Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

oj was on trial for murder. obviously you believe he should have been on trial for every thing you in your research believe can think of.
It is not that difficult for you to ask someone to give you the details of what a murder trial is about. This way you will not have to continue to try to impress posters by posting about your off the wall and off subject research.

imo

Your insulting replies to fg2 are completely unnecessary and not becoming to you in any way. He is always civil to you even when you're showing your worst side. Why don't you try to give everyone else the same consideration you expect yourself?

He already said he didn't think anything should have been mentioned about charitable contributions. Johnnie opened the door and the prosecution should have presented the truth about Simpson's pathetic history of charitable contributions to both black and white.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

VB has some interesting comments regarding more evidence and if what he says is true, is going to crush some posters here, IMO--unless they are already know this information.

I want to go back and make sure I have it right on some of the blood issues and a missing palm print on Nicole, but if I am reading this right, he is saying that that there were two knives involved.

He also says that the DA's didn't know they were suppose to enter evidence even if it reflected poorly on them and their case. While I understand the concept that it is better for one side to introduce their own side's mistake, what I don't understand is that the DA's did a lot of that during the trial.

He also said the DA's should have called Dr. Golden because he looked a like coroner and apparently that was suppose to be a good thing.

[martin II]

Your insulting replies to fg2 are completely unnecessary and not becoming to you in any way. He is always civil to you even when you're showing your worst side. Why don't you try to give everyone else the same consideration you expect yourself?

He already said he didn't think anything should have been mentioned about charitable contributions. Johnnie opened the door and the prosecution should have presented the truth about Simpson's pathetic history of charitable contributions to both black and white.

Yesterday fg2 decided to call me a bigot.i have never called him any such name. that was uncalled for and i asked the poster to correct him post.

Does your post above indicate that you agree with that poster calling me a bigot. Remember you asked me a simular question just a few days ago.

If you believe ojs had no connection to the black community thats fine with me but based on polls before,during and after the trial it seems that the black community had lost no concern for him.Many became very angry when blacks rejoiced when the verdict was rendered.
So i am puzzeled by your post to me.

[martin II]

Martin,

VB has some interesting comments regarding more evidence and if what he says is true, is going to crush some posters here, IMO--unless they are already know this information.

I want to go back and make sure I have it right on some of the blood issues and a missing palm print on Nicole, but if I am reading this right, he is saying that that there were two knives involved.

He also says that the DA's didn't know they were suppose to enter evidence even if it reflected poorly on them and their case. While I understand the concept that it is better for one side to introduce their own side's mistake, what I don't understand is that the DA's did a lot of that during the trial.

He also said the DA's should have called Dr. Golden because he looked a like coroner and apparently that was suppose to be a good thing.

I agree that some of what he said about the prosecution was true.The prosecution knew they were suppose to turn over all evidence including that was favorable to oj but in many instances they didn't.He spoke of problems in the prosecutions case that most everyone else also knew except for some here.

[GreenIce]

I take issue with you calling Vincent Bugliosi old used up use to be prosecutor.

Mr. Bugliosi was a very fine assistant prosecutor who lost just one felony case out of 106.

Mr. Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and his family and wrote the book Helter Skelter which is still the all time best selling true crime story selling over 7 million copies.

Mr. Bugliosi also wrote the book Outraged about the O.J. Simpson trial. Bugliosi thought the jury should have been able to read the note that O.J. left before the slow speed chase as he said it reeked of guilt. He also thought the jury should have been told about the items found in the vehicle after this chase such as a change of clothes, large amount of cash, passport and disguise. He also thought the jury should have heard O.J.'s incriminating statement about cutting his finger the night of the murders. Bugliosi also thought the prosecutors should have went into more detail about the abuse Nicole suffered from O.J..

Mr. Bugliosi is 74 years old and is still writing books and doing a very fine job I must say. Mr. Bugliosiis is far from being an
old used up use to be prosecutor.

Hipcheck,

VB, if I recall correctly, was the first DA to try and convict a man for murder while he did not acutally do the crime. That his total control over his "family" made just as guilty as the people who did the actual crime. I give him his props on this and I agree that this is a good thing.

However, VB did have to proof this, Charles Manson did this for him. I don't it escaped the jury's notice that when he shaved his head, his girls shaved theirs. When he carved up his forehead, the girls carved up theirs.

Also, in reagards to his book, it is the only book I ever read that I got nightmares from and was never able to finish. However, it was not because of his legal brilliance that gave me nightmares.

[martin II]

I take issue with you calling Vincent Bugliosi old used up use to be prosecutor.

Mr. Bugliosi was a very fine assistant prosecutor who lost just one felony case out of 106.

Mr. Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and his family and wrote the book Helter Skelter which is still the all time best selling true crime story selling over 7 million copies.

Mr. Bugliosi also wrote the book Outraged about the O.J. Simpson trial. Bugliosi thought the jury should have been able to read the note that O.J. left before the slow speed chase as he said it reeked of guilt. He also thought the jury should have been told about the items found in the vehicle after this chase such as a change of clothes, large amount of cash, passport and disguise. He also thought the jury should have heard O.J.'s incriminating statement about cutting his finger the night of the murders. Bugliosi also thought the prosecutors should have went into more detail about the abuse Nicole suffered from O.J..

Mr. Bugliosi is 74 years old and is still writing books and doing a very fine job I must say. Mr. Bugliosiis is far from being an
old used up use to be prosecutor.


When the oj trial took place VB was finished as a prosecutor.He did have the record as a prosecutor that you speak of but most la prosecutors have a 98% comviction rate.His book was payback for the prosecution telling him they did not need his services in the case.imo

[martin II]

I think there's some anger because some people can't refer to the Gs as racists any longer so other means are being used inflame us. :shrug:

You think calling me a bigot is allowed?

[martin II]

I take issue with you calling Vincent Bugliosi old used up use to be prosecutor.

Mr. Bugliosi was a very fine assistant prosecutor who lost just one felony case out of 106.

Mr. Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and his family and wrote the book Helter Skelter which is still the all time best selling true crime story selling over 7 million copies.

Mr. Bugliosi also wrote the book Outraged about the O.J. Simpson trial. Bugliosi thought the jury should have been able to read the note that O.J. left before the slow speed chase as he said it reeked of guilt. He also thought the jury should have been told about the items found in the vehicle after this chase such as a change of clothes, large amount of cash, passport and disguise. He also thought the jury should have heard O.J.'s incriminating statement about cutting his finger the night of the murders. Bugliosi also thought the prosecutors should have went into more detail about the abuse Nicole suffered from O.J..

Mr. Bugliosi is 74 years old and is still writing books and doing a very fine job I must say. Mr. Bugliosiis is far from being an
old used up use to be prosecutor.

We can dissagree on this. no problem.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

VB, if I recall correctly, was the first DA to try and convict a man for murder while he did not acutally do the crime. That his total control over his "family" made just as guilty as the people who did the actual crime. I give him his props on this and I agree that this is a good thing.

However, VB did have to proof this, Charles Manson did this for him. I don't it escaped the jury's notice that when he shaved his head, his girls shaved theirs. When he carved up his forehead, the girls carved up theirs.

Also, in reagards to his book, it is the only book I ever read that I got nightmares from and was never able to finish. However, it was not because of his legal brilliance that gave me nightmares.


i believe the Manson conviction required less lawyering skill than any case ever brought by the prosecution in LA.That case was something like a free ride for VB.

[martin II]

Martin,

VB has some interesting comments regarding more evidence and if what he says is true, is going to crush some posters here, IMO--unless they are already know this information.

I want to go back and make sure I have it right on some of the blood issues and a missing palm print on Nicole, but if I am reading this right, he is saying that that there were two knives involved.

He also says that the DA's didn't know they were suppose to enter evidence even if it reflected poorly on them and their case. While I understand the concept that it is better for one side to introduce their own side's mistake, what I don't understand is that the DA's did a lot of that during the trial.

He also said the DA's should have called Dr. Golden because he looked a like coroner and apparently that was suppose to be a good thing.


Dr Golden actually did the autopsy and suggested that two knifes could have been used so the prosecution did not allow him to testify about his results and called his boss to testify about Goldens autopsy.Thats strange.

[martin II]

OJ was charged with murder not abuse.The prosecution could have charged oj with abuse also but they didn't and the reason is obvious.They did talk about abuse but did not have the proof that maby VB thought they should have discussed.
The jury stated that the case was about murder not abuse and if the prosecution wanted to talk about abuse they should have filed for abuse.imo

[martin II]

VB BIO.
Bugliosi subsequently became an outspoken critic of the media and lawyers and judges in major trials. In his most recent book, titled The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, he made the case that President George W. Bush ought to be prosecuted for murder based on evidence showing that he had lied to the American people into waging a war of aggression.

He also believes that George W. Bush should be charged with the murders of over 4,000 American soldiers as well as over 100,000 Iraqis who have died in Iraq since the American-led invasion of that country because of the strong evidence that Bush launched that invasion under false pretenses. In his recently-published book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, he laid out that evidence and outlined what questions he would ask Bush at a potential murder trial. Bugliosi gave testimony at a House Judiciary Committee meeting on July 25, 2008, to consider impeachment proceedings for Bush.

[tv]

VB BIO.
Bugliosi subsequently became an outspoken critic of the media and lawyers and judges in major trials. In his most recent book, titled The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, he made the case that President George W. Bush ought to be prosecuted for murder based on evidence showing that he had lied to the American people into waging a war of aggression.

What's your point? You should like him because you share the same feelings about George Bush. :shrug:

[martin II]

What's your point? You should like him because you share the same feelings about George Bush. :shrug:

I agree with him on this point.Do you?

[tv]

Dr Golden actually did the autopsy and suggested that two knifes could have been used so the prosecution did not allow him to testify about his results and called his boss to testify about Goldens autopsy.Thats strange.

Incorrect. Lange and Vannatter's book -- page 111 --

"On the basis of his two examinations, Golden believes that the killer used a sharp single-edged knife -- at least six inches in length with a thickness of 1/32 of an inch -- to kill both victims..."

page 112 --

"Although Los Angeles coronor Lakshamanan Sathyavagiswaran later testified that he believed that one person could have committed both murders with a single-edged knife, he could not say so conclusively with a reasonable degree of medical certainty."

[tv]

I agree with him on this point.Do you?

No. I don't agree with most of his politics but that doesn't mean that I don't have a lot of faith in his legal abilities.

[tv]

Yesterday fg2 decided to call me a bigot.i have never called him any such name. that was uncalled for and i asked the poster to correct him post.

Does your post above indicate that you agree with that poster calling me a bigot. Remember you asked me a simular question just a few days ago.

If you believe ojs had no connection to the black community thats fine with me but based on polls before,during and after the trial it seems that the black community had lost no concern for him.Many became very angry when blacks rejoiced when the verdict was rendered.
So i am puzzeled by your post to me.

Sorry, I don't see any post with your name on it calling you a bigot. You know, just like you didn't see a post with my name on it calling me a racist.

[martin II]

Sorry, I don't see any post with your name on it calling you a bigot. You know, just like you didn't see a post with my name on it calling me a racist.

tv
i am surprised you say you did not see the post calling GI and myself a bigot.
usually you pride yourself on reading all post.

