answer

[martin II]

Oh yeah, it's real funny to joke about the brutal murder of the mother of your children whether you're guilty of it or not.
That may be but i believe most knew it was not factual.It was written by the ghost writer PF that lived near Nicole and testified to Clarks failed timeline.imo

[tv]

Other than the reason given in my post i assume they had been getting some reports of Furhman and decided to check his reaction. my best answer

I understand what you're saying but why didn't they just go on the evidence of all the brutality that he shown towards other races during his years as a cop? If it was common knowledge that he was a racist and mistreated blacks...why did they have to test it?

[tv]

That may be but i believe most knew it was not factual.It was written by the ghost writer PF that lived near Nicole and testified to Clarks failed timeline.imo

You mean like Laura Hart McKinney was going to write the story that Mark Fuhrman made up? I get it. :)

[martin II]

You mean like Laura Hart McKinney was going to write the story that Mark Fuhrman made up? I get it. :)

nope

i thought Furhman did the talking and she did the recording. His voice was heard so they were only his words.

i don't think PF was paid all that money just to put dowm ojs exact words.I think he created that story or chapter.

[fgump2]

Kato's testimony

March 22nd

Q: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?

A: AT ABOUT 10:40.

Q: IS THAT EXACT, 10:40?

A: WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40.

Q: DO YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS 10:40 TO 10:45?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Simpson could not have been in two places at 10:45 and if he was at Rockingham before that time he could not have been driving at the time of the thumps. Something wrong, imho.


People's time estimates are often off by more than a few minutes. As I have written before forensic memory experts believe that most peoples time estimates are more inaccurate than they realize. V. Bugliosi once wrote about a case in which a cop saw a problem, and then radioed in for help, and wrote down the time at which he realized there was a problem. The second cop who arrived at the location of the crime wrote down the time he thought he got there. At least one of the two times must have been wrong because the time the second cop thought he got there was about an hour before the first cop thought he realized there was a problem. Do you, WA, have any reason for believing that forensic memory experts are wrong in their beliefs?

[fgump2]

I've always thought it was a mistake not to put Jill Shively on. Ewww...you mean he might have been commando? Wonder what he did with his clothes? Maybe he just took them off to keep from getting too much blood in the car and then threw them in the washer when he got home. Det. Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's partner, found blood on the light switch in the maid's bathroom near the laundry room but I don't think it was ever collected by the notorious Mr. Fung.

If OJ was in the buff, I think the limo driver would have noticed.

[martin II]

People's time estimates are often off by more than a few minutes. As I have written before forensic memory experts believe that most peoples time estimates are more inaccurate than they realize. V. Bugliosi once wrote about a case in which a cop saw a problem, and then radioed in for help, and wrote down the time at which he realized there was a problem. The second cop who arrived at the location of the crime wrote down the time he thought he got there. At least one of the two times must have been wrong because the time the second cop thought he got there was about an hour before the first cop thought he realized there was a problem. Do you, WA, have any reason for believing that forensic memory experts are wrong in their beliefs?

If neither cop referred to a watch i guess they were just guessing.

[tv]

nope

i thought Furhman did the talking and she did the recording. His voice was heard so they were only his words.

i don't think PF was paid all that money just to put dowm ojs exact words.I think he created that story or chapter.

So LHM only recorded actual events that Mark Fuhrman talked about but the writer for OJ Simpson's book? Come on, martin. OJ Simpson approved the chapter. Pablo Fenjves did not make it up. If that were the case they wouldn't have needed Simpson -- they could have just made it all up from beginning to end.

[tv]

If OJ was in the buff, I think the limo driver would have noticed.
Good point...I'll have to think about that one.

[martin II]

If OJ was in the buff, I think the limo driver would have noticed.

i think for some the idea of oj in the buff is good chatter,

IF he was then A Park testimony was false as he testified once that the AA person had on dark clothing and again that he could have had on a black house/bath robe.imo

I think JS testimony was that she saw ojs arm with no sleeve.Or a rolled up sleeve.

[fgump2]

I thought the testimony of John Gerdes helped the defense, but I also thought what he said was invalid, had no useful information (other than helping OJS get out of jail). He came up with two catchy phrases 'cesspool of contamination', and 'garbage in garbage out'. As far as I know he wasn't able to find a single case in which the LAPD had convicted an innocent person because of invalid lab work, or a case in which they had failed to catch a guilty person.
I may have missed something here. I have to admit I haven't studied the transcripts or books as well as others have. Maybe Gerdes did find a case in which the lab got the wrong person convicted. I am posing a question: Did Gerdes ever find a case in which the LAPD lab screwed it up with bad lab work? And if so, how often did it happen? I don't know enough about the lab to say it never screwed things up, but I think the phrases Gerdes used were way off the mark.

[martin II]

So LHM only recorded actual events that Mark Fuhrman talked about but the writer for OJ Simpson's book? Come on, martin. OJ Simpson approved the chapter. Pablo Fenjves did not make it up. If that were the case they wouldn't have needed Simpson -- they could have just made it all up from beginning to end.

Nope

OJ wrote the part about the relationship or most of it.PF was hired for his creative ability.
At any rate I think the publishing house demanded a strong HOOK for the book and PF wrote it for them. OJ would never write that chapter in line with the evidence in the trial or even close to it.

[fgump2]

Two points I'd like to know what others think about or have read about are as follows:
First of all why was OJS taking a red eye special that night? He was getting to be after 4:00 Chicago time and then due on golf course at about 9:00 the next morning. This strange sleep schedule points toward guilt, although hardly conclusive.

Secondly as far as I could tell, OJS got almost no support from former team mates or coaches. OJS had spent about 10 years as a player, and then almost 15 as a football broadcaster. And yet as far as I could tell, very few NFL people were willing to say as much as "I didn't think he was that kind of guy". The pattern of making a very good superficial impression and a bad long term impression is common among psychopaths.

[GreenIce]

You don't know the reason that he may have said that. You assume it's because Det. Fuhrman didn't like blacks. When Mark Fuhrman went to Darden's office to talk to him several times about his upcoming testimony Darden refused to even look at him -- just sat there with that brooding look on his face which we're all familiar with. I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist of what Mark Fuhrman said happened and why he didn't feel he had a good working relationship with Chris Darden. When I find the exact reference from Mark Fuhrman's book I'll post it even though I know there will be derision and ridicule when I do. I'm ready, but please try to keep it a minimum, if you don't mind. :)

TV,

Hey, how is it going?

Mark Fuhrman did not want Darden because he was still angry at Darden for a friend of his being kicked off the force and losing his benifits. If you read his book, he says that another good cop was tossed because this cop treated an African-American cop, who just happened to be working undercover. Bottom line, Fuhrman had a long simmering grudge against Darden.

I believe it was either in Clark's or Darden's book about the hug in front MF. I think it was Clark because MF asked her why did she let Darden hang all over her like a cheap suit. Again, I think it was Clark who said that maybe this comment proved he did not change after all. Mind you, if was Clark's book, please remember Clark never wrote her book until both trials were finished.

Also in MF's book, he describes walking into Darden's office and seeing a "Black Law" hat and MF was angry because he could not ask Darden what the hat meant. Again, bottom line, why couldn't he ask Darden? Why did he assume it was racial thing and not the name of a law book?

I don't care if Darden was rude to MF, MF does not work for Darden. MF had no right to even ask for a different lawyer. His ill feelings toward Darden should not have affected his behavior while be prepped. There is no excuse for MF's behavior---Nicole and Ron deserved better, IMO.

[martin II]

I thought the testimony of John Gerdes helped the defense, but I also thought what he said was invalid, had no useful information (other than helping OJS get out of jail). He came up with two catchy phrases 'cesspool of contamination', and 'garbage in garbage out'. As far as I know he wasn't able to find a single case in which the LAPD had convicted an innocent person because of invalid lab work, or a case in which they had failed to catch a guilty person.
I may have missed something here. I have to admit I haven't studied the transcripts or books as well as others have. Maybe Gerdes did find a case in which the lab got the wrong person convicted. I am posing a question: Did Gerdes ever find a case in which the LAPD lab screwed it up with bad lab work? And if so, how often did it happen? I don't know enough about the lab to say it never screwed things up, but I think the phrases Gerdes used were way off the mark.

Gerdes was employed to evaluate the lapd lab as he had done at other labs because of his skills in this area. His effort was not to include criminal investigations as a result of the lapd labs subpar operations. His 'cesspool of contamination' remarks reflected his evaluation of the lapd lab operation. imo

It was what it was.

[martin II]

Two points I'd like to know what others think about or have read about are as follows:
First of all why was OJS taking a red eye special that night? He was getting to be after 4:00 Chicago time and then due on golf course at about 9:00 the next morning. This strange sleep schedule points toward guilt, although hardly conclusive.

Secondly as far as I could tell, OJS got almost no support from former team mates or coaches. OJS had spent about 10 years as a player, and then almost 15 as a football broadcaster. And yet as far as I could tell, very few NFL people were willing to say as much as "I didn't think he was that kind of guy". The pattern of making a very good superficial impression and a bad long term impression is common among psychopaths.

It may be that Hertz made the reservations. i think the flight would allow him to arrive get some sleep and be on time that morning.I don't know the flight time.

I think in this case with all the negative media against oj most did not want to set themsevels up for attacks. imo

[GreenIce]

All times are approximations. No one was watching a clock. It's the sequence of events in the timeline that's important.

TV,

There was at least one witness who did look a watch---she had two of them on.

However, what about the timeline witnesses that were not used?

For instance, the woman the dog walkers went to call the police? She was standing by her car and she was asked to call the police for some reason the dog walkers did not believe she would call the police so they banged on the door of a neighbor's.

What about the two police officers who were waved down by Steven S? Did the cops say they would call the dog pound for him, yet they never did? Wasn't there a question of Steven's timeline testimony? First he gave one answer and then he went back and explained his error---I have no problem with that, however, I do have a problem when there are two other witness who could have confirmed this testimony. I also often wonder if Steven was married why his wife wasn't asked about the time.

You are also forgetting something very important about the timeline in the criminal case---the DA's were basing their timeline on other "experts" opinon. For example, it is clear that the DA's did not feel that Nicole and Ron were killed in short time span. Clark didn't use JS's testimony because it clashed with her timeline.

What about the security or the guard system for the Brown's home in Dana Point? Don't most people live in a gated community because strangers just can't come and go in their neighborhood?

[GreenIce]

Two points I'd like to know what others think about or have read about are as follows:
First of all why was OJS taking a red eye special that night? He was getting to be after 4:00 Chicago time and then due on golf course at about 9:00 the next morning. This strange sleep schedule points toward guilt, although hardly conclusive.

Secondly as far as I could tell, OJS got almost no support from former team mates or coaches. OJS had spent about 10 years as a player, and then almost 15 as a football broadcaster. And yet as far as I could tell, very few NFL people were willing to say as much as "I didn't think he was that kind of guy". The pattern of making a very good superficial impression and a bad long term impression is common among psychopaths.

FGF,

In my experience, most people who have a hectic schedule and are constantly travel the country, learn how to fit sleep into their schedule. Maybe not the best example, just like a mother and father with a new born, they adjust to it.

[GreenIce]

Gerdes was employed to evaluate the lapd lab as he had done at other labs because of his skills in this area. His effort was not to include criminal investigations as a result of the lapd labs subpar operations. His 'cesspool of contamination' remarks reflected his evaluation of the lapd lab operation. imo

It was what it was.

Martin,

If I remember correctly, wasn't the lab "audited" a few times before the Simpson case and they never improved?

[GreenIce]

Hello All ~
Martin, thanks for the background on JC. I found him a truly charming, intelligent Criminal Atty, with a wonderful gift of gab. With that being said, make no mistake, Simpson's Dream Team all knew their client was guilty, but, they performed their jobs to the best of their ability. No, he did not tell them, of course, they would have had to excuse themselves if so. JC was smart enough to do what he was hired for, but no dummy was JC~ he knew the truth.

Martin, out to you. In his own words, Kato Kaelin told the story of the alarming thud which made the wall shake in his room. As OJ's vehicle was seen just prior flying through the streets and almost hitting someone, and at the time of the 'thud', Mark Fuhrman was not even aware of a case yet ~ what do you attribute this to?