It has now been deleted.
I thank the moderator for this.:cool:

[tv]

tv
i am surprised you say you did not see the post calling GI and myself a bigot.
usually you pride yourself on reading all post.

It has now been deleted.
I thank the moderator for this.:cool:

The moderator also deleted GI's post calling me a racist but you can still see it in my quote. I'm not sure if she deleted GI's post calling other posters racists also. I haven't been on the board so if there was such a post calling you a bigot I didn't see it before it was deleted.

[martin II]

Incorrect. Lange and Vannatter's book -- page 111 --

"On the basis of his two examinations, Golden believes that the killer used a sharp single-edged knife -- at least six inches in length with a thickness of 1/32 of an inch -- to kill both victims..."

page 112 --

"Although Los Angeles coronor Lakshamanan Sathyavagiswaran later testified that he believed that one person could have committed both murders with a single-edged knife, he could not say so conclusively with a reasonable degree of medical certainty."

So the idea that there was one person that killed both with a single edge knife was just a guess and not fact.Only a opinion from the doctor that did not do the autopsy. This leaves open many other possibilities.l:cool:

[tv]

So the idea that there was one person that killed both with a single edge knife was just a guess and not fact.Only a opinion from the doctor that did not do the autopsy. This leaves open many other possibilities.l:cool:

Geez, martin, the doctor that performed the autopsy also thought it was one knife and one killer.

[martin II]

The moderator also deleted GI's post calling me a racist but you can still see it in my quote. I'm not sure if she deleted GI's post calling other posters racists also. I haven't been on the board so if there was such a post calling you a bigot I didn't see it before it was deleted.

I had dropped the issue but since you want to discuss it. you are not suggesting that since you say you did not see the post calling me a bigot that it was not posted are you? If you are thats ok also.

[martin II]

Geez, martin, the doctor that performed the autopsy also thought it was one knife and one killer.

tv
neither offered proof only opinions because they had no proof.Many people have opinions on this issue.

[martin II]

Geez, martin, the doctor that performed the autopsy also thought it was one knife and one killer.

Are you sure Dr Golden didn't suggest that two knives could have been used?

[tv]

I had dropped the issue but since you want to discuss it. you are not suggesting that since you say you did not see the post calling me a bigot that it was not posted are you? If you are thats ok also.

martin, you denied that GI had called me a racist. Are you saying that it wasn't posted? If not, why did DW post the announcement at the top of the forum?

[tv]

Are you sure Dr Golden didn't suggest that two knives could have been used?

No, I don't think he did. I got my information from Lange and Vannatter's book and their account of the autopsy.

[martin II]

tv
can you direct me to the part of the autposy report where Golden reported on the number of knifes and the number of killers? i just read the autopsy report.

[martin II]

martin, you denied that GI had called me a racist. Are you saying that it wasn't posted? If not, why did DW post the announcement at the top of the forum?

i saw a post where gs were called racist not one specifically naming you but as you have claimed i miss a lot.but that was not my last question to you.

[martin II]

Geez, martin, the doctor that performed the autopsy also thought it was one knife and one killer.

can you show me this in the autopsy report?

[tv]

can you show me this in the autopsy report?

I haven't looked at the autopsy report in regard to this. This was the opinion of the doctor that was in Lange and Vannatter's report. I'm not sure it was in the autopsy report. When I have time I'll look or you can let me know if you find it.

[tv]

i saw a post where gs were called racist not one specifically naming you but as you have claimed i miss a lot.but that was not my last question to you.

martin, I could give you the post number where you could see it quoted but I think it's best that I move away from this subject.

[martin II]

I haven't looked at the autopsy report in regard to this. This was the opinion of the doctor that was in Lange and Vannatter's report. I'm not sure it was in the autopsy report. When I have time I'll look or you can let me know if you find it.

its not in the autopsy report that i just read. Without the DR words i have no reason to believe Vanhatter and lang book.GEES.

Where did Vanhhater and lang say they got the Dr words from.

[martin II]

martin, I could give you the post number where you could see it quoted but I think it's best that I move away from this subject.

give it to me if you want me to have it.

[martin II]

I haven't looked at the autopsy report in regard to this. This was the opinion of the doctor that was in Lange and Vannatter's report. I'm not sure it was in the autopsy report. When I have time I'll look or you can let me know if you find it.

i read the autposy report. maby you read better than me.

[weezer]

i read the autposy report. maby you read better than me.

LOL -- or at least spell! :chicken:

[martin II]

No. I don't agree with most of his politics but that doesn't mean that I don't have a lot of faith in his legal abilities.

If i lie to you and cause your neighbors to be killed, what would you think of me. hahaha

[martin II]

I haven't looked at the autopsy report in regard to this. This was the opinion of the doctor that was in Lange and Vannatter's report. I'm not sure it was in the autopsy report. When I have time I'll look or you can let me know if you find it.

Can you lead me to the Vanhatter REPORT where this came from or was it in their book?

[weezer]

If I post something as my belief, and you dispute it, it's not my responsibility to prove it by providing you with links, etc. If you dispute a post, then do some research and post support to your claim.

[Kate Sachel]

I'm not going to defend myself to a mental midget such as yourself. If you actually believe that expressing myself on a message board about a murder case where the defendant just happened to be black makes me a racist then you've never met a real racist. I wondered how long you could hold out before showing your true self again. I don't like you but I've tried to make peace with you. After this post I no longer feel obligated to do that. :seeya:

TV,

Honestly, leave this alone. Not because you are to blame but because people that feel their highs as a result of malicious acts in an effort to cut another human being down are not people that are capable of honest and/or mature interaction. They will never allow themselves to feel shamed or at fault. You have well earned the respect of many individuals on this forum throughout your time here and you should be proud of the manner in which you have been able to debate in a civil fashion with those here whose opinions differ from yours.

I commend you.

Kindly,
Kate

[weezer]

TV,

Honestly, leave this alone. Not because you are to blame but because people that feel their highs as a result of malicious acts in an effort to cut another human being down are not people that are capable of honest and/or mature interaction. They will never allow themselves to feel shamed or at fault. You have well earned the respect of many individuals on this forum throughout your time here and you should be proud of the manner in which you have been able to debate in a civil fashion with those here whose opinions differ from yours.

I commend you.

Kindly,
Kate

:beer::beer:

[fgump2]

Yesterday fg2 decided to call me a bigot.i have never called him any such name. that was uncalled for and i asked the poster to correct him post.

Does your post above indicate that you agree with that poster calling me a bigot. Remember you asked me a simular question just a few days ago.

If you believe ojs had no connection to the black community thats fine with me but based on polls before,during and after the trial it seems that the black community had lost no concern for him.Many became very angry when blacks rejoiced when the verdict was rendered.
So i am puzzeled by your post to me.
I may have gone too far Martin. I am sorry. I should have shown more restraint, but you and GI have often put too much p**s and vinegar in your postings. I continue to think that you and GI are wrong in writing that VB was a racist, but I should have voiced my disagreement and let it go at that.

Bugliosi is not my idol. I think he is a good writer, and does a good job of explaining the law. I do have some disagreements with him, enough not to idolize him.

[GreenIce]

i believe the Manson conviction required less lawyering skill than any case ever brought by the prosecution in LA.That case was something like a free ride for VB.

Martin,

I agree, Manson did the work. However, I still have to give it to him that he was able to convince a judge that while Manson did not acutally committ the murders, he was just as guilty.

[GreenIce]

Dr Golden actually did the autopsy and suggested that two knifes could have been used so the prosecution did not allow him to testify about his results and called his boss to testify about Goldens autopsy.Thats strange.

Martin,

I think the major reason that Dr. Golden wasn't called was because of the timeline. The DA's would could work around the # of knives used but not the timeline. His findings put the murders closer to 11:00 p.m. and it would have opened the door to Claudine Radcliff taking the stand. DA's wanted no part of that!

I also think that the DA's did not want Dr. Golden to testify about Lange and VA being there either. In glancing over their book, they appear to have noticed that bruise on Nicole's head, so it they saw it, how did Golden miss it?

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree, Manson did the work. However, I still have to give it to him that he was able to convince a judge that while Manson did not acutally committ the murders, he was just as guilty.

if a person is a member of a group that planned and carried out a crime all are guilty.conspiritors i think is what it is called.

[martin II]

tv
i found some testimony by Golden but i am working and posting and need a
little time to organize it.:cool:

[tv]

tv
can you direct me to the part of the autposy report where Golden reported on the number of knifes and the number of killers? i just read the autopsy report.

If you read the autopsy report that's fine. I haven't read it recently. I'm telling you what Lange and Vannatter said was concluded by Dr. Golden during the autopsy and discussed by the three of them. I have told you what book it is and pages numbers. You act like I'm trying to pull a fast one. I never claimed it was in the autopsy report. I try to avoid false claims so others don't have to continually be checking behind me.

page 111 --

"However, Dr. Golden and the detectives conclude that there was probably only one killer. This opinion is based primarily on the single set of bloody shoe prints leading away from the two bodies, as well as the similiarities of the inflicted wounds on both victims."

[weezer]

if a person is a member of a group that planned and carried out a crime all are guilty.conspiritors i think is what it is called.

you know -- like orenthal and his band of las vegas thugs!

[fgump2]

fgump2,

IMO, race was always going to be an issue in this case, I did not think that two magazine covers were going to be the triggers nor did I think it was going to happen so quickly.

Whatever Johnnie Cochran or any lawyer said in their opening or closing is not evidence. Never did Johnnie Cochran ever even attempt to enter his ties to the black community into evidence and to be honest with you, the DA's didn't. Darden was on Oprah and he was furious with VB and told her that VB wanted to basically for the DA's to tell the jury he wasn't black and that should have mattered.

His ties to the African-American community is not evidence and by VB saying this, he is clearly stating that this should have been entered into evidence. They wanted the jury to weigh these ties or lack of ties to the black community as evidence.

Did Johnnie Cochran want a jury with African-Americans, especially women, yes. However, he no different then any other lawyer who uses a jury consultant, regardless of which side they represent. I am not really sure how I feel about jury consultants other then to admit the truth, I see the need for them---by both sides.

I have never posted this before but I think VB is artfully doing the same thing that he is calling JC out on. By bringing up Simpson's "lack" of blackness, he wanted the jury to be mad at Simpson for marrying a white woman. Bottom line, VB is even more guilty of the "crimes" that he is accusing JC of commiting.

Also, what really bothers me is that many, many celebrities have fans of all colors, ages and gender. Should a celebrity's kindess and charities soley be based on the color of the skin of the people who benefit from this?

VB is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. Did VB come out and write an "Outrage" book regarding the Rodney King Trial? Where was his book of this truly outrageous verdict? Did he go after the DA's in that case?

One thing I will give him credit for, he blames the DA's for the verdict (for the most part) and does not blame the jury. Which, come to think of it, if you agree with VB's book, then you can't blame the jury for the verdict, IMO.
I may have been too abrasive with my comments about you and Martin being bigots, however I am turned off that you continue to ignore the fact that it was Cochran who brought up SImpson's charity contributions and his ties to low income blacks. I quote from Cochran again, as I have quoted before:
Cochran said:"This man gives five thousand dollars a year to the Angel City Links, the inner-city black organization, and the only condition is that it has to be anonymous, that he doesn't want them to know he does this". I think this was in Cochran's opening statement; but regardless of when he said this, he said it in court.
It makes a bad impression on me that you and Martin have written all these bombastic remarks about VB bringing up Simpson's ties to the black community and his contributions to charities. The fact is that Cochran brought this subject into the trial. That doesn't mean that VB was correct about everything, or that I am.
I disagree with Bugliosi on a fair number of issues in his "Outrage" book, but I value his judgement, and don't think he was being vindicative in his book. He has written some good books about trials he was involved in which I enjoyed reading and which helped me understand criminal law.

I should probably refrain from using words like bigot when I am trying to change people's minds about something, but I really wish you and Martin would spend less time describing other people's motives for doing things. I guess everyone evaluates other's motives, but you and Martin do it way too often.

[tv]

I may have gone too far Martin. I am sorry. I should have shown more restraint, but you and GI have often put too much p**s and vinegar in your postings. I continue to think that you and GI are wrong in writing that VB was a racist, but I should have voiced my disagreement and let it go at that.

Bugliosi is not my idol. I think he is a good writer, and does a good job of explaining the law. I do have some disagreements with him, enough not to idolize him.

fg2, this is a gracious apology and I agree with you about the p**s and vinegar. :)

As for Mr. Bugliosi, I have a lot of respect for him but don't agree with everything he says. I certainly don't idolize him. I trust his research on the case and feel that he was right in most of what he says about the Simpson case but not all. He has one that I really enjoyed called Till Death Do Us Part". Have you ever read it?

[tv]

you know -- like orenthal and his band of las vegas thugs!

Exactly! I never saw the similarities before but martin nailed it!

[martin II]

Martin,

I think the major reason that Dr. Golden wasn't called was because of the timeline. The DA's would could work around the # of knives used but not the timeline. His findings put the murders closer to 11:00 p.m. and it would have opened the door to Claudine Radcliff taking the stand. DA's wanted no part of that!

I also think that the DA's did not want Dr. Golden to testify about Lange and VA being there either. In glancing over their book, they appear to have noticed that bruise on Nicole's head, so it they saw it, how did Golden miss it?

A DA investgator told Golden that nicoles mother told him that she talked to nicole at 11 pm. The defense asked Golden about this and the prosecution went ape S*** about this question. Golden said he did not use the investigators info in determining time of death. The prosecution did not want him to answer. Golden did all he could not to answer. ito said the defence had to develop more foundation before he would allow Golden to explain.
But what is interesting is a investigator from the DAS office said juditha told him she talked to nicole at 11 pm on 6/12.
Golden gave a estimation of time of death for nicole at 9 pm to midnight.
Golden talked about the bruise on nicoles head. he talked about them.

[martin II]

If you read the autopsy report that's fine. I haven't read it recently. I'm telling you what Lange and Vannatter said was concluded by Dr. Golden during the autopsy and discussed by the three of them. I have told you what book it is and pages numbers. You act like I'm trying to pull a fast one. I never claimed it was in the autopsy report. I try to avoid false claims so others don't have to continually be checking behind me.

page 111 --

"However, Dr. Golden and the detectives conclude that there was probably only one killer. This opinion is based primarily on the single set of bloody shoe prints leading away from the two bodies, as well as the similiarities of the inflicted wounds on both victims."

i did not say you were trying to pull anything.

[tv]

Can you lead me to the Vanhatter REPORT where this came from or was it in their book?

Martin, I used the word 'report' mistakenly. It's a typo. What I meant was his account from the book.

[martin II]

GI
Q And by that I mean, specifically were
10 detectives Phil Vannatter and Tom Lange present during
11 each of the autopsies?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Sir, with regard to the autopsy performed on
14 Nicole Brown Simpson's body, did you take a blood sample
15 for purposes of serological study?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And was that particular blood sample placed in
18 a test tube bearing Nicole Brown Simpson's name and the
19 applicable coroner's case number?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Was the same procedure followed with regard to
22 the taking of a blood sample from Ronald Goldman's body?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And were those blood samples later delivered
25 into the custody of detective Vannatter?
26 A Yes.
27 Q Mr. -- or Dr. Golden, on June the 15th, 1994,
28 were you visited at the Los Angeles County Coroner's
0099
01 Office by detective Phil Vannatter?
02 A Yes.
03 Q On that date, sir, did Detective Vannatter
04 show you a knife?
05 A Yes.
06 Q Describe what you recall about the knife that
07 was shown to you by Detective Vannatter.
08 A It was a folding knife with a blade
09 approximately six inches long.
10 Q And describe what happened when Detective
11 Vannatter showed you that knife.
12 A Well, he wanted to know if that knife was
13 consistent or compatible with the wounds that I saw
14 inflicted on either individual, and whether it was
15 compatible with some of the wounds inflicted on either
16 individual.
17 Q And did you provide Detective Vannatter with
18 an answer?
19 A I said it could have, yes, I did.
20 Q And what was your answer?
21 A I said it could have been -- it could have
22 been the weapon, yes, that inflicted some of the wounds.
23 Q Now, you examined the knife; is that correct?
24 A Cursorily, yes. I measured the length and
25 the width of the blade.
26 Q Now, is your opinion that a knife such as that
27 could have inflicted the wounds received by Nicole Brown
28 Simpson and Ronald Goldman definitive, or would you have
0100
01 like to have done something more with regard to
02 examination of the knife to determine more precisely?
03 A It was not definitive. I would like to do a
04 lot more.
05 Q Like what?
06 A Well, make detailed measurements of the blade,
07 correlating each wound that I described, specifically
08 each stab wound that I described in my protocol, with
09 measurements of the blade of the instrument.
10 Q To date, sir, have you had the opportunity to
11 conduct such an examination?
12 A No, I haven't.
13 Q So your opinion then is, with regard to the
14 knife displayed to you by detective Vannatter, that it
15 could have inflicted the wounds upon Mr. Goldman's body
16 and upon Nicole Brown Simpson's body, but not
17 necessarily so; is that correct?
18 A Not necessarily so. To be scientific, I
19 would have to get my little white ruler out that I use
20 for measuring the wounds on the body and do the same
21 thing on the knife.
22 MR. HODGMAN: May I have a moment, Your Honor?
23 THE COURT: Yes.
24 MR. HODGMAN: No further questions.
25 THE COURT: It is about five minutes to 12:00.
26 Which of you is going to cross-examine?
27 MR. SHAPIRO: I am, Your Honor.
28 THE COURT: Okay. I think we'll break at this
0101
---------------------

.This is where Vanhatter got Rons and Nicoles blood from.
Vanhatter had a six inch knife

[martin II]

Martin, I used the word 'report' mistakenly. It's a typo. What I meant was his account from the book.

Thanks.

[martin II]

I may have been too abrasive with my comments about you and Martin being bigots, however I am turned off that you continue to ignore the fact that it was Cochran who brought up SImpson's charity contributions and his ties to low income blacks. I quote from Cochran again, as I have quoted before:
Cochran said:"This man gives five thousand dollars a year to the Angel City Links, the inner-city black organization, and the only condition is that it has to be anonymous, that he doesn't want them to know he does this". I think this was in Cochran's opening statement; but regardless of when he said this, he said it in court.
It makes a bad impression on me that you and Martin have written all these bombastic remarks about VB bringing up Simpson's ties to the black community and his contributions to charities. The fact is that Cochran brought this subject into the trial. That doesn't mean that VB was correct about everything, or that I am.
I disagree with Bugliosi on a fair number of issues in his "Outrage" book, but I value his judgement, and don't think he was being vindicative in his book. He has written some good books about trials he was involved in which I enjoyed reading and which helped me understand criminal law.

I should probably refrain from using words like bigot when I am trying to change people's minds about something, but I really wish you and Martin would spend less time describing other people's motives for doing things. I guess everyone evaluates other's motives, but you and Martin do it way too often.

i don't think that any poster has post as many negative post about oj and the total defence team as you have and do on a daily basis.

You may not get your wish as i will continue to post my opinions within the framework of the rules. i post testimony and opinions and do not try to chamge your opinions.

My post do not make a bad impression on you. only you can do that with your post.:cool:

[martin II]

Exactly! I never saw the similarities before but martin nailed it!

i posted that with you in mind.hahaha

[martin II]

GI

The prosecution claimed the knife was a single edge


Q And that was a superficial wound.
19 A This was a superficially oriented wound,
20 1/2 inch in length, involving the skin, subcutaneous
21 tissue.
22 Again, it was split or forked on one end,
23 pointer or tapered on the other end, with a small amount
24 of hemorrhage.
25 Again, cannot tell from this wound whether it
26 was caused by a single or double-edged blade.
------------------

[martin II]

GI-TV

Q Regarding the knife wounds, is it your finding
20 that there were two types of knife wounds on both
21 victims?
22 A There are two morphologically different types
23 of stab wounds on the victims. Namely, some of the
24 stab wounds on the victims are indicative of a
25 single-edged blade for the reasons that I indicated.
26 They have both a round or blunt end and a pointed end.
27 And other -- some of the wounds have a
28 characteristically double pointed or forked end, which
0025
01 would indicate that they could be made by either a blunt
02 end instrument, or knife, or a double sharp end
03 instrument. In other words, a two-edged knife or a
04 single-edged knife.
05 And there's no way that my determinations can
06 tell the difference between those, so there are two
07 morphologically different types.
08 Q Could two knives have produced the injuries on
09 both of the victims?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Was there any evidence of any sexual attack on
12 the decedent, Nicole Brown?
13 A No, there wasn't.
14 Q Did you look for any semen, saliva, hairs,
15 Bloods, that might be left behind on the victim of a
16 sexual attack?

[GreenIce]

I may have been too abrasive with my comments about you and Martin being bigots, however I am turned off that you continue to ignore the fact that it was Cochran who brought up SImpson's charity contributions and his ties to low income blacks. I quote from Cochran again, as I have quoted before:
Cochran said:"This man gives five thousand dollars a year to the Angel City Links, the inner-city black organization, and the only condition is that it has to be anonymous, that he doesn't want them to know he does this". I think this was in Cochran's opening statement; but regardless of when he said this, he said it in court.
It makes a bad impression on me that you and Martin have written all these bombastic remarks about VB bringing up Simpson's ties to the black community and his contributions to charities. The fact is that Cochran brought this subject into the trial. That doesn't mean that VB was correct about everything, or that I am.
I disagree with Bugliosi on a fair number of issues in his "Outrage" book, but I value his judgement, and don't think he was being vindicative in his book. He has written some good books about trials he was involved in which I enjoyed reading and which helped me understand criminal law.

I should probably refrain from using words like bigot when I am trying to change people's minds about something, but I really wish you and Martin would spend less time describing other people's motives for doing things. I guess everyone evaluates other's motives, but you and Martin do it way too often.

fgump2,

First, you must understand, both sides knew they case they put on was going to be heard in two courtrooms, Judge Ito's courtroom and the court of public opininon. Very early on, before Simpson was even arrested the media was focused on Simpson turning his back on his community. There is no evidence to suggest that this even close the truth and in fact, Mr. Simpson did maintain ties to his community. JC made one statement that proved that it was lie that Simpson turned his back on his community.