I feel MF's information re racism cast a negative light on his testimony, and the case as a whole. The jury was offended, as were many others. But the fact remains, this murder was so Personal, so emotionally motivated, that I am hard pressed to find evidence pointing to drugs or a random killing. This person looked them both in the eyes, to let them know.

Jealously, Rage and basic human emotions can make a killer out of the meekest of men. We cannot make excuses.

Old Soul,

You bring up some excellent points---however, IMO, they point more to Nicole being at the wrong place and the wrong time. Goldman had torture or control wounds on his cheek, yet Nicole did not. If Simpson is the killer and Ron just happend to walk in on it, he had no time to play 20 questions with Ron. Nicole was basically killed "neat and sweet", Ron was not.

I have asked this question many times but I have never gotten an answer, why didn't the DA's use the crime of passion motive? It never made sense to me that they did not use this defense.

[GreenIce]

I thought it was Darden that said he didn't want Fuhrman, not the other way around.

Can anyone confirm or deny?

Jayme,

Actually it was both. Darden told Clark that there was no way he could do MF because it would be to obvious to the jury that Darden did not believe MF about his racial views.

I think it was a similar reason with Vanatter. He knew the jury would not believe the reasons why MF went over the wall and let the other detectives in.

[tv]

TV,

Hey, how is it going?

Mark Fuhrman did not want Darden because he was still angry at Darden for a friend of his being kicked off the force and losing his benifits. If you read his book, he says that another good cop was tossed because this cop treated an African-American cop, who just happened to be working undercover. Bottom line, Fuhrman had a long simmering grudge against Darden.

I believe it was either in Clark's or Darden's book about the hug in front MF. I think it was Clark because MF asked her why did she let Darden hang all over her like a cheap suit. Again, I think it was Clark who said that maybe this comment proved he did not change after all. Mind you, if was Clark's book, please remember Clark never wrote her book until both trials were finished.

Also in MF's book, he describes walking into Darden's office and seeing a "Black Law" hat and MF was angry because he could not ask Darden what the hat meant. Again, bottom line, why couldn't he ask Darden? Why did he assume it was racial thing and not the name of a law book?

I don't care if Darden was rude to MF, MF does not work for Darden. MF had no right to even ask for a different lawyer. His ill feelings toward Darden should not have affected his behavior while be prepped. There is no excuse for MF's behavior---Nicole and Ron deserved better, IMO.

Hi GreenIce, nice to see you. What I said about Mark Fuhrman's relationship with Chris Darden is how he portrayed it in his book which I did read. Whether Chris Darden and Mark Fuhrman liked each other or not makes no difference. Chris Darden should have at least made an effort to work with Mark Fuhrman on his testimony. If Darden wouldn't even talk to him how were they going to provide an effective prosecution? You're right that Ron and Nicole deserved better than what they got from the State. As far as Mark Fuhrman, there's nothing to indicate he did anything but his job concerning the case. I defend Chris Darden more than most people do but I can't agree with the way he handled Det. Fuhrman.

By the way, I don't believe Mark Fuhrman asked Clarke why she let Darden hang all over her like a cheap suit.

[tv]

Old Soul,

You bring up some excellent points---however, IMO, they point more to Nicole being at the wrong place and the wrong time. Goldman had torture or control wounds on his cheek, yet Nicole did not. If Simpson is the killer and Ron just happend to walk in on it, he had no time to play 20 questions with Ron. Nicole was basically killed "neat and sweet", Ron was not.

I have asked this question many times but I have never gotten an answer, why didn't the DA's use the crime of passion motive? It never made sense to me that they did not use this defense.Nicole wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was her home for heaven's sake. Ron was the unexpected factor here. Don't forget that Mike Gilbert said Simpson told him that Nicole would be alive if she hadn't come to the door with a knife. Rings true to me.

[tv]

TV,

There was at least one witness who did look a watch---she had two of them on.

However, what about the timeline witnesses that were not used?

For instance, the woman the dog walkers went to call the police? She was standing by her car and she was asked to call the police for some reason the dog walkers did not believe she would call the police so they banged on the door of a neighbor's.

What about the two police officers who were waved down by Steven S? Did the cops say they would call the dog pound for him, yet they never did? Wasn't there a question of Steven's timeline testimony? First he gave one answer and then he went back and explained his error---I have no problem with that, however, I do have a problem when there are two other witness who could have confirmed this testimony. I also often wonder if Steven was married why his wife wasn't asked about the time.

You are also forgetting something very important about the timeline in the criminal case---the DA's were basing their timeline on other "experts" opinon. For example, it is clear that the DA's did not feel that Nicole and Ron were killed in short time span. Clark didn't use JS's testimony because it clashed with her timeline.

What about the security or the guard system for the Brown's home in Dana Point? Don't most people live in a gated community because strangers just can't come and go in their neighborhood?The State's timeline was flawed. I much prefer to believe Petrocelli's. It simply makes more sense. The sequence of events, however, is what really matters.

[tv]

It may be that Hertz made the reservations. i think the flight would allow him to arrive get some sleep and be on time that morning.I don't know the flight time.

I think in this case with all the negative media against oj most did not want to set themsevels up for attacks. imoI don't think the time of the flight has anything to do with the crime. I'm sure either Kathy Randa or Hertz booked the flight. I'm not sure that OJ Simpson meant to kill Nicole the night he went over there but something happened to change that.

[GreenIce]

Hi GreenIce, nice to see you. What I said about Mark Fuhrman's relationship with Chris Darden is how he portrayed it in his book which I did read. Whether Chris Darden and Mark Fuhrman liked each other or not makes no difference. Chris Darden should have at least made an effort to work with Mark Fuhrman on his testimony. If Darden wouldn't even talk to him how were they going to provide an effective prosecution? You're right that Ron and Nicole deserved better than what they got from the State. As far as Mark Fuhrman, there's nothing to indicate he did anything but his job concerning the case. I defend Chris Darden more than most people do but I can't agree with the way he handled Det. Fuhrman.

By the way, I don't believe Mark Fuhrman asked Clarke why she let Darden hang all over her like a cheap suit.

TV,

I agree that Darden can and did on several occasions throw a better temper tantrum then a two year old. I would also agree that at times, JC and CD were more intent on their own issues with each other then on the case.

MF said Darden wouldn't work him and Darden said that MF wouldn't work him. However, Chris Darden did not find the glove. Chris Darden did not have citizens sending the DA's, defense and the court letters on their encounters with MF. Chris Darden was not taped on saying he was the most important witness in the "trial of the century" and if he goes down, the glove goes down, the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it.

Fuhrman held the DA's hostage and he knew it. The DA's were just as bad as allowing themselves to be put in this position. Because of the role he played in the trial, IMO, MF had no right to play "Kiss My Butt" with Darden.

IMO, I think anyone who watched the trial and heard MF's denials knew that no body was going to believe him and he didn't care. He was more intent on flipping the invisiable finger not only at the defense but also at the DA's.

I did read that comment about the cheap suit. I have Clark's book but not Darden's.

[GreenIce]

I don't think the time of the flight has anything to do with the crime. I'm sure either Kathy Randa or Hertz booked the flight. I'm not sure that OJ Simpson meant to kill Nicole the night he went over there but something happened to change that.

TV,

Both the DA's and Petrocelli had a witness who could have testified what did happen that night to send Simpson into a rage and kill Nicole. However, they did not use her.

[GreenIce]

The State's timeline was flawed. I much prefer to believe Petrocelli's. It simply makes more sense. The sequence of events, however, is what really matters.

TV,

That is my point exactly, the DA's timeline was flawed, but they had enough witnesses to "un-flaw" it. IMO.

[tv]

TV,

Both the DA's and Petrocelli had a witness who could have testified what did happen that night to send Simpson into a rage and kill Nicole. However, they did not use her.
Who are you referring to?

[tv]

TV,

That is my point exactly, the DA's timeline was flawed, but they had enough witnesses to "un-flaw" it. IMO.GI, I think their timeline was flawed but it was a timeline that they sincerely believed in. As I said before, it's the sequence of events that's more important than the exact timeline even though I think Petrocelli's is accurate.

[tv]

TV,

I agree that Darden can and did on several occasions throw a better temper tantrum then a two year old. I would also agree that at times, JC and CD were more intent on their own issues with each other then on the case.

MF said Darden wouldn't work him and Darden said that MF wouldn't work him. However, Chris Darden did not find the glove. Chris Darden did not have citizens sending the DA's, defense and the court letters on their encounters with MF. Chris Darden was not taped on saying he was the most important witness in the "trial of the century" and if he goes down, the glove goes down, the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it.

Fuhrman held the DA's hostage and he knew it. The DA's were just as bad as allowing themselves to be put in this position. Because of the role he played in the trial, IMO, MF had no right to play "Kiss My Butt" with Darden.

IMO, I think anyone who watched the trial and heard MF's denials knew that no body was going to believe him and he didn't care. He was more intent on flipping the invisiable finger not only at the defense but also at the DA's.

I did read that comment about the cheap suit. I have Clark's book but not Darden's.
I don't think you understand that Mark Fuhrman didn't play 'kiss my butt' with Darden. Darden refused to play at all.

I didn't say you didn't read the cheap suit comment. I'm saying I don't think it happened.

[GreenIce]

Nicole wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was her home for heaven's sake. Ron was the unexpected factor here. Don't forget that Mike Gilbert said Simpson told him that Nicole would be alive if she hadn't come to the door with a knife. Rings true to me.

TV Dinner,

IMO, the killers were not surprised by Ron's being there. I think at least one of them was totally shocked that Ron put up a heck of fight and that Ron wasn't as easy to kill as Nicole was. Faye Resnick has given at least two different times of that phone call. She has changed her story about the other black football star who happens to drive a white bronco being at Nicole's that night. The killers were prepared not only for adults but also for the kids upstairs as well as the dog.

Ron parked down the street, why when he was just dropping off glasses? Nicole's bedroom had the TV on---to ESPN---I don't know how many woman watch that on a nice June night. Where did the men's jean jacket go that was in the kitchen when Riske got there but was gone later?

I don't know who Mike Gilbert is but if he is telling the truth, when did he give an official statement?

Who ever killed them had great sources, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Who are you referring to?

TV,

Dr. Jennifer Ameli. She said that she was so worried about Nicole that night that she left the dinner table at the restaurant to call Nicole. Nicole told her that she told OJ off and that he was very angry that she did this. Dr. Ameli then claims that Nicole was convinced that OJ was coming for her that night because "he wouldn't let her get away with treating him like that" and Dr. Ameli's brilliant advice was for Nicole to call a friend to stay with her until OJ left. Talk about a smoking gun--if this is true, we be blinded by the gun flash!

[GreenIce]

I don't think you understand that Mark Fuhrman didn't play 'kiss my butt' with Darden. Darden refused to play at all.

I didn't say you didn't read the cheap suit comment. I'm saying I don't think it happened.

TV Dinner,

I'll be honest with you. Of all the DA's, I believe Chris Darden's care for the victims was real. I don't not think he looked at this case as a cash cow for himself. Yes, did he act foolish sometimes and immature others--but his feeling for the victims was real.

By the time Darden had him in that room to prep him, Darden knew almost everything about Fuhrman. He had the statements of the other witnesses. He expected Fuhrman to come clean during that time and figure out what the next plan. Fuhrman chose to go petty and nasty. Fuhrman put his own dislike of Darden ahead of his job.

Did Darden have every right not to belive Fuhrman? Yes he did. Did MF have a right to carry years old grudges against African American DA's and undercover cops---No he didn't.

[GreenIce]

GI, I think their timeline was flawed but it was a timeline that they sincerely believed in. As I said before, it's the sequence of events that's more important than the exact timeline even though I think Petrocelli's is accurate.

TV,

But if the DA's and the LAPD got the sequence of events wrong, then that would produce a very flawed timeline. IMO, I think the LAPD and the DA's believed that weapon, shoes and clothes would be found. When they weren't they were in trouble. I don't believe they ever had faith in their timeline but were stuck with it.

Petrocelli was brilliant, he used the defense's timeline and with those civil trial jurors, they didn't miss the irony of this. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I don't think the time of the flight has anything to do with the crime. I'm sure either Kathy Randa or Hertz booked the flight. I'm not sure that OJ Simpson meant to kill Nicole the night he went over there but something happened to change that.