Second, you don't seem to understand that VB wanted Simpson's blackness to be considered another piece of evidence, just like one of the gloves. And the reality of this situation fgump, had OJ Simpson been very vocal about his ties in his community and was a little more aggressive like Jim Brown and other AA leaders, VB would have taken that jury to task for letting his civil rights and his ties to the community be the only evidence that mattered to the jury. Tell me I am wrong.

You feel it is fair that the jury consider his blackness and for that reason, since it appeared, but never been proven, that he cut his tie to his people that they should have held that against them. That they should have taken into account that he left a black wife for a white wife.

[GreenIce]

The moderator also deleted GI's post calling me a racist but you can still see it in my quote. I'm not sure if she deleted GI's post calling other posters racists also. I haven't been on the board so if there was such a post calling you a bigot I didn't see it before it was deleted.

TV,

Did you ask DW to delete your post calling me a "mental midget" and FBG's post saying that if I was really white then she was really black? As well as your response to FBG's post?:)

I really don't care if you "like" me or not, I am not Sally Field going up for Oscar.:)

And please, dont do another "leave me alone post". If that was what you wanted, then you pretend that I didn't even exist. So please if you want to be left alone, then stop being a top-notch whiner. You get yourelf into these situations and then you whine and wail how unfair it is. You leave me out of your posts and I will leave you out of mine.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

According to VB's book, they missed a palm print from Nicole's right hand. Did you ever hear of this? Also, it seems to me that besides the blood found underneath Nicole's fingernails that was questioned, there was also a sample of this on her thigh--did you know this?

So how many missing fingerprints and palm prints are we up to?

[tv]

TV,

Did you ask DW to delete your post calling me a "mental midget" and FBG's post saying that if I was really white then she was really black? As well as your response to FBG's post?:)

I really don't care if you "like" me or not, I am not Sally Field going up for Oscar.:)

And please, dont do another "leave me alone post". If that was what you wanted, then you pretend that I didn't even exist. So please if you want to be left alone, then stop being a top-notch whiner. You get yourelf into these situations and then you whine and wail how unfair it is. You leave me out of your posts and I will leave you out of mine.

If there's a post you don't like you'll have to ask DW to delete it yourself. Now LEAVE ME ALONE.

[tv]

TV,

Honestly, leave this alone. Not because you are to blame but because people that feel their highs as a result of malicious acts in an effort to cut another human being down are not people that are capable of honest and/or mature interaction. They will never allow themselves to feel shamed or at fault. You have well earned the respect of many individuals on this forum throughout your time here and you should be proud of the manner in which you have been able to debate in a civil fashion with those here whose opinions differ from yours.

I commend you.

Kindly,
Kate

Kate, you're right. I'm going to try to leave it alone at this point. I appreciate your kind words even though I'm not sure I deserve them. I have a bit of a temper at times but your post has helped me to put all of this into perspective.

I wish you'd come see us more often. I know I speak for more than a few that miss your contributions to this forum. Maybe you can help us to get back on track. :)

[tv]

i posted that with you in mind.hahaha

I appreciate it! :)

[tv]

GI-TV

Q Regarding the knife wounds, is it your finding
20 that there were two types of knife wounds on both
21 victims?
22 A There are two morphologically different types
23 of stab wounds on the victims. Namely, some of the
24 stab wounds on the victims are indicative of a
25 single-edged blade for the reasons that I indicated.
26 They have both a round or blunt end and a pointed end.
27 And other -- some of the wounds have a
28 characteristically double pointed or forked end, which
0025
01 would indicate that they could be made by either a blunt
02 end instrument, or knife, or a double sharp end
03 instrument. In other words, a two-edged knife or a
04 single-edged knife.
05 And there's no way that my determinations can
06 tell the difference between those, so there are two
07 morphologically different types.
08 Q Could two knives have produced the injuries on
09 both of the victims?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Was there any evidence of any sexual attack on
12 the decedent, Nicole Brown?
13 A No, there wasn't.
14 Q Did you look for any semen, saliva, hairs,
15 Bloods, that might be left behind on the victim of a
16 sexual attack?


It looks to me like there's really no way to be sure if it was two knives or one. It could go either way.

[GreenIce]

If there's a post you don't like you'll have to ask DW to delete it yourself. Now LEAVE ME ALONE.

TV,

Didn't think so!

Like I said you knock off all references to me and I will knock off all references to you. Again, stop your whining and practice what you preach.

[GreenIce]

So the idea that there was one person that killed both with a single edge knife was just a guess and not fact.Only a opinion from the doctor that did not do the autopsy. This leaves open many other possibilities.l:cool:


Martin,

Not sure if I posted this before but Marcia Clark was warned not to allow Dr. Golden to do the autopsy on June 12, the autopsy was done on June 13. Why was she being advised not to use him by other DA's?

I also think it is important to understand that people who sold Simpson the knife, did not remember which knife they sold him. However, Vanatter went "shopping" and asked Golden if this could have been knife. What I don't understand is if Golden is telling the truth, how could he have not measured the wounds?

It would also be interesting to see if Dr. Golden was requested to be on this case. That if he has worked "well" with the cops and/or DA's in the past. Again, it seems to me that if Lange and VA were in fact watching the autopsy and they can make comments about seeing the bruise on Nicole's head that the coroner says he missed, is at the very least interesting, IMO.

It is just dawning on me how much access VA did have regards to the blood evidence.

Also, do you know why bile would be taken and examined in an autopsy case?
It also makes no sense that Dr. Golden would toss the stomach contents of Nicole, since the detectives believed Simpson was the killer and needed all the help with the timeline as possible.

Again, IMO, just another "mistake" that has no reasonable explaination, IMO.

[weezer]

LOL -- thank you GI -- my new word for the day: explaination! :tongue:

[weezer]

TV,

Did you ask DW to delete your post calling me a "mental midget" and FBG's post saying that if I was really white then she was really black? As well as your response to FBG's post?:)

I really don't care if you "like" me or not, I am not Sally Field going up for Oscar.:)

And please, dont do another "leave me alone post". If that was what you wanted, then you pretend that I didn't even exist. So please if you want to be left alone, then stop being a top-notch whiner. You get yourelf into these situations and then you whine and wail how unfair it is. You leave me out of your posts and I will leave you out of mine.

you do understand that the moderator has instructed us to quit calling names and be respectful, right? not responding directly to your posts IS ignoring you. (just in case you didn't get that part)

[Kate Sachel]

Kate, you're right. I'm going to try to leave it alone at this point. I appreciate your kind words even though I'm not sure I deserve them. I have a bit of a temper at times but your post has helped me to put all of this into perspective.

I wish you'd come see us more often. I know I speak for more than a few that miss your contributions to this forum. Maybe you can help us to get back on track. :)

You do deserve them; I would not post them if I felt that you did not.

I have witnessed your temper flare, and I have witnessed what causes it to do so and view it as justified. I have witnessed your apologies when you have personally felt that you have gone too far and I have witnessed you correct yourself when you have posted something that was not correct; all of these things are commendable. I have witnessed you attempt to make peace with an individual on this forum who, in my opinion, is undeserving of any such act on your part.

What makes a person mature and beautiful is not that they are educated about all things and right at all times; it is the desire to learn, the ability to allow others their own opinions, the insight to realize their mistakes, and the kindness to attempt to correct them.

I think you're doing a wonderful job.

Kate

[martin II]

Martin,

Not sure if I posted this before but Marcia Clark was warned not to allow Dr. Golden to do the autopsy on June 12, the autopsy was done on June 13. Why was she being advised not to use him by other DA's?

I also think it is important to understand that people who sold Simpson the knife, did not remember which knife they sold him. However, Vanatter went "shopping" and asked Golden if this could have been knife. What I don't understand is if Golden is telling the truth, how could he have not measured the wounds?

It would also be interesting to see if Dr. Golden was requested to be on this case. That if he has worked "well" with the cops and/or DA's in the past. Again, it seems to me that if Lange and VA were in fact watching the autopsy and they can make comments about seeing the bruise on Nicole's head that the coroner says he missed, is at the very least interesting, IMO.

It is just dawning on me how much access VA did have regards to the blood evidence.

Also, do you know why bile would be taken and examined in an autopsy case?
It also makes no sense that Dr. Golden would toss the stomach contents of Nicole, since the detectives believed Simpson was the killer and needed all the help with the timeline as possible.

Again, IMO, just another "mistake" that has no reasonable explaination, IMO.

i think Clarke did not like goldens opinion that there could have been two knifes used as this would lkead to the idea of two killers

[martin II]

It looks to me like there's really no way to be sure if it was two knives or one. It could go either way.

tv

if that can go both ways then it is reasonable for one to think two knifes means two killers one knife each.That is why Golden did not testify in the criminal trial.

[weezer]

i think Clarke did not likeoldens opinion that there could have been two knifes used as this would lkead to the idea of two killers

who is 'likeoldens'?

[martin II]

I appreciate it! :)

i wanted to see if you were paying attention.

[tv]

i wanted to see if you were paying attention.

From now on I will be -- thanks for the help. :)

[martin II]

like Golden.

[martin II]

From now on I will be -- thanks for the help. :)

Although that is the law i never liked it.

[tv]

You do deserve them; I would not post them if I felt that you did not.

I have witnessed your temper flare, and I have witnessed what causes it to do so and view it as justified. I have witnessed your apologies when you have personally felt that you have gone too far and I have witnessed you correct yourself when you have posted something that was not correct; all of these things are commendable. I have witnessed you attempt to make peace with an individual on this forum who, in my opinion, is undeserving of any such act on your part.

What makes a person mature and beautiful is not that they are educated about all things and right at all times; it is the desire to learn, the ability to allow others their own opinions, the insight to realize their mistakes, and the kindness to attempt to correct them.

I think you're doing a wonderful job.

Kate

Kate, I don't know what to say. This is one of the nicest, kindest things anyone has ever said to me. It inspires me to try to be a more understanding and tolerate person when responding to others. That often hard for me because I tend to have a sarcastic nature at times.

This just goes to show we need you here to help us stay focused. Please stay around for a while. :)

[tv]

Although that is the law i never liked it.

There are times when I don't agree with it -- most of the time I do -- but I judge it on a case by case basis.

[tv]

tv

if that can go both ways then it is reasonable for one to think two knifes means two killers one knife each.That is why Golden did not testify in the criminal trial.

Are you sure that's why he didn't testify?

[weezer]

tv -- empty your PM boxes

[tv]

tv -- empty your PM boxes

Thank you. :)

[martin II]

Are you sure that's why he didn't testify?

YEP that many maby more details

[tv]

YEP that many maby more details

What's your source for why he didn't testify and what exactly does it say?

[martin II]

There are times when I don't agree with it -- most of the time I do -- but I judge it on a case by case basis.

you and your friend go to Macys. you are looking for sandels for your kids and she is boosting designer handbags.

both of decide to leave you empty handed and she **** jhandbags under her clothes.

security stops both of you. find boosted items on her both go to jail.

[tv]

you and your friend go to Macys. you are looking for sandels for your kids and she is boosting designer handbags.

both of decide to leave you empty handed and she **** jhandbags under her clothes.

security stops both of you. find boosted items on her both go to jail.

If you weren't in on the theft you shouldn't be held responsible. If you told her to put the handbags under her clothes (I hope they're small) then you should be held responsible also.

[martin II]

What's your source for why he didn't testify and what exactly does it say?

ME


i believe Clarke and Darden would not allow Goldens opinions to come into court as it created doubt about a piller of the prosecutions case.OJ ONLY KILLER.
It is strange that the doctor that acutally did the autopsy was not allowed to testify to his owm findings and what they meant.Its like you cooking a meal for tv and they select me, who was not present or did none of the prep or cooking is selected to tell the public what was in your meal and how you prepared it. Goldens boss was quoted as saying that Golden made about 30 mistakes in his work and this may have been the excuse they used.

Golden found some wounds that indicated a single edge knife and he found some that indicated a double edge knife. Vanhatter gave him this six inch knife but his boss said the knife was only 4 inches
Another problem is one of the wounds indicated that the dept of a wound was about 5 inches. not possible with a 4 inch knife.i think

[martin II]

If you weren't in on the theft you shouldn't be held responsible. If you told her to put the handbags under her clothes (I hope they're small) then you should be held responsible also.

even if you did not know what she was doing it is conspiracy to steal as you are with the person when the crime was commited.imo

[weezer]

ME


i believe Clarke and Darden would not allow Goldens opinions to come into court as it created doubt about a piller of the prosecutions case.OJ ONLY KILLER.
It is strange that the doctor that acutally did the autopsy was not allowed to testify to his owm findings and what they meant.Its like you cooking a meal for tv and they select me, who was not present or did none of the prep or cooking is selected to tell the public what was in your meal and how you prepared it. Goldens boss was quoted as saying that Golden made about 30 mistakes in his work and this may have been the excuse they used.

Golden found some wounds that indicated a single edge knife and he found some that indicated a double edge knife. Vanhatter gave him this six inch knife but his boss said the knife was only 4 inches
Another problem is one of the wounds indicated that the dept of a wound was about 5 inches. not possible with a 4 inch knife.i think

this is a two edged sword (pardon the pun) -- Golden's boss looked over the work Golden had done and scrutinized/criticized the work. Had he not done this, the defense would have been hollering about why didn't they? I don't know what kind of work you do, but I see someone else preparing the work and it being presented by someone else all the time. ask anyone on television. :shrug:

[weezer]

even if you did not know what she was doing it is conspiracy to steal as you are with the person when the crime was commited.imo

just like orenthal and his las vegas thugs! ;)

[martin II]

If Golden did not care to test the knife size Vanhatter gave him against the wound size it appears that he may have thought Vanhatters knife was too long and it was a waste of his time to check it. He had already found wounds that indicated a 4 inch and one that indicated a 5 inch knife was used.i assume Vanhatter got the 6 inch knife from the knife shop where oj had purchased his.But ojs had never been used. it was still brand new.

So now testimony shows that there could have been two type knifes used and this leads to a reasonable idea that there could have been two killers.

I think most coroners testify to their own autopsy work. No one knows what his words mean better than he.

[martin II]

This is interesting because the doctor did not deny that a investigator made this report.He said that he did not use the investigators report to determine time of death. i think this is the second source of juditha telling someone she talked to nicole at 11 pm on 6/12.


Q Do you have an opinion as to the time of death of
04 nicole Simpson?
05 A I can give you a range.
06 Q And what is that range?
07 A Somewhere between 9 o'clock and midnight.
08 Q Now, is there something in the report that
09 indicates that one of your investigators had information
10 from the mother of the decedent that she was alive at 11
11 p.m.?
12 MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, I am going to object now
13 because counsel is attempting to elicit inadmissible and
14 unreliable hearsay evidence.
15 THE COURT: I think it would be admissible only if
16 the doctor relied upon it in formulating his opinion,
17 and it would not be offered then for the truth of the
18 matter but for the fact the doctor may have relied upon it.
19 And I don't know whether he did or did not; and, therefore,
20 until that foundation is established as to whether he
21 relied upon that in forming his opinion, the objection will
22 be sustained.

[Hipcheck]

This is interesting because the doctor did not deny that a investigator made this report.He said that he did not use the investigators report to determine time of death. i think this is the second source of juditha telling someone she talked to nicole at 11 pm on 6/12.


Q Do you have an opinion as to the time of death of
04 nicole Simpson?
05 A I can give you a range.
06 Q And what is that range?
07 A Somewhere between 9 o'clock and midnight.
08 Q Now, is there something in the report that
09 indicates that one of your investigators had information
10 from the mother of the decedent that she was alive at 11
11 p.m.?
12 MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, I am going to object now
13 because counsel is attempting to elicit inadmissible and
14 unreliable hearsay evidence.
15 THE COURT: I think it would be admissible only if
16 the doctor relied upon it in formulating his opinion,
17 and it would not be offered then for the truth of the
18 matter but for the fact the doctor may have relied upon it.
19 And I don't know whether he did or did not; and, therefore,
20 until that foundation is established as to whether he
21 relied upon that in forming his opinion, the objection will
22 be sustained.

Martin

What did the Brown's phone records show was the time of this phone call?

I would assume that both the prosecution and defense had these records.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

First, you must understand, both sides knew they case they put on was going to be heard in two courtrooms, Judge Ito's courtroom and the court of public opininon. Very early on, before Simpson was even arrested the media was focused on Simpson turning his back on his community. There is no evidence to suggest that this even close the truth and in fact, Mr. Simpson did maintain ties to his community. JC made one statement that proved that it was lie that Simpson turned his back on his community. I don't think there was much focus on SImpson's lack of ties to the black community[ but I don't claim to remember things very well 15 years ago. I probably didn't read a lot of it. If Cochran made that comment to counteract stuff in the press, the defense should have put that in the press before the trial. Cochran didn't prove it was a lie. Part of the charge that VB made was that OJS would say he would be at an event, and then back out at the last minute. It would have been more honest to just say he wasn't coming.
Second, you don't seem to understand that VB wanted Simpson's blackness to be considered another piece of evidence, just like one of the gloves. And the reality of this situation fgump, had OJ Simpson been very vocal about his ties in his community and was a little more aggressive like Jim Brown and other AA leaders, VB would have taken that jury to task for letting his civil rights and his ties to the community be the only evidence that mattered to the jury. Tell me I am wrong. Yes you are wrong.

You feel it is fair that the jury consider his blackness and for that reason, since it appeared, but never been proven, that he cut his tie to his people that they should have held that against them. That they should have taken into account that he left a black wife for a white wife.
Certain subjects are supposed to be off limits. Mr. Simpson's ties to the black community, his commitments to racial equality and to low income blacks should have been off limits. I write this not claiming to be a legal expert.
If one side brings up something that is otherwise off limits; the other side can then comment on it. For example, in the civil trial, lie detector tests were off limits for both sides. I agree with this because they are unreliable and many people take them too seriously.

Baker said that Simpson offered to take a lie detector test. This created an oportunity for the plaintiff side to mention that Simpson had flunked a lie detector tests.

I don't think that a minority person's ties to his alleged community should be a factor in the trial, but if the defendent's side brings it up, so can the prosecution.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=Hipcheck;9204025]Martin

What did the Brown's phone records show was the time of this phone call?

I would assume that both the prosecution and defense had these records.[/QUOTE
There was a big fight about the Browns phone records. As i remember they were never presented in court or the total was not presented. A previous poster here posted a lot of information about his research on getting the records released. Big Ben is his nic. if i remember correctly
lou brown resisted the release of the records.
There was also different opinions about the driving time from the resturant to the Browns home as there was a lot of highway construction on the route to their house.

i cannot remember the name of the phone company. if big ben were posting he could give the details.

a la coronors office investigator is the one that made the claim of what JB SAID.

[martin II]

Certain subjects are supposed to be off limits. Mr. Simpson's ties to the black community, his commitments to racial equality and to low income blacks should have been off limits. I write this not claiming to be a legal expert.
If one side brings up something that is otherwise off limits; the other side can then comment on it. For example, in the civil trial, lie detector tests were off limits for both sides. I agree with this because they are unreliable and many people take them too seriously.

Baker said that Simpson offered to take a lie detector test. This created an oportunity for the plaintiff side to mention that Simpson had flunked a lie detector tests.

I don't think that a minority person's ties to his alleged community should be a factor in the trial, but if the defendent's side brings it up, so can the prosecution.


Comments made in argument is not evidence. VB wanted the prosecution to put this in as evidence and he had no proof that his statement was evidence.
He knew this.

[martin II]

If oj did not give to the black community this is a piece of evidence that the jury should consider when considering if he murdered Ron and Nicole RIGHT?

[martin II]

Certain subjects are supposed to be off limits. Mr. Simpson's ties to the black community, his commitments to racial equality and to low income blacks should have been off limits. I write this not claiming to be a legal expert.
If one side brings up something that is otherwise off limits; the other side can then comment on it. For example, in the civil trial, lie detector tests were off limits for both sides. I agree with this because they are unreliable and many people take them too seriously.

Baker said that Simpson offered to take a lie detector test. This created an oportunity for the plaintiff side to mention that Simpson had flunked a lie detector tests.

I don't think that a minority person's ties to his alleged community should be a factor in the trial, but if the defendent's side brings it up, so can the prosecution.


vb was not on the prosecutions side.He was by himself sitting in the courtroom like others.He had no court right to respond to what the defence said.

[weezer]

If oj did not give to the black community this is a piece of evidence that the jury should consider when considering if he murdered Ron and Nicole RIGHT?

martin, you feel that words from a screenplay some 10 years prior to the murders should have been used to dispute the character of Fuhrman but you think the prosecution disputing the defense portrayal of orenthal as something he wasn't shouldn't have been allowed? :shrug:

[weezer]

vb was not on the prosecutions side.He was by himself sitting in the courtroom like others.He had no court right to respond to what the defence said.

but he did have years of legal experience and had a successful legal career so I think his thoughts are legitimate. I don't agree with everything he says but I don't have his knowledge so I'd have to give more weight to what he says than what I think.

[tv]

Comments made in argument is not evidence. VB wanted the prosecution to put this in as evidence and he had no proof that his statement was evidence.
He knew this.

martin, it sounds like you're saying that VB was trying to interfere with the prosecution while the trial was going on. Am I misunderstanding you?

[tv]

If oj did not give to the black community this is a piece of evidence that the jury should consider when considering if he murdered Ron and Nicole RIGHT?

For heavens sake, the defense opened the door to it, there's no reason the prosecution shouldn't have responded with the truth. It's not evidence as in blood or timeline but it goes to character.

[weezer]

I always wonder the defense didn't disclose the results from their own testing to dispute the forensic results instead of just attacking the collection by LE.

[tv]

I always wonder the defense didn't disclose the results from their own testing to dispute the forensic results instead of just attacking the collection by LE.

I don't get that either. I still say it has to mean their results were the same.

[martin II]

For heavens sake, the defense opened the door to it, there's no reason the prosecution shouldn't have responded with the truth. It's not evidence as in blood or timeline but it goes to character.

You judge character by the amount of money a person gives away or a defendants guilt of murder by how free he is with his money?

[martin II]

martin, it sounds like you're saying that VB was trying to interfere with the prosecution while the trial was going on. Am I misunderstanding you?

if he was trying to tell them what to put in their case YES.

[martin II]

I don't get that either. I still say it has to mean their results were the same.

The defence did not have to test anything just show what the prosecution tested could not be believed and they did.