TV,

IMO, I believe Simpson's flight did play a significant role in the murders. I believe there is evidence to suggest that who ever was involved in the murders wanted the bodies to be found before Simpson left LA. That phone call about the 2 bodies is a huge a clue. And before you say that it was a reporter who called the police that makes no sense. If a reporter thought there were two bodies in Brentwood, the police would be the last people they would ask. Did this caller expect the police to tell her anything? What reporter wouldn't give their left arm to get a scoop like that? This could have made a reporters career.

[tv]

TV,

But if the DA's and the LAPD got the sequence of events wrong, then that would produce a very flawed timeline. IMO, I think the LAPD and the DA's believed that weapon, shoes and clothes would be found. When they weren't they were in trouble. I don't believe they ever had faith in their timeline but were stuck with it.

Petrocelli was brilliant, he used the defense's timeline and with those civil trial jurors, they didn't miss the irony of this. IMO.

Petrocelli and the Prosecution didn't use the same timeline. The sequence of events is the same but not the times.

[tv]

TV Dinner,

I'll be honest with you. Of all the DA's, I believe Chris Darden's care for the victims was real. I don't not think he looked at this case as a cash cow for himself. Yes, did he act foolish sometimes and immature others--but his feeling for the victims was real.

By the time Darden had him in that room to prep him, Darden knew almost everything about Fuhrman. He had the statements of the other witnesses. He expected Fuhrman to come clean during that time and figure out what the next plan. Fuhrman chose to go petty and nasty. Fuhrman put his own dislike of Darden ahead of his job.

Did Darden have every right not to belive Fuhrman? Yes he did. Did MF have a right to carry years old grudges against African American DA's and undercover cops---No he didn't.
We could go round and round about who was in the wrong but the fact is that if Darden and Fuhrman couldn't work together effectively then the prosecution should have given Fuhrman to another prosecutor. There is such a thing as personality conflict and it has to be dealt with.

[GreenIce]

Petrocelli and the Prosecution didn't use the same timeline. The sequence of events is the same but not the times.

TV,

I know the DA's and Petrocelli didn't use the same timeline. Petrocelli used the criminal trial defense's timeline---he took every question out of this equation. He did not give the civil trial defense team this bone to chew on.

And your sequence of events is missing a few things, however, the huge hole is how did the glove get behind the wall? The DA's never said and neither did Petrocelli. Petrocelli threw out many theories on this subject but he was wise enough not to pin himself down with one. Which he was smart to do because at least one civil trial juror, Deena Mullin believed Fuhrman did plant the glove. But like she said, she could not speculate how he did it, so she focused what was on the glove not where it was found or who found it.

[GreenIce]

We could go round and round about who was in the wrong but the fact is that if Darden and Fuhrman couldn't work together effectively then the prosecution should have given Fuhrman to another prosecutor. There is such a thing as personality conflict and it has to be dealt with.

TV,

I agree with you about going round and round. IMO, Darden never should have been given Fuhrman in the first place. Clark and lead detectives in this case knew about Joseph Britton, they knew about Kathleen Bell and Natalie Singer long before Fuhrman was called to take the stand.

While I agree it was just as smart for the DA's to have a black DA on their team as it was for the defense to have a black lawyer, that does not mean they should have treated him like a dolt and give him the one witness that they were warned about. That story in the New Yorker came out in August of 1994, isn't that even before Darden was on the team?

Like or not, if Clark and Company didn't know about MF, then they didn't want to, yet they thought nothing of giving MF to Darden? Does that make sense to you? Also, Darden has a very good reputation for going after dirty cops, he was instrumental in getting a racist cop kicked off the force--remember, Fuhrman's friend? What were the DA's thinking?

Now don't be shocked, but I do not believe that if MF planted the glove, it was racially motivated.

I also thought it was horrible how the DA's disowned MF and made him into their number 1 scape goat. Even if MF is the most vile person alive, he is not the reason they lost the case. IMO.

[tv]

TV Dinner,

IMO, the killers were not surprised by Ron's being there. I think at least one of them was totally shocked that Ron put up a heck of fight and that Ron wasn't as easy to kill as Nicole was. Faye Resnick has given at least two different times of that phone call. She has changed her story about the other black football star who happens to drive a white bronco being at Nicole's that night. The killers were prepared not only for adults but also for the kids upstairs as well as the dog.

Ron parked down the street, why when he was just dropping off glasses? Nicole's bedroom had the TV on---to ESPN---I don't know how many woman watch that on a nice June night. Where did the men's jean jacket go that was in the kitchen when Riske got there but was gone later?

I don't know who Mike Gilbert is but if he is telling the truth, when did he give an official statement?

Who ever killed them had great sources, IMO.

What difference does it make what Ron and Nicole were planning on doing? Ron was a friend, perhaps a boyfriend, but there's no reason to think anyone expected him to be there. Why would someone choose to kill him where they knew they would have another victim to deal with and possibly the dog and the children?

This is the first time I've heard the tv was on ESPN but I don't find that significant. :shrug:

Mike Gilbert was OJ Simpson's manager for many years and his statement wasn't official.

[tv]

TV,

I know the DA's and Petrocelli didn't use the same timeline. Petrocelli used the criminal trial defense's timeline---he took every question out of this equation. He did not give the civil trial defense team this bone to chew on.

And your sequence of events is missing a few things, however, the huge hole is how did the glove get behind the wall? The DA's never said and neither did Petrocelli. Petrocelli threw out many theories on this subject but he was wise enough not to pin himself down with one. Which he was smart to do because at least one civil trial juror, Deena Mullin believed Fuhrman did plant the glove. But like she said, she could not speculate how he did it, so she focused what was on the glove not where it was found or who found it.
There is no huge hole about the glove. OJ Simpson dropped it when he was behind Kato's room. That's never been a mystery.

[tv]

TV,

Dr. Jennifer Ameli. She said that she was so worried about Nicole that night that she left the dinner table at the restaurant to call Nicole. Nicole told her that she told OJ off and that he was very angry that she did this. Dr. Ameli then claims that Nicole was convinced that OJ was coming for her that night because "he wouldn't let her get away with treating him like that" and Dr. Ameli's brilliant advice was for Nicole to call a friend to stay with her until OJ left. Talk about a smoking gun--if this is true, we be blinded by the gun flash!
The LAPD found her story bogus even though it would have bolstered the prosecution's case. Petrocelli decided not to use her because he couldn't substantiate her claims. Both the Goldmans and the Browns thought she wasn't believable. Daniel Petrocelli said he put her on the witness list just to worry the defense.

[William Anthony]

Clark was ticked because Shively sold her story to the tabloids and then lied about it. Shively's statements about that night never changed. One of the interesting points to what she had to say was that orenthal didn't have a shirt on and then orenthal wrote in his confession book that he drove home naked -- :eek:

JS's testimony from the GJ on June 21

"Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT MR. SIMPSON WAS WEARING?
7 A. I REMEMBER IT AS BEING SOMETHING DARK.
8 I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING BESIDES DARK.
9 Q. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THERE WERE LONG OR SHORT
10 SLEEVES?
11 A. I THINK IT WAS SHORT.
12 Q. DO YOU RECALL SEEING BEAR ARMS?
13 A. I DO REMEMBER SEEING BEAR ARMS; RIGHT.
14 THAT'S WHY I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS SHORT
15 SLEEVED."

I saw nothing in her testimony where she said Simpson was shirtless.

[William Anthony]

I've always thought it was a mistake not to put Jill Shively on. Ewww...you mean he might have been commando? Wonder what he did with his clothes? Maybe he just took them off to keep from getting too much blood in the car and then threw them in the washer when he got home. Det. Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's partner, found blood on the light switch in the maid's bathroom near the laundry room but I don't think it was ever collected by the notorious Mr. Fung.

Oh yes, the blood that only MF and his partner saw.

[William Anthony]

Other than the reason given in my post i assume they had been getting some reports of Furhman and decided to check his reaction. my best answer

I think you are right but the best way to assess him as a witness, imho, would have been to tell him they weren't going to use him and then the real MF would have stood up, ranting statements like those heard on the tapes.:)

[William Anthony]

I understand what you're saying but why didn't they just go on the evidence of all the brutality that he shown towards other races during his years as a cop? If it was common knowledge that he was a racist and mistreated blacks...why did they have to test it?

Because MF committed perjury :) and the defense lost the Brady motion.

[William Anthony]

People's time estimates are often off by more than a few minutes. As I have written before forensic memory experts believe that most peoples time estimates are more inaccurate than they realize. V. Bugliosi once wrote about a case in which a cop saw a problem, and then radioed in for help, and wrote down the time at which he realized there was a problem. The second cop who arrived at the location of the crime wrote down the time he thought he got there. At least one of the two times must have been wrong because the time the second cop thought he got there was about an hour before the first cop thought he realized there was a problem. Do you, WA, have any reason for believing that forensic memory experts are wrong in their beliefs?

Is forensic memory another of those junk crafts? I know what testimony the jury heard and it was their duty to determine the facts from that testimony, which they found Simpson not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the prosecution put forth a forensic memory expert to say that their witnesses' memories were wrong? I don't think they were allowed to impeach their own witnesses.

[William Anthony]

Two points I'd like to know what others think about or have read about are as follows:
First of all why was OJS taking a red eye special that night? He was getting to be after 4:00 Chicago time and then due on golf course at about 9:00 the next morning. This strange sleep schedule points toward guilt, although hardly conclusive.

Secondly as far as I could tell, OJS got almost no support from former team mates or coaches. OJS had spent about 10 years as a player, and then almost 15 as a football broadcaster. And yet as far as I could tell, very few NFL people were willing to say as much as "I didn't think he was that kind of guy". The pattern of making a very good superficial impression and a bad long term impression is common among psychopaths.

Have you forgotten that this was the night of his daughter's recital?

Let me give you a guess. Evidence of character or reputation can be rebutted, if the defense opens that door, which might have allowed more evidence on the spousal abuse.

[William Anthony]

Gerdes was employed to evaluate the lapd lab as he had done at other labs because of his skills in this area. His effort was not to include criminal investigations as a result of the lapd labs subpar operations. His 'cesspool of contamination' remarks reflected his evaluation of the lapd lab operation. imo

It was what it was.

I think Dr. Gerdes' evaluation was based on objective scientifically valid criteria and not subjective conclusions.

[William Anthony]

I don't think you understand that Mark Fuhrman didn't play 'kiss my butt' with Darden. Darden refused to play at all.

I didn't say you didn't read the cheap suit comment. I'm saying I don't think it happened.

Are you saying that you believe a convicted perjurer over the prosecutor who had contact with the prosecution's witnesses? What does this say about how you feel about the prosecutors?:)

[William Anthony]

We could go round and round about who was in the wrong but the fact is that if Darden and Fuhrman couldn't work together effectively then the prosecution should have given Fuhrman to another prosecutor. There is such a thing as personality conflict and it has to be dealt with.

It was dealt with-Darden questioned MF.

[William Anthony]

There is no huge hole about the glove. OJ Simpson dropped it when he was behind Kato's room. That's never been a mystery.

Maybe, you don't see it as a mystery but the prosecution's theory is that Simpson was bleeding and the only blood trail of Simpson's is far too distant to where the glove was allegedly found by MF, who had witnesses testify about his racial animus and his feelings toward interracial couples. Reasonable doubt.:)

[William Anthony]

If Simpson wore a short sleeved shirt, then that casts doubt on the sweat suit allegedly found in the washer, and, if he wore a short sleeve shirt, then he would have had blood on his arms, but there was no blood found in the bathroom drains or in the washing machine drains, which means reasonable doubt, imho.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Gerdes testimony

August 2nd

"DR. GERDES: Certainly. I think a way to look at this is to start all the way back at the beginning at the crime scene and the first type of risk of contamination is going to be called what is called cross-contamination, and as I mentioned, this is human DNA finding its way into a sample where it shouldn't be there, and the--that is as a result of cross-transferring from one space to another physically, and that can happen by mishandling. And the--that is because if you have a sample here with a large amount of DNA and another sample with small amount of DNA, this technique is so exquisitely sensitive that you can transfer without even knowing it frequently a small amount of DNA from item 1 where there was a large amount to item 2.

MR. SCHECK: When you say "Exquisitely sensitive," we have heard that term before. What do you mean by that? It is a scientific term?

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: But could you try to define that a little in plainer English, if we could?

DR. GERDES: Yeah. It simply means that you can find a very, very, very small amount. This technique can theoretically find a single copy of what you are looking for.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, we discussed cross-contamination. Is there something about cross-contamination that is a particular problem in terms of the different kinds contamination you get?