[weezer]

The defence did not have to test anything just show what the prosecution tested could not be believed and they did.

but they did test -- don't you wonder why they didn't use the results as proof positive that it wasn't orenthal's blood?

[tv]

if he was trying to tell them what to put in their case YES.

martin, he didn't interfere in the prosecution at all. Where did you get that?

[tv]

You judge character by the amount of money a person gives away or a defendants guilt of murder by how free he is with his money?

Do you? Why did the defense bring it in?

[weezer]

Do you? Why did the defense bring it in?

for the same reason they rushed to orenthal's house and removed the naked girlfriend picture and added the little black girl picture before the jury saw it -- to portray orenthal as something he wasn't.

[martin II]

For heavens sake, the defense opened the door to it, there's no reason the prosecution shouldn't have responded with the truth. It's not evidence as in blood or timeline but it goes to character.

The truth is that oj did give to black charaties and there was no disconnect between him and the black community.During the trial and at verdict there was strong black support for oj and it did not matter what some whites thought about this support.imo

[martin II]

Do you? Why did the defense bring it in?

no

martinii

[tv]

The truth is that oj did give to black charaties and there was no disconnect between him and the black community.During the trial and at verdict there was strong black support for oj and it did not matter what some whites thought about this support.imo

martin, it doesn't come down to what whites thought. Do you happen to know what charities he gave to since you're making the claim?

[weezer]

The truth is that oj did give to black charaties and there was no disconnect between him and the black community.During the trial and at verdict there was strong black support for oj and it did not matter what some whites thought about this support.imo

what didn't matter to the black community is whether or not he was guilty. that was the shame and the sham of the whole sordid trial.

[tv]

for the same reason they rushed to orenthal's house and removed the naked girlfriend picture and added the little black girl picture before the jury saw it -- to portray orenthal as something he wasn't.

IIRC, they replaced the naked girlfriend picture with a picture of Eunice Simpson. How sweet. :)

[weezer]

The truth is that oj did give to black charaties and there was no disconnect between him and the black community.During the trial and at verdict there was strong black support for oj and it did not matter what some whites thought about this support.imo

actually, the defense was able only to cite one charity and then hid behind the 'it was anonymous' so it couldn't be checked out. ;)

[martin II]

Would you judge Nicoles character by the amount of money she gave away to needy people. or Ron's?

[weezer]

Would you judge Nicoles character by the amount of money she gave away to needy people. or Ron's?

no one tried to portray Nicole as a contributor to the needy white girl fund. and yes, wealthy people are judged by their charitable contributions simply because that means they give back to the community.

[martin II]

IIRC, they replaced the naked girlfriend picture with a picture of Eunice Simpson. How sweet. :)

Paulas pictures were all over ojs house long before she died. At least there was testimony that this is one thing that pissed nicole off when she saw them.

[tv]

Would you judge Nicoles character by the amount of money she gave away to needy people. or Ron's?

Nicole wasn't in a position to contribute as much financially as OJS. I judge her by other things such as what kind of friend, mother and daughter she was and the adversity in her marriage that made her stronger. Besides, she's the victim, not the one to be judged.

[weezer]

Paulas pictures were all over ojs house long before she died. At least there was testimony that this is one thing that pissed nicole off when she saw them.

that may very well have been but they weren't there when the jury visited rockingham -- they had been removed by the defense.

IIRC, it wasn't Nicole who threw a fit over Paula's pictures at orenthal's but rather orenthal who threw the raging, screaming fit over Nicole having pictures of men at her home.

[tv]

Paulas pictures were all over ojs house long before she died. At least there was testimony that this is one thing that pissed nicole off when she saw them.

They were removed before the jurors toured the house. Why?

[tv]

that may very well have been but they weren't there when the jury visited rockingham -- they had been removed by the defense.

IIRC, it wasn't Nicole who threw a fit over Paula's pictures at orenthal's but rather orenthal who threw the raging, screaming fit over Nicole having pictures of men at her home.

That's right. I'd forgotten all about that.

[weezer]

That's right. I'd forgotten all about that.

do you remember testimony about Nicole being upset about pictures of Paula being in orenthal's house?

[martin II]

The black community was capable of understanding the trial and the results on their own. They didn't have to believe what many in the white media and others thought they should have understood and believed.imo

[tv]

do you remember testimony about Nicole being upset about pictures of Paula being in orenthal's house?

Not that I recall. Do you?

[weezer]

The black community was capable of understanding the trial and the results on their own. They didn't have to believe what many in the white media and others thought they should have understood and believed.imo

I don't believe anyone argues that the black community isn't capable of understanding the trial or exactly what the verdict meant. that was the shame and the sham of the whole sordid trial.

the argument can be made as to why the black community believes anyone else had to agree with their misguided verdict.

[weezer]

Not that I recall. Do you?

nope

[martin II]

Nicole wasn't in a position to contribute as much financially as OJS. I judge her by other things such as what kind of friend, mother and daughter she was and the adversity in her marriage that made her stronger. Besides, she's the victim, not the one to be judged.

There was testimony about her character. some good and some not so good.

[tv]

There was testimony about her character. some good and some not so good.

So why isn't it okay to present testimony about Simpson's character?

[tv]

I don't believe anyone argues that the black community isn't capable of understanding the trial or exactly what the verdict meant. that was the shame and the sham of the whole sordid trial.

the argument can be made as to why the black community believes anyone else had to agree with their misguided verdict.

IMO, the jury was getting some information from their families about the mood of the community. I'm not saying it was all the jurors but it would only take one to affect their opinions. If not, why were they so nervous at the reading of the verdict? IIRC, it was Carrie Bess that nearly had a gastrointestinal mishap.

[weezer]

IMO, the jury was getting some information from their families about the mood of the community. I'm not saying it was all the jurors but it would only take one to affect their opinions. If not, why were they so nervous at the reading of the verdict? IIRC, it was Carrie Bess that nearly had a gastrointestinal mishap.

oh I agree -- we know that members of this same jury contacted jurors in the civil trial while the trial was still going on. you know what they say, 'there's no honor among thieves' ;)

[tv]

oh I agree -- we know that members of this same jury contacted jurors in the civil trial while the trial was still going on. you know what they say, 'there's no honor among thieves' ;)

They had to know that wasn't allowed. I remember they contacted them but not the reason. Do you remember?

[weezer]

They had to know that wasn't allowed. I remember they contacted them but not the reason. Do you remember?

they wanted to hook them up with the publisher/editor that had handled the book they wrote on the criminal trial

[tv]

they wanted to hook them up with the publisher/editor that had handled the book they wrote on the criminal trial

That's right -- I remember now. Then I suppose they were satisfied with the editing and the way their book turned out.

[weezer]

That's right -- I remember now. Then I suppose they were satisfied with the editing and the way their book turned out.

and I'm sure they'd collect a fee for getting the jurors to sign.

[weezer]

I think the folks who don't fast-forward to the civil trial and the evidence testimony presented there, are simply needing to hang onto the criminal jury verdict.

"Simpson claims all of the most incriminating pieces of evidence were planted: (1) the trail of Simpson's blood at Bundy; (2) Simpson's blood on the back gate at Bundy; (3) Simpson's blood, Ronald Goldman's blood, and Nicole Brown Simpson's blood in Simpson's Bronco; (4) a glove containing Simpson's blood, Ron's blood, Nicole's blood, Ron's hair, Nicole's hair, fibers from Ron's shirt, fibers from Ron's pants, and fibers from Simpson's Bronco, at Simpson's residence on Rockingham; (5) Simpson's blood inside and outside of his home on Rockingham; and (6) Simpson's blood and Nicole's blood on Simpson's socks in his bedroom. As to certain of these items of evidence, Simpson's interrogatory answers offer no explanation to show planting; as to others, the answers posit circumstances Simpson contends are suspicious and support an inference of planting. For the Court's convenience, the relevant interrogatory answers are quoted and summarized in the Declaration of Daniel M. Petrocelli filed concurrently herewith. Examination of the interrogatory answers shows that no jury could reasonably infer planting of evidence from the facts advanced by Simpson. Nowhere has Simpson recited who planted the evidence, when it was planted, how it was planted, or why it was planted.

One example illustrates the merit of this motion. On June 13, the police found and collected blood drops to the left of bloody shoe prints at the Bundy crime scene leading away from the victims towards the back gate. The undisputed evidence in this case is that these blood drops were collected by LAPD criminalists on June 13 before Simpson gave a sample of his blood to the police at Parker Center in the late afternoon of the same day. The blood drops were tested and matched Simpson's blood. In response to Goldman's Requests for Admissions, Simpson admitted that the blood tested matched his blood. To overcome this conclusive evidence of guilt, Simpson claims his blood was planted in place of the real killer's blood. When asked to explain how the Bundy blood drops, collected before the police obtained Simpson's blood, could be planted, Simpson merely referred to the entire closing argument of Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck, plus thousands of other pages of the criminal trial, the preliminary hearing, the Griffin hearing, and depositions in this case -- all in the transparent hope of hiding his complete absence of evidence or explanation."

[GreenIce]

Certain subjects are supposed to be off limits. Mr. Simpson's ties to the black community, his commitments to racial equality and to low income blacks should have been off limits. I write this not claiming to be a legal expert.
If one side brings up something that is otherwise off limits; the other side can then comment on it. For example, in the civil trial, lie detector tests were off limits for both sides. I agree with this because they are unreliable and many people take them too seriously.

Baker said that Simpson offered to take a lie detector test. This created an oportunity for the plaintiff side to mention that Simpson had flunked a lie detector tests.

I don't think that a minority person's ties to his alleged community should be a factor in the trial, but if the defendent's side brings it up, so can the prosecution.


fgump2,

I have read and re-read that part in VB's book and I still appalled about his "Uncle Tom" file that he felt the taxpayers of CA should have paid for. Are you kidding me, assign a member of LE to investigate Mr. Simpson's contributions to black people? An "Uncle Tom" file?!!!!!!

Wasn't VB the one who said Simpson's blood being found at the crime scene was proof of his guilt? That it was the end of the ball game? Well if that was true, why was he wasting time investigating Mr. Simpson's ties to his community and developing his "Uncle Tom" file?

And what if VB found out that Simpson, unknown to the public has supported these charties and has donated large amounts of money to these causes, was that going to mean that it wasn't his blood? That he would have been incapable of killing his ex-wife?

Doesn't it bother you, that a white man felt it was duty to call all these agencies to find out what a black man had done for his community? Doesn't it bother you that some of these people, in these organizations, even talked to this man?

Don't you think Chris Darden was appalled by VB doing this? Darden may have believed a million percent that Simpson was guilty, but do you really think that he was not offended by VB's "Uncle Tom" File?

Another point to consider, why didn't VB show an interest or investigate all the charities Simpson was involved in and made contributions to? For an example, lets say it was the "Make A Wish Foundation". If a white child's dream was to meet OJ Simpson, should Simpson have said no because he was black?

VB did say that Simpson backed out of some engagements, however, he provided no proof that this was in fact true and if he did, why did he do it?

Even if you believe that the defense opened the door to this, that means the DA's had a right to slam this door shut---why didn't they?

BTW, Simpson did open doors to African-Americans that were not only closed but they had a dead bolt on them. Well many of these were opened because he was excellent at playing football, he still opened them and others, many others have walked through it. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The defence did not have to test anything just show what the prosecution tested could not be believed and they did.

Martin,

The defense was never going to test any samples, even if they were given them, it would have pointless. It is obvious that the defense's results would have come out the same in regards to DNA because how stupid would it be to plant someone else's blood?

The reason why the defense made this motion was force an inventory of all the evidence. Scheck realized that blood was missing. By forcing the inventory, he could confirm this. He also said that any test results would be leaked, just like Nicole's blood on the socks.

Do you know if the defense was ever given any samples?

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=Hipcheck;9204025]Martin

What did the Brown's phone records show was the time of this phone call?

I would assume that both the prosecution and defense had these records.[/QUOTE
There was a big fight about the Browns phone records. As i remember they were never presented in court or the total was not presented. A previous poster here posted a lot of information about his research on getting the records released. Big Ben is his nic. if i remember correctly
lou brown resisted the release of the records.
There was also different opinions about the driving time from the resturant to the Browns home as there was a lot of highway construction on the route to their house.

i cannot remember the name of the phone company. if big ben were posting he could give the details.

a la coronors office investigator is the one that made the claim of what JB SAID.

Martin,

I have some comments/questions you might find interesting in regards to the phone records and the Browns' trip home.

How and when did Judy Brown get the number of the Mezzaluna? Did she call information? Did she look it up in a phone book? How did she get the number? If she used information, then this call should have been reflected on the telephone records.

It never made sense to me why Judy Brown would say many, many times that she looked at the clock when she called Nicole and it was around 11:00 p.m.

It also never made any sense to me that when she noticed her glasses were lost, early into the trip home, she never called on the way home about her glasses. Surely some one had a cell phone.

I also find odd that Mrs. Brown would contact the Mezzaluna first and not Nicole. Why would Mrs. Brown take the time to look up this number and make this call?

Lange and VA make an interesting comment about the Browns and the timing of the phone calls. When they talked to the Brown family about this issue, they made sure to make note that Tonya Brown was not there. Why could this be important? Because it could have been Tonya on the phone with Nicole at that time, not Judy Brown.

In regards to the trip home--they lived in a gated community, how did they enter it? How did the community monitor the comings and goings of their residents and their visitor's?

Also, I don't think Lou Brown was behind the phone record denials---I think it was Bill Hodgeman.

[martin II]

fgump2,

I have read and re-read that part in VB's book and I still appalled about his "Uncle Tom" file that he felt the taxpayers of CA should have paid for. Are you kidding me, assign a member of LE to investigate Mr. Simpson's contributions to black people? An "Uncle Tom" file?!!!!!!

Wasn't VB the one who said Simpson's blood being found at the crime scene was proof of his guilt? That it was the end of the ball game? Well if that was true, why was he wasting time investigating Mr. Simpson's ties to his community and developing his "Uncle Tom" file?

And what if VB found out that Simpson, unknown to the public has supported these charties and has donated large amounts of money to these causes, was that going to mean that it wasn't his blood? That he would have been incapable of killing his ex-wife?

Doesn't it bother you, that a white man felt it was duty to call all these agencies to find out what a black man had done for his community? Doesn't it bother you that some of these people, in these organizations, even talked to this man?

Don't you think Chris Darden was appalled by VB doing this? Darden may have believed a million percent that Simpson was guilty, but do you really think that he was not offended by VB's "Uncle Tom" File?

Another point to consider, why didn't VB show an interest or investigate all the charities Simpson was involved in and made contributions to? For an example, lets say it was the "Make A Wish Foundation". If a white child's dream was to meet OJ Simpson, should Simpson have said no because he was black?

VB did say that Simpson backed out of some engagements, however, he provided no proof that this was in fact true and if he did, why did he do it?

Even if you believe that the defense opened the door to this, that means the DA's had a right to slam this door shut---why didn't they?

BTW, Simpson did open doors to African-Americans that were not only closed but they had a dead bolt on them. Well many of these were opened because he was excellent at playing football, he still opened them and others, many others have walked through it. IMO.

very well spoken.
There is no end to somer of the excuses some give vb and his racist comments.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9204043]

Martin,

I have some comments/questions you might find interesting in regards to the phone records and the Browns' trip home.

How and when did Judy Brown get the number of the Mezzaluna? Did she call information? Did she look it up in a phone book? How did she get the number? If she used information, then this call should have been reflected on the telephone records.

It never made sense to me why Judy Brown would say many, many times that she looked at the clock when she called Nicole and it was around 11:00 p.m.

It also never made any sense to me that when she noticed her glasses were lost, early into the trip home, she never called on the way home about her glasses. Surely some one had a cell phone.

I also find odd that Mrs. Brown would contact the Mezzaluna first and not Nicole. Why would Mrs. Brown take the time to look up this number and make this call?

Lange and VA make an interesting comment about the Browns and the timing of the phone calls. When they talked to the Brown family about this issue, they made sure to make note that Tonya Brown was not there. Why could this be important? Because it could have been Tonya on the phone with Nicole at that time, not Judy Brown.

In regards to the trip home--they lived in a gated community, how did they enter it? How did the community monitor the comings and goings of their residents and their visitor's?

Also, I don't think Lou Brown was behind the phone record denials---I think it was Bill Hodgeman.


you are right about Hodgeman he took the phone records home and stored them in his garage.
Juditha said she talked to nicole at 11 pm many times.why did she keepo repeating this.

the da did not use any of the checks like gated community times.

[martin II]

Martin,

The defense was never going to test any samples, even if they were given them, it would have pointless. It is obvious that the defense's results would have come out the same in regards to DNA because how stupid would it be to plant someone else's blood?

The reason why the defense made this motion was force an inventory of all the evidence. Scheck realized that blood was missing. By forcing the inventory, he could confirm this. He also said that any test results would be leaked, just like Nicole's blood on the socks.

Do you know if the defense was ever given any samples?


this is how the defence told the court that some blood was missing from a viual.

i know of no sanple the defence was given and tested. i will ask tv as she often times claimes they did test

[martin II]

fgump2,

I have read and re-read that part in VB's book and I still appalled about his "Uncle Tom" file that he felt the taxpayers of CA should have paid for. Are you kidding me, assign a member of LE to investigate Mr. Simpson's contributions to black people? An "Uncle Tom" file?!!!!!!

Wasn't VB the one who said Simpson's blood being found at the crime scene was proof of his guilt? That it was the end of the ball game? Well if that was true, why was he wasting time investigating Mr. Simpson's ties to his community and developing his "Uncle Tom" file?

And what if VB found out that Simpson, unknown to the public has supported these charties and has donated large amounts of money to these causes, was that going to mean that it wasn't his blood? That he would have been incapable of killing his ex-wife?

Doesn't it bother you, that a white man felt it was duty to call all these agencies to find out what a black man had done for his community? Doesn't it bother you that some of these people, in these organizations, even talked to this man?

Don't you think Chris Darden was appalled by VB doing this? Darden may have believed a million percent that Simpson was guilty, but do you really think that he was not offended by VB's "Uncle Tom" File?

Another point to consider, why didn't VB show an interest or investigate all the charities Simpson was involved in and made contributions to? For an example, lets say it was the "Make A Wish Foundation". If a white child's dream was to meet OJ Simpson, should Simpson have said no because he was black?

VB did say that Simpson backed out of some engagements, however, he provided no proof that this was in fact true and if he did, why did he do it?

Even if you believe that the defense opened the door to this, that means the DA's had a right to slam this door shut---why didn't they?

BTW, Simpson did open doors to African-Americans that were not only closed but they had a dead bolt on them. Well many of these were opened because he was excellent at playing football, he still opened them and others, many others have walked through it. IMO.

OJ was the leader of football players that for the first time forced the NFL to establish retirement funds and health care for players that were forced to retire with football injuries.Players still benefit from his efforts today. he was able to do this as a result of his statue as a player.imo

of all of the titles VB could have given to his fund he called it
'uncle tom"

[tv]

this is how the defence told the court that some blood was missing from a viual.

i know of no sanple the defence was given and tested. i will ask tv as she often times claimes they did test

Actually weezer is the one that knows the most about this. I know the defense tested the gloves and that's one of the reasons the insides were so damaged.

[tv]

OJ was the leader of football players that for the first time forced the NFL to establish retirement funds and health care for players that were forced to retire with football injuries.Players still benefit from his efforts today. he was able to do this as a result of his statue as a player.imo

of all of the titles VB could have given to his fund he called it
'uncle tom"

martin, I seriously don't remember Bugliosi calling any fund 'uncle tom' in his book. I'm not saying it's not there but I don't remember. I've loaned my book out to someone -- do you have the direct quote? Also, when I read his book I didn't feel anything he said was racist in any way. Just the opposite -- I thought he championed the cause of blacks in the book. Why are you and another poster making him such an issue in the case when all he did was write a book like many other people? You act as though he was a central issue in the way the case was tried. If it's to get to the people on this forum that enjoyed the book it's not working -- it's just a distraction from the case. For my part, I'm going to stop discussing him because I think there's one poster keeping it going just for the heck of it.

[tv]

you are right about Hodgeman he took the phone records home and stored them in his garage.
Juditha said she talked to nicole at 11 pm many times.why did she keepo repeating this.

the da did not use any of the checks like gated community times.

Why did Juditha talk to Nicole at 11:00? We know what time Ron left the restaurant with glasses and I believe that's why Juditha called Nicole in the first place.

[tv]

I think the folks who don't fast-forward to the civil trial and the evidence testimony presented there, are simply needing to hang onto the criminal jury verdict.

"Simpson claims all of the most incriminating pieces of evidence were planted: (1) the trail of Simpson's blood at Bundy; (2) Simpson's blood on the back gate at Bundy; (3) Simpson's blood, Ronald Goldman's blood, and Nicole Brown Simpson's blood in Simpson's Bronco; (4) a glove containing Simpson's blood, Ron's blood, Nicole's blood, Ron's hair, Nicole's hair, fibers from Ron's shirt, fibers from Ron's pants, and fibers from Simpson's Bronco, at Simpson's residence on Rockingham; (5) Simpson's blood inside and outside of his home on Rockingham; and (6) Simpson's blood and Nicole's blood on Simpson's socks in his bedroom. As to certain of these items of evidence, Simpson's interrogatory answers offer no explanation to show planting; as to others, the answers posit circumstances Simpson contends are suspicious and support an inference of planting. For the Court's convenience, the relevant interrogatory answers are quoted and summarized in the Declaration of Daniel M. Petrocelli filed concurrently herewith. Examination of the interrogatory answers shows that no jury could reasonably infer planting of evidence from the facts advanced by Simpson. Nowhere has Simpson recited who planted the evidence, when it was planted, how it was planted, or why it was planted.

One example illustrates the merit of this motion. On June 13, the police found and collected blood drops to the left of bloody shoe prints at the Bundy crime scene leading away from the victims towards the back gate. The undisputed evidence in this case is that these blood drops were collected by LAPD criminalists on June 13 before Simpson gave a sample of his blood to the police at Parker Center in the late afternoon of the same day. The blood drops were tested and matched Simpson's blood. In response to Goldman's Requests for Admissions, Simpson admitted that the blood tested matched his blood. To overcome this conclusive evidence of guilt, Simpson claims his blood was planted in place of the real killer's blood. When asked to explain how the Bundy blood drops, collected before the police obtained Simpson's blood, could be planted, Simpson merely referred to the entire closing argument of Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck, plus thousands of other pages of the criminal trial, the preliminary hearing, the Griffin hearing, and depositions in this case -- all in the transparent hope of hiding his complete absence of evidence or explanation."