DR. GERDES: Yes. This--this particular kind of contamination is the one that is the most subversive and that--by that I mean that once you've done that, once you have accidentally transferred from one item to the next, if you were to do the DNA analysis of both items, the DNA analysis doesn't distinguish where that human DNA came from. It is simply going to type what human DNA is there. So that means that if you were to type those two items and you had accidentally done that, those items were--would probably type as the same item, especially, you know, the smaller amount would be most likely overwhelmed by the transferred DNA. So they would type as the same DNA, meaning coming from the same individual, and it wouldn't matter if at that point from that point on it wouldn't matter if this sample that was falsely incorporated--falsely incorporated, if that sample was typed by five, ten, other laboratories or by five or ten different gene systems, it is always going to come up as a match. And the problem with that is there really is no control, unfortunately. There is no way of incorporating into the system a control that says that happened.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. SCHECK: What other kind of categories of contamination are there?

DR. GERDES: Well, the second is usually once the DNA or the specimen is transferred to a laboratory, now you can have the same kind of transfer, by the way, cross-transfer can happen anytime that item is manipulated, either in the crime scene, in the laboratory itself, or anytime they are handled, those specimens, all the way through the process that can happen. A second type of contamination, though, that occurs, is the fact that when you are dealing with DNA the samples are fairly dirty samples. In the process of analyzing them you have to add these liquid solutions that contain all of the building blocks for the DNA and the enzyme that is responsible for allowing us to copy it, and the components of that reaction that allows the PCR process to occur.

MR. SCHECK: These are the reagents that you pour into things?

DR. GERDES: Correct, they are called reagents.

MR. SCHECK: Can they get contaminated?

DR. GERDES: Yes, they can.

MR. SCHECK: And what is known as amplicon or PCR carry-over contamination?

DR. GERDES: That is a slightly different concept, and the PCR process I'm sure you are aware of that now, basically allows us to take a small number and copy it, sort of like a molecular Xeroxing up to a very high number. Now, if you do that for the same gene over and over, day after day, with multiple samples, what happens is you have a build-up or can have a build-up of the copies, and when you have a build-up of those copies it is very easy to accidentally get one of those into your reagent or into your reactions, and that is called amplification product carry-over.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Dr. Gerdes, based on your review of the data in this case, have you formed an opinion as to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty about contamination at the LAPD DNA laboratory?

MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, my method here is that I'm going to elicit the opinions of the doctor and then give the basis of his expert opinion.

THE COURT: Overruled, overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Have you an opinion, within a degree of scientific certainly, about contamination at the LAPD laboratory?

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What is it?

DR. GERDES: I found that the LAPD laboratory has substantial contamination problem that is persistent and substantial.

MR. SCHECK: Is it chronic? What does that term mean?

DR. GERDES: Chronic--it is chronic and it is chronic in the sense that it doesn't go away. I can find it month after month and it persists.

MR. SCHECK: Is--as a DNA lab director do you have an opinion about the risk of error due to contamination at the LAPD?

MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: As a molecular biologist and DNA laboratory director, do you have an opinion about the collection, specimen handling and sampling method used by the personnel at the Los Angeles Police Department in this case?

MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what is it?

DR. GERDES: I found that the specimen handling procedures were done in such a manner that it had a tremendous--there was a tremendous risk of the potential of cross-contamination."

Reasonable doubt in that DNA could have been placed on items where it should not have been, giving a misleading impression as to what the evidence means.

[martin II]

Martin,

If I remember correctly, wasn't the lab "audited" a few times before the Simpson case and they never improved?

YES as a matter of fact most le labs did not have a national standard/protocol for collecting and processing evidence which is why GERDIS
had been doing his work. They were just operating by the seat of their pants so to speak and at the benefit of the DAS imo

[martin II]

Hi GreenIce, nice to see you. What I said about Mark Fuhrman's relationship with Chris Darden is how he portrayed it in his book which I did read. Whether Chris Darden and Mark Fuhrman liked each other or not makes no difference. Chris Darden should have at least made an effort to work with Mark Fuhrman on his testimony. If Darden wouldn't even talk to him how were they going to provide an effective prosecution? You're right that Ron and Nicole deserved better than what they got from the State. As far as Mark Fuhrman, there's nothing to indicate he did anything but his job concerning the case. I defend Chris Darden more than most people do but I can't agree with the way he handled Det. Fuhrman.

By the way, I don't believe Mark Fuhrman asked Clarke why she let Darden hang all over her like a cheap suit.

i believe it.

[martin II]

I don't think you understand that Mark Fuhrman didn't play 'kiss my butt' with Darden. Darden refused to play at all.

I didn't say you didn't read the cheap suit comment. I'm saying I don't think it happened.

His comments fits with what the other white women testified that he made simular comments about mixed couples to them.

[martin II]

What difference does it make what Ron and Nicole were planning on doing? Ron was a friend, perhaps a boyfriend, but there's no reason to think anyone expected him to be there. Why would someone choose to kill him where they knew they would have another victim to deal with and possibly the dog and the children?

This is the first time I've heard the tv was on ESPN but I don't find that significant. :shrug:

Mike Gilbert was OJ Simpson's manager for many years and his statement wasn't official.


You seem to believe mike gilbert.

[martin II]

There is no huge hole about the glove. OJ Simpson dropped it when he was behind Kato's room. That's never been a mystery.

Vanhatter of all people and 2 other detectives investigated the neighbors property, the bushes,the fence and walkway and concluded that no one came through the bushes and jumped that fence where the glove was found.
So the jury did not get proof that he was there.

[martin II]

The LAPD found her story bogus even though it would have bolstered the prosecution's case. Petrocelli decided not to use her because he couldn't substantiate her claims. Both the Goldmans and the Browns thought she wasn't believable. Daniel Petrocelli said he put her on the witness list just to worry the defense.

So the Dr just made up the story about Nicole calling her that night?

[martin II]

I don't think you understand that Mark Fuhrman didn't play 'kiss my butt' with Darden. Darden refused to play at all.

I didn't say you didn't read the cheap suit comment. I'm saying I don't think it happened.

I think Furhman knowing he would face the dream team had a responsibility to walk in to Clarke/Darden tell them ALL about his past and given them a chance to figure out a way to deal with his past in court. He had embedded himself so deep in the case that they had to use him but with a heads up on him they could have done better than they did.imo

[martin II]

Two points I'd like to know what others think about or have read about are as follows:
First of all why was OJS taking a red eye special that night? He was getting to be after 4:00 Chicago time and then due on golf course at about 9:00 the next morning. This strange sleep schedule points toward guilt, although hardly conclusive.

Secondly as far as I could tell, OJS got almost no support from former team mates or coaches. OJS had spent about 10 years as a player, and then almost 15 as a football broadcaster. And yet as far as I could tell, very few NFL people were willing to say as much as "I didn't think he was that kind of guy". The pattern of making a very good superficial impression and a bad long term impression is common among psychopaths.

Fgump2
The Hertz event was scheduled long in advance.There is no reason not to believe ojs flight was arranged long before 6/12 by them or CR.So there is not guilt shown by him leaving when he did. Many friends gave oj support personally and privately but not in public and there was good reason for this.imo

[martin II]

If Simpson wore a short sleeved shirt, then that casts doubt on the sweat suit allegedly found in the washer, and, if he wore a short sleeve shirt, then he would have had blood on his arms, but there was no blood found in the bathroom drains or in the washing machine drains, which means reasonable doubt, imho.

I believe Fung lied about the sweats.I believe le took the sweats. Found no blood.Found the fibers that did not match and then tossed the sweats in a effort to claim that they did match. They tried to get the jury to believe they had a fiber match to a sweat suite that they never examined in the lab and never presented in court.Pure nonsense.

Martin II

[martin II]

If Simpson wore a short sleeved shirt, then that casts doubt on the sweat suit allegedly found in the washer, and, if he wore a short sleeve shirt, then he would have had blood on his arms, but there was no blood found in the bathroom drains or in the washing machine drains, which means reasonable doubt, imho.

JS was first interviewed by Vanhatter on 6/14/ or 6/16. She said she was at home at 10:45 as she left for the store.This is the same time that Heidstra saw a white suv at Dorothy and Bundy and the same time that Kato and his girl testified that he heard the knocks.
When she testified at the grand jury her story had changed somewhat and after that testimony Clarke had received letters/notes that JS had a history of telling lies on certain issues.One big accusation from her ex boyfriend.
she had told Clarke that her car clock had been 8-10 minutes behind.So her times were off and Clarke wanted her to change her times to fit what Clarke "NEEDED" She didn't and Clarke tossed her.So it was not only that JS lied about the paid interview.There were other issues as well.

[martin II]

Cheap suite comment by Furhman

He made simular racial comments to three different white women on 2-3 ocassions and then on the tapes.That was his MO.imo

[GreenIce]

There is no huge hole about the glove. OJ Simpson dropped it when he was behind Kato's room. That's never been a mystery.

TV,

The Grand Jury was not going to hand down charges because of that glove. According to Terry White and Peter Bonzaich (sp?) that glove was the kiss of death for the DA's case.

There was no evidence support how that glove got back there. There was no evidence of anyone being behind that wall until MF went back there. Kato's demonstration of what he heard did not even come close to being that of person slaming into the wall.

Dr. Lee testified that no one could have jumped that fence unless he was like helicopter.

Bottom line, neither side could reproduce that Kato says he heard and felt. Both tried and neither could figure out what those thumps were or if they had anything to do with the murders. When you add up all the facts surrounding that glove, you can only come to one conclusion, someone put it back there and it was not OJ Simpson.

I believe it was Mr. August who said the DA's didn't even have that area inspected in detail. So that means that either the DA's knew nothing would be found to indicate that it was Simpson or they knew that evidence would be found that would point away from Simpson--either way, they didn't want to know.

[GreenIce]

The LAPD found her story bogus even though it would have bolstered the prosecution's case. Petrocelli decided not to use her because he couldn't substantiate her claims. Both the Goldmans and the Browns thought she wasn't believable. Daniel Petrocelli said he put her on the witness list just to worry the defense.

My understanding is that the DA's would not provide protection for her. It is also my understanding that Petrocelli did not use her because she would open up too many doors and that he could not even close one of them let alone all of them.

It is obvious that the Goldmans' did not know a lot about Ron's private life. Before anyone goes on attack, I think any parent will tell you that it is very possible that our children do have a private life that we no very little about until much later. I can understand why Ron would not go his family but Nicole, that makes no sense, IMO. However, if you believe Faye, then Nicole would never have gone to her parents about this because they loved OJ more then Nicole.

Petrocelli did not put her on his witness list to scare the defense, she would have been the defense's dream witness. He used the tools that both sides have done for years and years when it comes to certain witnesses, they put them on their witness list before the other side can.

IMO, why would Dr. Ameli lie about the events that night? Why would she open up her self like that? As for the LAPD not finding her credible, well is that really a surprise when they found that MF was?

[GreenIce]

I think Furhman knowing he would face the dream team had a responsibility to walk in to Clarke/Darden tell them ALL about his past and given them a chance to figure out a way to deal with his past in court. He had embedded himself so deep in the case that they had to use him but with a heads up on him they could have done better than they did.imo

Hey Martin,

MF did go to Clark and tell her that something was up, but he just couldn't figure out what it was. Then later he said it something about his past when he wanted to get off the force and he tried to get those statements out of his record. The only way the DA's could have presented Fuhrman with any credibility was for him to tell the jury that he did make certain statements when he was in the streets. However, the comments he made to complete strangers would have been impossible to explain. Hank Goldberg wrote in his book that it was not a surprise that any police officer used those types of words, that certainly Fuhrman was not the only cop with a "filthy mouth", however, it was Fuhrman's comments to strangers that was impossible for the DA's to explain away.

I still don't understand Judge Ito's ruling on the tapes. I can't understand how he could have kept MF's statements about his being the key witness in the trial of the century, he will be known as the cop who found the glove. Not only did MF disobey a direct order not to speak to LHM but it proves that some members of the LAPD knew about LHM and knew MF should stay away from her. Isn't this a perfect example on how MF does not allow his superiors to dictate his professional life?

BTW, why I do find strange on that tape is that he does not mention the bloody fingerprint on the gate nor does he mention the socks in the bedroom. As you know, I think the socks were the most important evidence in the case. They were found inside the house.

[GreenIce]

I believe Fung lied about the sweats.I believe le took the sweats. Found no blood.Found the fibers that did not match and then tossed the sweats in a effort to claim that they did match. They tried to get the jury to believe they had a fiber match to a sweat suite that they never examined in the lab and never presented in court.Pure nonsense.

Martin II

Martin,

I do believe that the sweats were taken and I do believe they were tested. However, I am not inclined to believe it was Fung or that he was out and out lying. Is there a picture of him holding towels and the sweat suit?

Yet on the other hand, he took the socks, I think he took the towels but not the sweats---that makes no sense. IMO.

[GreenIce]

What difference does it make what Ron and Nicole were planning on doing? Ron was a friend, perhaps a boyfriend, but there's no reason to think anyone expected him to be there. Why would someone choose to kill him where they knew they would have another victim to deal with and possibly the dog and the children?

This is the first time I've heard the tv was on ESPN but I don't find that significant. :shrug:

Mike Gilbert was OJ Simpson's manager for many years and his statement wasn't official.

TV,

If someone outside of Nicole's children knew that Ron's was coming over that night, that makes a huge difference. Faye Resnick gave at least 2 or 3 different times when she spoke to Nicole on the phone and she knew that Ron was coming over. How did she know Ron was coming over if she last spoke to Nicole before her mother called about the glasses. People don't understand how many times Faye has changed her story.

Cora F. knew that Nicole was not going to be alone that night and that if the other victim was not Ron it was another waiter. Clearly who ever killed them was not surprised by a younger male being at Nicole's.

We know that Nicole was being followed, wouldn't it only make sense to keep an eye on who is coming in and our of her house? What about Ron, if he was being followed, then this person would have known what the situation was at Nicole's.

Why would Simpson go over to Nicole's and not even know if she was going to be home that night or if she was going to be home that she was expecting a guest that night? Remember Kato's comments about Nicole that night, that Nicole was dressed for going out that night?

What if Dr. Ameli is telling a basic truth--that Nicole was scared that night and that Dr. Ameli recommended she call a friend to stay with her that night -what if that is why Ron parked down the street? What if Ron was going to sit with Nicole until she felt safe? We have no clue why Nicole was scared that night and according to Faye, Nicole was on top of the world that night.

Makes no sense, IMO.

[fgump2]

Have you forgotten that this was the night of his daughter's recital?

Let me give you a guess. Evidence of character or reputation can be rebutted, if the defense opens that door, which might have allowed more evidence on the spousal abuse.


The recital was over well before 11:00, he could have gone to the recital, and spent time with his ex wife and 2 children (except Nicole vetoed that), and the gone to the airport by say 7:00 or 8:00.

When I say OJS didn't get much backing from his ex team mates and former coaches, I meant in the news media. It looked to me that when they were asked about him, they turned the questions aside.

[William Anthony]

The recital was over well before 11:00, he could have gone to the recital, and spent time with his ex wife and 2 children (except Nicole vetoed that), and the gone to the airport by say 7:00 or 8:00.

When I say OJS didn't get much backing from his ex team mates and former coaches, I meant in the news media. It looked to me that when they were asked about him, they turned the questions aside.

Yes and that might be the reason he chose a late flight, because he was planning to spend time with his daughter. In any event the time line for him to have committed murders just like the gloves did not fit, imho.

I don't know how much backing he got or who was asked. I am of the opinion that he got enough backing from the dream team, who were able to raise reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

I believe Fung lied about the sweats.I believe le took the sweats. Found no blood.Found the fibers that did not match and then tossed the sweats in a effort to claim that they did match. They tried to get the jury to believe they had a fiber match to a sweat suite that they never examined in the lab and never presented in court.Pure nonsense.

Martin II

If there was a sweat suit found in the washing machine, I believe it was examined and determined like the gloves that it did not fit but when a blue black cotton fiber was found, which could have been the result of a transfer from anyone, they tried to say it came from a non fitting sweat suit.

[fgump2]

I think Dr. Gerdes' evaluation was based on objective scientifically valid criteria and not subjective conclusions.

My understanding is that each blood item retrieved from by the criminologists was split in half, one half going to the LA police lab, the other to cell mark. The LA police lab and cell mark go the same results. Was this a coincidence? I don't say the LA police lab was outstanding, but Gerdes examined about 2 years worth of data and was unable to find any examples of an innocent person being sent to jail, or a case that was otherwise botched. It just doesn't add up to a cesspool of contamination, or garbage in garbage out.

One of the defense lawyers, William Thompson, wrote a paper in which said that contamination or other careless blood handling would usually result in an improbable crime scenario. For example if the pool of blood around Nicole seemed to be some one else's blood (Mazzola for example), or non human blood, we would suspect some mistakes were made in evidence handling.

The drops of blood at the crime scene that were thought to be from the killer and which matched OJS are pretty strong evidence that this wasn't the result of careless blook handling The defense floated the theory that the killer's blood degraded to nothing, and then these drops were accidentally contaminated with OJS blood. Either of these two steps is very improbable. For one thing DNA is pretty tough, and even with a broken refrigerator and other mishandling, it should not have degraded to nothing. For another thing, the criminologists took numerous control samples to compare, to check for errors, and for background DNA. All of the control samples came out blank, no DNA, all of the blood samples came out with blood that fit into a plausible scenario: OJS was the killer.

If there was much cross contamination, there should have been a lot of samples showing 2 or more people, and probably at least some blood not from the 3 known people at the scene. I think there was only one spot of blood that was mixed, in the bronco there was a spot of blood from both NBS and RG. The prosecution said that they thought it came from the killer's knife.

[William Anthony]

My understanding is that each blood item retrieved from by the criminologists was split in half, one half going to the LA police lab, the other to cell mark. The LA police lab and cell mark go the same results. Was this a coincidence? I don't say the LA police lab was outstanding, but Gerdes examined about 2 years worth of data and was unable to find any examples of an innocent person being sent to jail, or a case that was otherwise botched. It just doesn't add up to a cesspool of contamination, or garbage in garbage out.

One of the defense lawyers, William Thompson, wrote a paper in which said that contamination or other careless blood handling would usually result in an improbable crime scenario. For example if the pool of blood around Nicole seemed to be some one else's blood (Mazzola for example), or non human blood, we would suspect some mistakes were made in evidence handling.

The drops of blood at the crime scene that were thought to be from the killer and which matched OJS are pretty strong evidence that this wasn't the result of careless blook handling The defense floated the theory that the killer's blood degraded to nothing, and then these drops were accidentally contaminated with OJS blood. Either of these two steps is very improbable. For one thing DNA is pretty tough, and even with a broken refrigerator and other mishandling, it should not have degraded to nothing. For another thing, the criminologists took numerous control samples to compare, to check for errors, and for background DNA. All of the control samples came out blank, no DNA, all of the blood samples came out with blood that fit into a plausible scenario: OJS was the killer.

If there was much cross contamination, there should have been a lot of samples showing 2 or more people, and probably at least some blood not from the 3 known people at the scene. I think there was only one spot of blood that was mixed, in the bronco there was a spot of blood from both NBS and RG. The prosecution said that they thought it came from the killer's knife.

Once something is contaminated it will produce the same results, even though it is contaminated as evidenced by Dr. Cotton's testimony. No defendant should be convicted based on evidence of poor or sloppy evidence collection, handling and storage techniques or by results from a laboratory that showed continued and persistent evidence of contamination risks. I do not think that there had been any group, which had undertaken the effort to exonerate those wrongly convicted, as it related to DNA until the innocence project.

You have begun with the assumption that the blood drops found at the scene belonged to the killer and the blood found at the scene belonged to Simpson and, therefore, Simpson is the killer, which is a classic example of a circular argument. The first prong requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the blood belonged to the killer, the second prong requires proof that the blood was Simpson's and that is where the missing blood comes in. Given the totality of the evidence, it is easy to see that the first two prongs fail and then we consider the testimony that an AB blood type degraded in a manner inconsistent with the manner in which the AB blood type would have degraded based on the scientific literature. The only way that the scenario can be tailored to fit a plausible scenario, imho, is, if we forget or ignore the other evidence.

The time line, the missing blood, the evidence of poor and or sloppy evidence handling, collection and storage and the contradictory Rockingham blood trail makes and implausible scenario, imho.

[William Anthony]

All,

I am not saying that there is no validity to your concerns, nor I am saying that the evidence cannot be viewed as you view it. What I am saying is that, based on the jury instructions in the murder trial, there were two possible and plausible explanations for the evidence, resulting in different views, and the jury was instructed that they must accept the one that points toward innocence in that event and why different people with different life experiences may view the evidence differently. I just wanted to make my position clear without posters thinking I am criticizing their opinions

[tv]

Are you saying that you believe a convicted perjurer over the prosecutor who had contact with the prosecution's witnesses? What does this say about how you feel about the prosecutors?:)

You already know that I think the prosecutors could have done a better job. Mark Fuhrman has been convicted of perjury but that doesn't mean that he's lied about other things. I go by what makes sense and sounds logicial when I have to decide for myself what's true and it rings true for me that Darden was uncooperative with Fuhrman.

[tv]

Maybe, you don't see it as a mystery but the prosecution's theory is that Simpson was bleeding and the only blood trail of Simpson's is far too distant to where the glove was allegedly found by MF, who had witnesses testify about his racial animus and his feelings toward interracial couples. Reasonable doubt.:)

Invented doubt.

[tv]

TV,

If someone outside of Nicole's children knew that Ron's was coming over that night, that makes a huge difference. Faye Resnick gave at least 2 or 3 different times when she spoke to Nicole on the phone and she knew that Ron was coming over. How did she know Ron was coming over if she last spoke to Nicole before her mother called about the glasses. People don't understand how many times Faye has changed her story.

Cora F. knew that Nicole was not going to be alone that night and that if the other victim was not Ron it was another waiter. Clearly who ever killed them was not surprised by a younger male being at Nicole's.

We know that Nicole was being followed, wouldn't it only make sense to keep an eye on who is coming in and our of her house? What about Ron, if he was being followed, then this person would have known what the situation was at Nicole's.

Why would Simpson go over to Nicole's and not even know if she was going to be home that night or if she was going to be home that she was expecting a guest that night? Remember Kato's comments about Nicole that night, that Nicole was dressed for going out that night?

What if Dr. Ameli is telling a basic truth--that Nicole was scared that night and that Dr. Ameli recommended she call a friend to stay with her that night -what if that is why Ron parked down the street? What if Ron was going to sit with Nicole until she felt safe? We have no clue why Nicole was scared that night and according to Faye, Nicole was on top of the world that night.

Makes no sense, IMO.

There's no mystery why Nicole was dressed the way she was. She attended a recital for her daughter and then went out to dinner with her parents and the children. That wasn't an unusual way for her to dress. Ron probably parked where he did because he knew OJ Simpson was a jealous SOB and had confronted him before or maybe that's just where he usually parked. He actually had plans with a male friend for later that evening. I agree that Nicole may have been scared that night -- scared of OJ Simpson, a man who had threatened her life many times and who she feared would one day kill her.

[martin II]

Martin,

I do believe that the sweats were taken and I do believe they were tested. However, I am not inclined to believe it was Fung or that he was out and out lying. Is there a picture of him holding towels and the sweat suit?

Yet on the other hand, he took the socks, I think he took the towels but not the sweats---that makes no sense. IMO.

I think Fung said he looked at the sweats.saw no blood, made a video of them and left them there.I never saw the video.But that does not mean that someone else did not take it.

The problem with le trying to connect the sweats to oj during the killings is.
If oj returned wearing the sweats, why would he leave them in his house knowing le would be there soon looking for him as the ex.All he would have to do is put them in one of the bags while in the house and take them away as many think he did with the shoes and knife. It make no sense.

[martin II]

There's no mystery why Nicole was dressed the way she was. She attended a recital for her daughter and then went out to dinner with her parents and the children. That wasn't an unusual way for her to dress. Ron probably parked where he did because he knew OJ Simpson was a jealous SOB and had confronted him before or maybe that's just where he usually parked. He actually had plans with a male friend for later that evening. I agree that Nicole may have been scared that night -- scared of OJ Simpson, a man who had threatened her life many times and who she feared would one day kill her.

TV
Remember Fay Resnick testified that Nicole had told her on the phone that ron was comming over and that she planned to try him out as he had been hitting on her. If he was only comming to drop off the glasses he could have parked in front of the condo, called her and she could have come out and received the glasses.The fact that he parked around the corner on Dorothy indicated to me that he had plans to stay longer than it would take to drop the glasses off. I see nothing wrong with the way she was dressed or that she had all those lit candels in the house.imo

[tv]

TV
Remember Fay Resnick testified that Nicole had told her on the phone that ron was comming over and that she planned to try him out as he had been hitting on her. If he was only comming to drop off the glasses he could have parked in front of the condo, called her and she could have come out and received the glasses.The fact that he parked around the corner on Dorothy indicated to me that he had plans to stay longer than it would take to drop the glasses off. I see nothing wrong with the way she was dressed or that she had all those lit candels in the house.imo
martin, we can speculate all we want. Some people say that Nicole and Ron were romantically involved -- other people say they weren't. I don't think that has anything to do with the case except it may have added to OJ Simpson's rage if he thought somethng was going on. He had confronted Ron before about Nicole. Maybe she only wanted the glasses but Ron was hoping for something more. Nothing unusual about a young man hoping to get lucky. In fact, I believe it strengthens the motive for OJ Simpson to be the killer.

[tv]

I think Fung said he looked at the sweats.saw no blood, made a video of them and left them there.I never saw the video.But that does not mean that someone else did not take it.

The problem with le trying to connect the sweats to oj during the killings is.
If oj returned wearing the sweats, why would he leave them in his house knowing le would be there soon looking for him as the ex.All he would have to do is put them in one of the bags while in the house and take them away as many think he did with the shoes and knife. It make no sense.

We'll never know as the sweats disappeared. I believe someone else did take them and I believe that person was in OJ Simpson's inner circle. It will remain one of the mysteries of this case unless someone comes forward.

[martin II]

Invented doubt.

tv

The blood drops led from the rockingham gate straight up the driveway to the front door of ojs house.
No blood drops were found in the south walkway where furhman found the glove and leading up the walkway past the garage to the front door.
Why is that.

[tv]

tv

The blood drops led from the rockingham gate straight up the driveway to the front door of ojs house.
No blood drops were found in the south walkway where furhman found the glove and leading up the walkway past the garage to the front door.
Why is that.

We're never going to know OJ Simpson's exact movements but the fact that the glove was found laying behind Kato's room and that presumptive tests for blood showed blood on the air conditioning unit is enough for me.

[martin II]

We'll never know as the sweats disappeared. I believe someone else did take them and I believe that person was in OJ Simpson's inner circle. It will remain one of the mysteries of this case unless someone comes forward.

If oj wore the sweats during the murders why would he leave them in his house.They had to have blood on them even though Fung said he did not see any. There were 10 or more cops in his house when Fung was collecting evidence and after Fung left.

[martin II]

We're never going to know OJ Simpson's exact movements but the fact that the glove was found laying behind Kato's room and that presumptive tests for blood showed blood on the air conditioning unit is enough for me.

The blood drops in the driveway showed his movements without a doubt and none were in the south walkway.

[GreenIce]

We'll never know as the sweats disappeared. I believe someone else did take them and I believe that person was in OJ Simpson's inner circle. It will remain one of the mysteries of this case unless someone comes forward.

TV,

A news station reported the police did take the sweats from the washer, they were tested and no blood was found. There was no defense "insider" that early in the case when Fung was collecting evidence. As Martin posted, Fung was not the only person who could have taken those sweats on the state's side. What makes no sense at all is that Fung Held up a wet sweat suit and thought he could see blood on it? His eyes were that sharp that he did not need to take them---then why take the socks?

From some reason, you believe that the DA's aren't able to recognize when they are being jammed up in their own case and just bravely sucked it up. They didn't. Of course when a second search warrant was issued those sweats would be on it and of course they knew they were not going to find them because they already had them! Nice little sound bite--ask for something you know that is no longer there.

To the best of my knowledge, Fung was never asked about the sweats in court and it is obvious that had Fung picked up the sweats, he would have at least lend credibility to Kato's description. Bottom line, we have no idea what type or who's sweat suit or even if it was a sweat suit that Fung handled. But we do know that Fung's description of the garmet did not match Kato's---therefore Fung again was put on the chopping block by Clark.

[martin II]

The recital was over well before 11:00, he could have gone to the recital, and spent time with his ex wife and 2 children (except Nicole vetoed that), and the gone to the airport by say 7:00 or 8:00.

When I say OJS didn't get much backing from his ex team mates and former coaches, I meant in the news media. It looked to me that when they were asked about him, they turned the questions aside.

Who goes to a airport at 7-8 pm for a flight that leaves at 11;45--12;00 midnight. The flight was booked some time in advances by CR or Hertz.
I don't get your point.

[martin II]

We're never going to know OJ Simpson's exact movements but the fact that the glove was found laying behind Kato's room and that presumptive tests for blood showed blood on the air conditioning unit is enough for me.

I did not know that any test showed blood on the air conditioner. The air conditioner was not at the spot where the glove was found it was further down the wall. i will reread.

[William Anthony]

You already know that I think the prosecutors could have done a better job. Mark Fuhrman has been convicted of perjury but that doesn't mean that he's lied about other things. I go by what makes sense and sounds logicial when I have to decide for myself what's true and it rings true for me that Darden was uncooperative with Fuhrman.

My question about the prosecution was in regard to Ms. Clark statement in her book, where she said MF asked her why she let Mr. Darden hang on her like a cheap suit. It is understandable that one does not want to be cooperative with those that are unreceptive to them (after all, all do not have my thick skin or sense of humor).:) What I am saying is that, if you credit the prosecution for putting forth an honest prosecution, then why do you not credit her with being honest about MF's statement? It seems that you believe there were a lot of women who lied about MF. :) Don't you hold women in high regard (just joking, because I know you do)? :)

[William Anthony]

Invented doubt.

The evidence was what it was and the inferences that could be drawn from the evidence were what they were. I could say that I found the ghost in the machine testimony invented testimony but I will just say I didn't find it credible.

[tv]

TV,

A news station reported the police did take the sweats from the washer, they were tested and no blood was found. There was no defense "insider" that early in the case when Fung was collecting evidence. As Martin posted, Fung was not the only person who could have taken those sweats on the state's side. What makes no sense at all is that Fung Held up a wet sweat suit and thought he could see blood on it? His eyes were that sharp that he did not need to take them---then why take the socks?

From some reason, you believe that the DA's aren't able to recognize when they are being jammed up in their own case and just bravely sucked it up. They didn't. Of course when a second search warrant was issued those sweats would be on it and of course they knew they were not going to find them because they already had them! Nice little sound bite--ask for something you know that is no longer there.

To the best of my knowledge, Fung was never asked about the sweats in court and it is obvious that had Fung picked up the sweats, he would have at least lend credibility to Kato's description. Bottom line, we have no idea what type or who's sweat suit or even if it was a sweat suit that Fung handled. But we do know that Fung's description of the garmet did not match Kato's---therefore Fung again was put on the chopping block by Clark.

So now we're supposed to believe everything a 'news station' says? Do you have a link to prove the sweats were collected? I wonder why they didn't plant blood on the sweats?

[tv]

The evidence was what it was and the inferences that could be drawn from the evidence was what they were.

Good afternoon, William. :) I agree.

[tv]

I did not know that any test showed blood on the air conditioner. The air conditioner was not at the spot where the glove was found it was further down the wall. i will reread.
I said presumptive tests which I believe were done by Henry Lee.

[William Anthony]

Good afternoon, William. :) I agree.

Good afternoon, Ms. Tvdinner. The question remains why the difference in how the evidence was viewed and I do not want to discuss that with you for fear of losing any rapport we have established.:)

[William Anthony]

I said presumptive tests which I believe were done by Henry Lee.

Yes, they were and here is what was said about that.

MR. SCHECK: One short issue, your Honor. I noticed yesterday, in reviewing some tapes of Dr. Lee's testimony, that there was a question--

THE COURT: Once wasn't enough?

MR. SCHECK: Well, it was something that came out that was--when I watched the tape and I correlated with what I heard in court, it came out a little differently than I had heard it, and I just wanted to be clear on the record because of what the events--

THE COURT: I'm not getting the drift of what you are saying.

MR. SCHECK: Let me be specific. What happened was that Mr. Goldberg asked Dr. Lee a question to the effect of did you make any findings consistent with blood at the Rockingham location? And Dr. Lee said something to the effect of he had conducted tests on a doorknob, sink traps and air conditioner, and at that point as he was about to explain something further, Mr. Goldberg got up and said I think you've answered the question. Now, I at that point was standing up as well because I thought, and it was--I thought what Mr. Goldberg was doing is that he knew, we all knew that there had be presumptive tests conducted at Rockingham on sink traps and a doorknob and the metal top of an air conditioner where there was no red stain, and these are the kind of presumptive tests that Dr. Lee was about to say give false positives because they are metal surfaces and if he tests any sink, any trap of a sink, he is going to get a false positive if he did it in any household, because of bacteria, metal, et cetera, so I thought that was what the answer was. When Mr. Goldberg was stopping him from answering I thought he was doing that because he didn't want to elicit testimony that was against the rule of the court and I thought that it hadn't really come out because he didn't testify to what the results were. But then yesterday, looking at the tapes and the reaction of some people to the tapes, it became a concern of mine that the People might actually try to use that testimony to sum up that blood was found in the air conditioning area of Rockingham. I just want to make clear that we have an objection to that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: And that that would have been improper. I didn't think it came out that way. That is not what Dr. Lee's testimony would be. And if an affidavit is necessary, I spoke to him this morning, he would gladly submit it to the court, so basically the only relief I'm asking for at this point is that no reference be made to that testimony or argument to that effect, that there was blood evidence found in that area because, that is not the results.

[martin II]

TV,

If someone outside of Nicole's children knew that Ron's was coming over that night, that makes a huge difference. Faye Resnick gave at least 2 or 3 different times when she spoke to Nicole on the phone and she knew that Ron was coming over. How did she know Ron was coming over if she last spoke to Nicole before her mother called about the glasses. People don't understand how many times Faye has changed her story.

Cora F. knew that Nicole was not going to be alone that night and that if the other victim was not Ron it was another waiter. Clearly who ever killed them was not surprised by a younger male being at Nicole's.

We know that Nicole was being followed, wouldn't it only make sense to keep an eye on who is coming in and our of her house? What about Ron, if he was being followed, then this person would have known what the situation was at Nicole's.

Why would Simpson go over to Nicole's and not even know if she was going to be home that night or if she was going to be home that she was expecting a guest that night? Remember Kato's comments about Nicole that night, that Nicole was dressed for going out that night?

What if Dr. Ameli is telling a basic truth--that Nicole was scared that night and that Dr. Ameli recommended she call a friend to stay with her that night -what if that is why Ron parked down the street? What if Ron was going to sit with Nicole until she felt safe? We have no clue why Nicole was scared that night and according to Faye, Nicole was on top of the world that night.

Makes no sense, IMO.

Didn't Faye testify that she and Nicole were giggling on the phone about ron comming over.Yet Dr Ameli said Nicole was very worried that night. Who was telling the truth? imo

[martin II]

Yes, they were and here is what was said about that.

MR. SCHECK: One short issue, your Honor. I noticed yesterday, in reviewing some tapes of Dr. Lee's testimony, that there was a question--

THE COURT: Once wasn't enough?

MR. SCHECK: Well, it was something that came out that was--when I watched the tape and I correlated with what I heard in court, it came out a little differently than I had heard it, and I just wanted to be clear on the record because of what the events--

THE COURT: I'm not getting the drift of what you are saying.

MR. SCHECK: Let me be specific. What happened was that Mr. Goldberg asked Dr. Lee a question to the effect of did you make any findings consistent with blood at the Rockingham location? And Dr. Lee said something to the effect of he had conducted tests on a doorknob, sink traps and air conditioner, and at that point as he was about to explain something further, Mr. Goldberg got up and said I think you've answered the question. Now, I at that point was standing up as well because I thought, and it was--I thought what Mr. Goldberg was doing is that he knew, we all knew that there had be presumptive tests conducted at Rockingham on sink traps and a doorknob and the metal top of an air conditioner where there was no red stain, and these are the kind of presumptive tests that Dr. Lee was about to say give false positives because they are metal surfaces and if he tests any sink, any trap of a sink, he is going to get a false positive if he did it in any household, because of bacteria, metal, et cetera, so I thought that was what the answer was. When Mr. Goldberg was stopping him from answering I thought he was doing that because he didn't want to elicit testimony that was against the rule of the court and I thought that it hadn't really come out because he didn't testify to what the results were. But then yesterday, looking at the tapes and the reaction of some people to the tapes, it became a concern of mine that the People might actually try to use that testimony to sum up that blood was found in the air conditioning area of Rockingham. I just want to make clear that we have an objection to that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: And that that would have been improper. I didn't think it came out that way. That is not what Dr. Lee's testimony would be. And if an affidavit is necessary, I spoke to him this morning, he would gladly submit it to the court, so basically the only relief I'm asking for at this point is that no reference be made to that testimony or argument to that effect, that there was blood evidence found in that area because, that is not the results.

So nothing on the air conditioner.

[William Anthony]

So nothing on the air conditioner.

Probably rust or a coffee stain would be my guess and we all know who loves coffee. :)

[William Anthony]

In regard to the mysterious sweat suit, isn't proper procedure to photograph where evidence items were located, as opposed to moving them and then photographing them and Shouldn't Mr. Ford have had a picture of the sweat suit, if LE placed them back in the washer? I mean shouldn't caution be used to preserve a scene as close as possible as it appeared?

[martin II]

So now we're supposed to believe everything a 'news station' says? Do you have a link to prove the sweats were collected? I wonder why they didn't plant blood on the sweats?

Maby they had used up the last drops planting on the socks and the bendels.

[bobaugust]

In regard to the mysterious sweat suit, isn't proper procedure to photograph where evidence items were located, as opposed to moving them and then photographing them and Shouldn't Mr. Ford have had a picture of the sweat suit, if LE placed them back in the washer? I mean shouldn't caution be used to preserve a scene as close as possible as it appeared?

As I understand it, when the freshly washed clothing was found in the washing machine, several detectives were made aware of it. Dennis Fung examined the washing machine and the clothing for possible blood stains but no blood was seen. The detectives were not aware at that time that Simpson had worn a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders and the sweats were not collected. A couple of weeks later a second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and collect the sweats but they were gone. The video taken of the laundry room was not to document evidence but to document what the laundry room looked like after LE had finished their work there. The dark colored sweat suit was shown in the washing machine.

bobaugust

[martin II]

We're never going to know OJ Simpson's exact movements but the fact that the glove was found laying behind Kato's room and that presumptive tests for blood showed blood on the air conditioning unit is enough for me.


tv

how about this idea.

Someone other than oj brought the glove to Rockingham. Not the killers.
enterred the property. walked to the second gate and just tossed the glove to where it was found.This would solve the mystry of how the glove got there
and no foot prints or evidence of someone jumping the fence was found.
This person did not have to be Furhman.

[martin II]

As I understand it, when the freshly washed clothing was found in the washing machine, several detectives were made aware of it. Dennis Fung examined the washing machine and the clothing for possible blood stains but no blood was seen. The detectives were not aware at that time that Simpson had worn a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders and the sweats were not collected. A couple of weeks later a second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and collect the sweats but they were gone. The video taken of the laundry room was not to document evidence but to document what the laundry room looked like after LE had finished their work there. The dark colored sweat suit was shown in the washing machine.

bobaugust

When Fung and other le arrived at Rockingham and fung examined the sweats
le was the only people that were in the house and had access to everything in the house including the sweats even after the video was made. There is no evidence that the sweats were still there when all le left the property.imo

[fgump2]

Yes and that might be the reason he chose a late flight, because he was planning to spend time with his daughter. In any event the time line for him to have committed murders just like the gloves did not fit, imho.

I don't know how much backing he got or who was asked. I am of the opinion that he got enough backing from the dream team, who were able to raise reasonable doubt.


Most kids Sydney's age go to bed well before 11:00 on Sunday nights, so the red eye special was an odd choice. At least one business associate who said he worked with OJS for years said he never knew of OJS taking a red eye special. One airline attendent said he made no attempt to sleep, and acted strangely, making frequent trips to the lavatory, and looking at people with a vacant look on his face. The woman had heard about how friendly he was, so she was surprised.

NBS said that he used uppers and downers, and that can cause violence, and also enable a person to get by without much sleep.

There were very few football people who said as much as 'he may be guilty, but I didn't think he was that type of person'. That type of statement wouldn't be sticking their necks out. I realize that some football people wouldn't want to say 'I think he is innocent, and that it was a racist frameup'. I realize that giving OJS strong backing could create problems in a person's life, but OJS didn't get even much weak backing.

If the press was making the wrong heroes out of the wrong people, that isn't good.

[fgump2]

Who goes to a airport at 7-8 pm for a flight that leaves at 11;45--12;00 midnight. The flight was booked some time in advances by CR or Hertz.
I don't get your point.

I meant go there earlier, and get an earlier flight. I could be wrong, but I don't think Hertz would book a red eye special for OJS unless he asked for it.

[martin II]

I meant go there earlier, and get an earlier flight. I could be wrong, but I don't think Hertz would book a red eye special for OJS unless he asked for it.


Hertz has their own travel agency that books all travel. Oj traveled all the time.He had just returned from ny the day before 6/12 to attend the recital.Nothing wrong with spending the day evening at home and catching the red eye to chicago. considering how many people travel for Herts i would think they book all times to get peopl where they need to be.

There is no connection between the flight time and the murders imo.

[fgump2]

Once something is contaminated it will produce the same results, even though it is contaminated as evidenced by Dr. Cotton's testimony. No defendant should be convicted based on evidence of poor or sloppy evidence collection, handling and storage techniques or by results from a laboratory that showed continued and persistent evidence of contamination risks. I do not think that there had been any group, which had undertaken the effort to exonerate those wrongly convicted, as it related to DNA until the innocence project.

You have begun with the assumption that the blood drops found at the scene belonged to the killer and the blood found at the scene belonged to Simpson and, therefore, Simpson is the killer, which is a classic example of a circular argument. The first prong requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the blood belonged to the killer, the second prong requires proof that the blood was Simpson's and that is where the missing blood comes in. Given the totality of the evidence, it is easy to see that the first two prongs fail and then we consider the testimony that an AB blood type degraded in a manner inconsistent with the manner in which the AB blood type would have degraded based on the scientific literature. The only way that the scenario can be tailored to fit a plausible scenario, imho, is, if we forget or ignore the other evidence.

The time line, the missing blood, the evidence of poor and or sloppy evidence handling, collection and storage and the contradictory Rockingham blood trail makes and implausible scenario, imho.

I referred to the blood as 'thought to be from the killer'. I didn't write that the LAPD was sure it was from the killer. They thought is was either from the killer from a cut on the left hand, or dripped from a weapon, probably a knife. It could also be have been from sonebody who had the bad luck to be there and bleed justs before the murders. The police said they thought the blood was fresh. If the blood drops had been contaminated by OJS, there should have been two types of DNA in it, the original person(s). The original report said it might be from the weapon, and there for maybe two types of blood.

In most cases it would be wrong to convict on just DNA. There is often an innocent explanation for the presence of a person's DNA. Also human carelessness is a problem with any lab.
We have some disagreements, and will have to disagree. I think the time line problems can be eliminated if we assume that each time estimate may be 7-8 minutes off. The glove demonstration was meaningless becasue the slow motion pictures of OJS putting the gloves on showed he wasn't making an honest effort. I am not an expert on DNA, but I believe if the lab work was that bad (garbage in, garbage out), it was an odd coicncidence that it agreed with cell marks testing. If the lab was that bad, then Gerdes should have been able to point to an individual case in which they blew it down the drain. I don't say the lab was above criticism, but on the whole the work was fairly reliable. I admit that the blood under the fingernail raises doubts, but I don't think that blows the evidence down the drain, at most it reduces the credibility a bit. I could use an explanation that some jury members used: Maybe it came from the children.
Credibility is not an all or nothing thing. John Gerdes lost credibililty with me, as did B. Scheck and J. Cochran for reasons I have given.

[tv]

So nothing on the air conditioner.Not true. Dr. Henry Lee did find blood on the air conditioner and in the shower drain using presumptive tests.

"On Wednesday, before jury selection begins, the judge is expected to rule on whether to bar unconfirmed tests showing traces of blood in Mr. Simpson's shower and on an air-conditioner outside his house."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05EEDF1E3AF93BA2575AC0A9609582 60&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[martin II]

Most kids Sydney's age go to bed well before 11:00 on Sunday nights, so the red eye special was an odd choice. At least one business associate who said he worked with OJS for years said he never knew of OJS taking a red eye special. One airline attendent said he made no attempt to sleep, and acted strangely, making frequent trips to the lavatory, and looking at people with a vacant look on his face. The woman had heard about how friendly he was, so she was surprised.

NBS said that he used uppers and downers, and that can cause violence, and also enable a person to get by without much sleep.

There were very few football people who said as much as 'he may be guilty, but I didn't think he was that type of person'. That type of statement wouldn't be sticking their necks out. I realize that some football people wouldn't want to say 'I think he is innocent, and that it was a racist frameup'. I realize that giving OJS strong backing could create problems in a person's life, but OJS didn't get even much weak backing.

If the press was making the wrong heroes out of the wrong people, that isn't good.

The people sitting with and near him including the captain found him very Normal as he was giving out authographs upon request. The sky luggage people said he was friendly and normal as he gave out authographs and tips.
No one that testified stated that there was anything strange about his behavior.

Maby we read different sources.

As far as the pills are concerened. le did a drug test of ojs blood on 6/13 and only TRACES of marijuana were found no uppers and downers. imo

[tv]

tv

how about this idea.

Someone other than oj brought the glove to Rockingham. Not the killers.
enterred the property. walked to the second gate and just tossed the glove to where it was found.This would solve the mystry of how the glove got there
and no foot prints or evidence of someone jumping the fence was found.
This person did not have to be Furhman.

Then who?

[tv]

The people sitting with and near him including the captain found him very Normal as he was giving out authographs upon request. The sky luggage people said he was friendly and normal as he gave out authographs and tips.
No one that testified stated that there was anything strange about his behavior.

Maby we read different sources.

As far as the pills are concerened. le did a drug test of ojs blood on 6/13 and only TRACES of marijuana were found no uppers and downers. imo

Do you know if his blood was tested for all drugs or just street drugs?

[tv]

Maby they had used up the last drops planting on the socks and the bendels.

Riiiight. :rolleyes:

[tv]

In regard to the mysterious sweat suit, isn't proper procedure to photograph where evidence items were located, as opposed to moving them and then photographing them and Shouldn't Mr. Ford have had a picture of the sweat suit, if LE placed them back in the washer? I mean shouldn't caution be used to preserve a scene as close as possible as it appeared?I'm sure I've seen a picture of the sweats in the machine but I can't find it now. I guess I could be thinking of another case. :(

[tv]

Probably rust or a coffee stain would be my guess and we all know who loves coffee. :)Who?

[martin II]

Not true. Dr. Henry Lee did find blood on the air conditioner and in the shower drain using presumptive tests.

"On Wednesday, before jury selection begins, the judge is expected to rule on whether to bar unconfirmed tests showing traces of blood in Mr. Simpson's shower and on an air-conditioner outside his house."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05EEDF1E3AF93BA2575AC0A9609582 60&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Dr Lee did not testify that blood was found on the air conditioner according to
the court discussion involving Schak.sp
see williams post.

unconfirmed means what. that the test for blood was not confirmed??

[tv]

Good afternoon, Ms. Tvdinner. The question remains why the difference in how the evidence was viewed and I do not want to discuss that with you for fear of losing any rapport we have established.:)Okay.

[tv]

Dr Lee did not testify that blood was found on the air conditioner according to
the court discussion involving Schak.sp
see williams post.

unconfirmed means what. that the test for blood was not confirmed??

I know that he didn't testify to it but that doesn't mean that he didn't collect it. The defense admitted it was collected. Presumptive blood tests mean he was able to tell it was blood but no further testing was done. For some reason the defense wanted it kept out. I don't think the blood in the drain means much unless it was a large amount of blood and we don't know how much was found.

[martin II]

Do you know if his blood was tested for all drugs or just street drugs?

Usually when a drug screen is done the test looks for all catagories of drugs.
unless a specific drug is in question. Benzoids. opiates, amps, cocain, marijuana i think covers all of them and street drugs fall into those catagories.
i think this is correct. Where i am all direct health care givers are required to take full screens. I feel confident that all police drug screens of defendants or the accused look for everything.

[martin II]

I know that he didn't testify to it but that doesn't mean that he didn't collect it. The defense admitted it was collected. Presumptive blood tests mean he was able to tell it was blood but no further testing was done. For some reason the defense wanted it kept out. I don't think the blood in the drain means much unless it was a large amount of blood and we don't know how much was found.

i have learned something new. Presumptive measn positive that it is blood.
i had though presumptive means it looks like blood but i am not sure it is blood.
So whose blood was it?

[martin II]

Properly done, a blood presumptive test rules out the possibility that a fluid is blood. A blood presumptive test relies on the use of chemicals that will change color when in the presence of blood. As one common example, a solution of phenolphthalein, which is colorless, will turn an intense pink when added to a blood stain in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. The formation of a pink color indicates that the fluid could be, and indeed, likely may be, blood. However, confirmation requires the more detailed lab analyses.

Another chemical called o-tolidine can also be used in conjunction with hydrogen peroxide instead of phenolphthalein. Again, the formation of the characteristic color must be followed up by a more detailed and confirmatory examination of the sample.

When a blood presumptive test is done at a crime or accident scene, an investigator must include the use of controls to ensure the accuracy of the result. This is because a blood presumptive test can be subject to what is known as a false positive result. This is when the characteristic color reaction is produced by a sample that is in fact not blood. As well, a false negative reaction is possible, where for some reason a blood sample does not produce the characteristic color change in the indicator chemical.

Standard procedures can rule out the possibility of a false positive or negative result. However, if these controls are not run, then the accuracy of the presumptive test can be questioned. In that case, the results would not be admissible in a court of law.

[martin II]

What i am thinking now is that the samples were not proven to be blood as no confirmation test were done. That i know of.

[Parker]

As I understand it, when the freshly washed clothing was found in the washing machine, several detectives were made aware of it. Dennis Fung examined the washing machine and the clothing for possible blood stains but no blood was seen. The detectives were not aware at that time that Simpson had worn a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders and the sweats were not collected. A couple of weeks later a second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and collect the sweats but they were gone. The video taken of the laundry room was not to document evidence but to document what the laundry room looked like after LE had finished their work there. The dark colored sweat suit was shown in the washing machine.
bobaugust

Bob, the video was shot when the detectives went back the 2nd time with the search warrant and the sweat suit was still in the washing machine? By that time, the clothes would have dried out. Were there not any tests that you, Bob, know of that could have been used to determine if any traces of blood remained on the clothes?

[martin II]

Bob, the video was shot when the detectives went back the 2nd time with the search warrant and the sweat suit was still in the washing machine? By that time, the clothes would have dried out. Were there not any tests that you, Bob, know of that could have been used to determine if any traces of blood remained on the clothes?

The video of the washroom was made on 6/13. Fung did not see any blood on the sweats. When le came back the 2nd time,two weeks later the sweats were not found at the house.

[Parker]

Bob, the video was shot when the detectives went back the 2nd time with the search warrant and the sweat suit was still in the washing machine? By that time, the clothes would have dried out. Were there not any tests that you, Bob, know of that could have been used to determine if any traces of blood remained on the clothes?

Bob, OJ was found not guilty. Who do you think murdered Nicole and Ron.

[William Anthony]

Not true. Dr. Henry Lee did find blood on the air conditioner and in the shower drain using presumptive tests.

"On Wednesday, before jury selection begins, the judge is expected to rule on whether to bar unconfirmed tests showing traces of blood in Mr. Simpson's shower and on an air-conditioner outside his house."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05EEDF1E3AF93BA2575AC0A9609582 60&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

There was no blood found, no red stain, only false positives or unconfirmed. See how that inexact language things can cause problems.:)

[William Anthony]

Who?

Not looking to open that bag of doughnuts. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm sure I've seen a picture of the sweats in the machine but I can't find it now. I guess I could be thinking of another case. :(

You may be right but I do not recall the picture of them in the washing machine. I guess it might be right to move things that a person does not have any evidentiary value but that would have raised an issue of moving items of evidence or disturbing the crime scene, if the sweat suit was subsequently (the following day) collected, imho.

[William Anthony]

i have learned something new. Presumptive measn positive that it is blood.
i had though presumptive means it looks like blood but i am not sure it is blood.
So whose blood was it?

A presumptive test to me means that it is an indication that it might be blood and further testing is required to confirm that it is blood. The prosecution testified that no blood was found in the drains.It is exactly because of the false positives that such testimony is not allowed.

[William Anthony]

Properly done, a blood presumptive test rules out the possibility that a fluid is blood. A blood presumptive test relies on the use of chemicals that will change color when in the presence of blood. As one common example, a solution of phenolphthalein, which is colorless, will turn an intense pink when added to a blood stain in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. The formation of a pink color indicates that the fluid could be, and indeed, likely may be, blood. However, confirmation requires the more detailed lab analyses.

Another chemical called o-tolidine can also be used in conjunction with hydrogen peroxide instead of phenolphthalein. Again, the formation of the characteristic color must be followed up by a more detailed and confirmatory examination of the sample.

When a blood presumptive test is done at a crime or accident scene, an investigator must include the use of controls to ensure the accuracy of the result. This is because a blood presumptive test can be subject to what is known as a false positive result. This is when the characteristic color reaction is produced by a sample that is in fact not blood. As well, a false negative reaction is possible, where for some reason a blood sample does not produce the characteristic color change in the indicator chemical.

Standard procedures can rule out the possibility of a false positive or negative result. However, if these controls are not run, then the accuracy of the presumptive test can be questioned. In that case, the results would not be admissible in a court of law.

Sorry, I did not see this post before I answered and from the testimony, we do not know if the presumptive test was positive or negative, only that he did one for the Presence of blood, which led to Scheck's colloquy.

[William Anthony]

I referred to the blood as 'thought to be from the killer'. I didn't write that the LAPD was sure it was from the killer. They thought is was either from the killer from a cut on the left hand, or dripped from a weapon, probably a knife. It could also be have been from sonebody who had the bad luck to be there and bleed justs before the murders. The police said they thought the blood was fresh. If the blood drops had been contaminated by OJS, there should have been two types of DNA in it, the original person(s). The original report said it might be from the weapon, and there for maybe two types of blood.

In most cases it would be wrong to convict on just DNA. There is often an innocent explanation for the presence of a person's DNA. Also human carelessness is a problem with any lab.
We have some disagreements, and will have to disagree. I think the time line problems can be eliminated if we assume that each time estimate may be 7-8 minutes off. The glove demonstration was meaningless becasue the slow motion pictures of OJS putting the gloves on showed he wasn't making an honest effort. I am not an expert on DNA, but I believe if the lab work was that bad (garbage in, garbage out), it was an odd coicncidence that it agreed with cell marks testing. If the lab was that bad, then Gerdes should have been able to point to an individual case in which they blew it down the drain. I don't say the lab was above criticism, but on the whole the work was fairly reliable. I admit that the blood under the fingernail raises doubts, but I don't think that blows the evidence down the drain, at most it reduces the credibility a bit. I could use an explanation that some jury members used: Maybe it came from the children.
Credibility is not an all or nothing thing. John Gerdes lost credibililty with me, as did B. Scheck and J. Cochran for reasons I have given.

I said that the assumption (thought) was the blood was from the killer. The blood could have been from Simpson when he visited his children and ex-wife on a prior occasion. It could have been dropped there from the missing blood.
I started the discussion some pages back talking about contamination and improper mixtures. The testimony was that the blood appeared fresh, not that it was.

You again are willing to make assumptions about a time line. It could have been off, meaning the thumps could have occurred prior to 10:40. However, the testimony about the time of thumps is what the jury heard and had to consider.

Credibility is not an all or nothing thing but it can be, falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. That was the problem with many of the prosecution's witnesses, imho, and Mr. Darden and Ms. Clark, claiming that the information about MF was a surprise. The prosecution lost credibility with me when they decided to bring charges and saying they had a mountain of evidence, which, imho, was not even a mole hill. The are just too many could haves to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt to me.

[Parker]

Bob, the video was shot when the detectives went back the 2nd time with the search warrant and the sweat suit was still in the washing machine? By that time, the clothes would have dried out. Were there not any tests that you, Bob, know of that could have been used to determine if any traces of blood remained on the clothes?

Bob August I'm interested in your opinion. I'll wait until you reply. :)

[William Anthony]

The video of the washroom was made on 6/13. Fung did not see any blood on the sweats. When le came back the 2nd time,two weeks later the sweats were not found at the house.

If the picture of the sweat suit was on the video and there was no pictures of it being in the washing machine prior to that, then we are left with a picture showing LE holding the sweat suit and later the sweat suit is in the washing machine. Therefore, the only thing that we can be certain of is that LE put the sweat suit in the washing machine. That is why I mentioned the poor practice of handling items before their original location has been documented.

[martin II]

If the picture of the sweat suit was on the video and there was no pictures of it being in the washing machine prior to that, then we are left with a picture showing LE holding the sweat suit and later the sweat suit is in the washing machine. Therefore, the only thing that we can be certain of is that LE put the sweat suit in the washing machine. That is why I mentioned the poor practice of handling items before their original location has been documented.

I never saw a picture or video in court but it may have been shown.But as i said there is no proof offered that the sweats were still in the house AFTER all of le left and that is the problem. imo

[William Anthony]

I never saw a picture or video in court but it may have been shown.But as i said there is no proof offered that the sweats were still in the house AFTER all of le left and that is the problem. imo

That comports with my memory and, unless it was shown that the sweat suit was in the washing machine before the video was taken, then the only thing it shows is that LE placed it there and I agree with your observation about LE and the mysterious sweat suit. I either forgot or overlooked the information about the jacket disappearing from Bundy. It seems that there is a tendency, if that is true, for things to come up missing, like part of Simpson's blood sample after LE touches them.

[martin II]

I referred to the blood as 'thought to be from the killer'. I didn't write that the LAPD was sure it was from the killer. They thought is was either from the killer from a cut on the left hand, or dripped from a weapon, probably a knife. It could also be have been from sonebody who had the bad luck to be there and bleed justs before the murders. The police said they thought the blood was fresh. If the blood drops had been contaminated by OJS, there should have been two types of DNA in it, the original person(s). The original report said it might be from the weapon, and there for maybe two types of blood.

In most cases it would be wrong to convict on just DNA. There is often an innocent explanation for the presence of a person's DNA. Also human carelessness is a problem with any lab.
We have some disagreements, and will have to disagree. I think the time line problems can be eliminated if we assume that each time estimate may be 7-8 minutes off. The glove demonstration was meaningless becasue the slow motion pictures of OJS putting the gloves on showed he wasn't making an honest effort. I am not an expert on DNA, but I believe if the lab work was that bad (garbage in, garbage out), it was an odd coicncidence that it agreed with cell marks testing. If the lab was that bad, then Gerdes should have been able to point to an individual case in which they blew it down the drain. I don't say the lab was above criticism, but on the whole the work was fairly reliable. I admit that the blood under the fingernail raises doubts, but I don't think that blows the evidence down the drain, at most it reduces the credibility a bit. I could use an explanation that some jury members used: Maybe it came from the children.
Credibility is not an all or nothing thing. John Gerdes lost credibililty with me, as did B. Scheck and J. Cochran for reasons I have given.


LAPD lab and cell mark did not agree on the blood as cellmark did DNA testing and lapd didn;t. Dr Gerdis had done audits of many other labs in his position as a expert and his results of others labs was very simular to that of LAPD.He was the expert which is why he was called. My other issue is LABS have written protocols that all are expected to follow in their work. It is obvious that the lapd lab failed to follow protocol and this is what caused the many problems in collecting, examining and packaging of various samples.
This was not caused by the defence or Dr Gerdis.

If we allow all times to be wrong by 7-8 minutes then the prosecutions case falls apart completely.

Scheck knew more about DNA than any prosecution or defence lawyer. It was his work in the case that caused the DNA and lab community to change
their mode of operation in future cases.

I agree that the blood under the fingernails created a problem. a problem much larger than ojs red eye flight.

I also think that the original autopsy doctor saying two knifes were used was another problem for the prosecution which may be why the prosecution banned him from the witness stand.imo