Thanks weezer. This really sums it all up perfectly. :) No evidence of planting.

[tv]

very well spoken.
There is no end to somer of the excuses some give vb and his racist comments.

martin, you don't have to believe me but some of the comments about the book that are put on here are being emphasized and exaggerated just to inflame.

[martin II]

martin, you don't have to believe me but some of the comments about the book that are put on here are being emphasized and exaggerated just to inflame.


'UNCLE TOM' name
what do you think about that

[martin II]

Why did Juditha talk to Nicole at 11:00? We know what time Ron left the restaurant with glasses and I believe that's why Juditha called Nicole in the first place.

You know what time Ron left the resturant and went home but you don't know what time he left his home going to nicoles.if he went home to shower and change from work clothes.
Why did Juditha say more than once that she talked to nicole at 11 pm.
you remember Big Bens post on this subject.

[tv]

'UNCLE TOM' name
what do you think about that

I don't remember that in the book. I told you before I loaned my book out. I'd have to see it in context. I've seen you and William both use that term without it being against anyone in particular.

[tv]

You know what time Ron left the resturant and went home but you don't know what time he left his home going to nicoles.if he went home to shower and change from work clothes.
Why did Juditha say more than once that she talked to nicole at 11 pm.
you remember Big Bens post on this subject.

I remember a lot of things that Big Ben said but since he couldn't carry on a civil conversation we don't have the benefit of his opinion any longer.

I don't believe that Juditha talked to Nicole at 11:00.

[martin II]

martin, I seriously don't remember Bugliosi calling any fund 'uncle tom' in his book. I'm not saying it's not there but I don't remember. I've loaned my book out to someone -- do you have the direct quote? Also, when I read his book I didn't feel anything he said was racist in any way. Just the opposite -- I thought he championed the cause of blacks in the book. Why are you and another poster making him such an issue in the case when all he did was write a book like many other people? You act as though he was a central issue in the way the case was tried. If it's to get to the people on this forum that enjoyed the book it's not working -- it's just a distraction from the case. For my part, I'm going to stop discussing him because I think there's one poster keeping it going just for the heck of it.

tv
look
it was another g poster that has made several post quoting VB over a period of several weeks posting his comments and that posters agreement with VB.
That is how VB became a topic of discussion. i think you some time ago had also posted about his views.

fg2 has made many post supporting VB comments so others have just posted their feelings about all of VB comments.Some that were not posted by his g supporters.

If the
'uncle tom" commemnt is in his book what is your opinion of it.

[martin II]

I remember a lot of things that Big Ben said but since he couldn't carry on a civil conversation we don't have the benefit of his opinion any longer.

I don't believe that Juditha talked to Nicole at 11:00.

Golden admitted that his investigator made a report with judithas 11 pm call admission to him. Are you willing to ignore the investors report to Golden?

[tv]

tv
look
it was another g poster that has made several post quoting VB over a period of several weeks posting his comments and that posters agreement with VB.
That is how VB became a topic of discussion. i think you some time ago had also posted about his views.

fg2 has made many post supporting VB comments so others have just posted their feelings about all of VB comments.Some that were not posted by his g supporters.

If the
'uncle tom" commemnt is in his book what is your opinion of it.

martin, I'd have to see the comment in context of the book. As soon as I'm able to read it I'll tell you what I think of it.

Most of the comments that fg2 and others, including myself, have made about VB's book have been about the evidence and the way the case was tried. These comments by your friend are meant to do one thing -- inflame emotions. If you want to participate that's up to you. I'll get back to you about the 'uncle tom' comment when I read it in the book. If it seems to be a racist statement I'll admit that it was.

[tv]

Golden admitted that his investigator made a report with judithas 11 pm call admission to him. Are you willing to ignore the investors report to Golden?

I'm not ignoring anything. I have to decide who's correct and who is mistaken in my mind. I think the other evidence points to the 11:00 time being mistaken.

[martin II]

I don't remember that in the book. I told you before I loaned my book out. I'd have to see it in context. I've seen you and William both use that term without it being against anyone in particular.

In contex??
what is a good contex for calling a da investigation of oj
'uncle tom
'

[martin II]

I'm not ignoring anything. I have to decide who's correct and who is mistaken in my mind. I think the other evidence points to the 11:00 time being mistaken.

you think Goldens investigator lied in his report? if so why?

[tv]

In contex??
what is a good contex for calling a da investigation of oj
'uncle tom
'

martin, I'm going to say this as nice as I can. The poster that is saying this has a track record of misrepresenting quotes and book content. She may be right on the money and he made that exact comment. If he did, I'll acknowledge it. Until I can read it for myself or someone more reliable verifies it for me I'm going to wait to make a comment. My book should be back to me in a few days.

[tv]

you think Goldens investigator lied in his report? if so why?

I think the time is mistaken either on his part or Juditha's.

[martin II]

martin, I'd have to see the comment in context of the book. As soon as I'm able to read it I'll tell you what I think of it.

Most of the comments that fg2 and others, including myself, have made about VB's book have been about the evidence and the way the case was tried. These comments by your friend are meant to do one thing -- inflame emotions. If you want to participate that's up to you. I'll get back to you about the 'uncle tom' comment when I read it in the book. If it seems to be a racist statement I'll admit that it was.

You can talk to me about MY COMMENTS.If you want to comment about another poster you can do so direct or ignore the post.

I enjoy the post between you and my FRIEND as you call her so as a selfish gesture i command that both of you kiss and continue to post to each other.
how about that hahaha
Im serious.

[martin II]

martin, I'm going to say this as nice as I can. The poster that is saying this has a track record of misrepresenting quotes and book content. She may be right on the money and he made that exact comment. If he did, I'll acknowledge it. Until I can read it for myself or someone more reliable verifies it for me I'm going to wait to make a comment. My book should be back to me in a few days.

tv
you know all of that is not necessary to respond to my question.

[tv]

You can talk to me about MY COMMENTS.If you want to comment about another poster you can do so direct or ignore the post.

I enjoy the post between you and my FRIEND as you call her so as a selfish gesture i command that both of you kiss and continue to post to each other.
how about that hahaha
Im serious.

Kiss and make up? No, I avoid people like her whenever possible. If she needs a kiss you can do the honors.

[martin II]

martin, I'd have to see the comment in context of the book. As soon as I'm able to read it I'll tell you what I think of it.

Most of the comments that fg2 and others, including myself, have made about VB's book have been about the evidence and the way the case was tried. These comments by your friend are meant to do one thing -- inflame emotions. If you want to participate that's up to you. I'll get back to you about the 'uncle tom' comment when I read it in the book. If it seems to be a racist statement I'll admit that it was.

fg2 was the first poster to make VB comments about oj not being black enough. am i wrong?

[tv]

tv
you know all of that is not necessary to respond to my question.

I was trying to explain to you why I can't answer you right now.

[martin II]

Kiss and make up? No, I avoid people like her whenever possible. If she needs a kiss you can do the honors.

Well i am dissapointed. i will try again later.its only a message board.

[martin II]

I was trying to explain to you why I can't answer you right now.

i think you know that is not true.:cool:

[tv]

fg2 was the first poster to make VB comments about oj not being black enough. am i wrong?

Jim Brown made it very clear to Vincent Bugliosi when he spoke to him that OJ Simpson wasn't involved with the black community -- that he had left it behind. I just read an excerpt online from the book and it was Jim Brown that made the comments that made OJ Simpson look like an 'uncle tom' and VB said the prosecution should have gathered evidence about his involvement with the black community, made an 'uncle tom' file and called Jim Brown to the stand.

That's what your girl is getting you so inflamed about. VB never called anyone an uncle tom or called the prosecution's investigation or case 'uncle tom.' I'm not surprised the information was slanted AGAIN.

Please don't start on me about whether or not he should have been involved. I don't care if he was or not -- I'm just telling you what the facts are.

[tv]

i think you know that is not true.:cool:

martin, please don't call me a liar. I just read the excerpt online and as usual the information was wrong again. I'm going to read the entire chapter when I get the book back.

[martin II]

I think the time is mistaken either on his part or Juditha's.

It is reported that she made this comment more than once and at different times.

[tv]

Well i am dissapointed. i will try again later.its only a message board.

martin, I can't make up with someone that told me to come out of the closet about being a racist. Not going to happen. Ever.

[tv]

It is reported that she made this comment more than once and at different times.

Do you know who she made the comment to or when?

[GreenIce]

OJ was the leader of football players that for the first time forced the NFL to establish retirement funds and health care for players that were forced to retire with football injuries.Players still benefit from his efforts today. he was able to do this as a result of his statue as a player.imo

of all of the titles VB could have given to his fund he called it
'uncle tom"

Martin,

I left out a few things, and you are correct. OJ Simpson saw Wille Mays lose his fortune and he saw how professional athletes suffer with their injuries after the stopped playing. He saw very early on the problems that athletes had making the transistion from player to "civillian". People forget that he was the spokesman for the Buffalo Bills when the players went on strike.

He also opened a huge door to blacks and other atheletes in regards to getting into the broadcast booth and other jobs in the world sports after they done playing. He was also successful in other businesses as well.

While he made a lot of money from football, he made more after his playing days.

[GreenIce]

It is reported that she made this comment more than once and at different times.

Martin,

Judy was asked several times by Robert Shapiro before the funeral. He said that it was very hard and while it appears to be cold, he had to keep asking to make sure. Also, Claudine Ratcliff was the person who asked Mrs. Brown when was the last time she spoke to Nicole and she said it was 11:00 p.m. She wrote on the report that they spoke at 11:00 p.m.

I makes no sense that the Browns would refuse to have the other phone records released. They were in a win-win situation regardless of what those phone records said. They had it all to gain and nothing to lose, IMO.

It is well known the the police are able to give misleading stories to the families during their questioning, and for the most part I have no issue with this. However, in this case, at the beginning, apparently some of the Browns became convinced that Simpson was guilty when they were told her breasts were slashed. That Simpson was obsessed with them and this was the "sign" they needed to "know" it was Simpson. This was covered in Shelia Weller's book. I wonder what they thought when they found out that wasn't the case.

As you know, I have asked the questions about Nicole's mom and what she did to get the phone number to the Mezzaluna, etc. What if Nicole's mom knew that Nicole was expecting a guest that night, a guest she knew had to leave before 11:00 p.m. and that is why she waited?

[weezer]

Martin,

Judy was asked several times by Robert Shapiro before the funeral. He said that it was very hard and while it appears to be cold, he had to keep asking to make sure. Also, Claudine Ratcliff was the person who asked Mrs. Brown when was the last time she spoke to Nicole and she said it was 11:00 p.m. She wrote on the report that they spoke at 11:00 p.m. the defense and the prosecution were in agreement that the Brown's telephone records contained the official and correct time. the testimony from the Mezzaluna employee as well as Ron's clock out time supported the time. It was NOT 11pm.

I makes no sense that the Browns would refuse to have the other phone records released. They were in a win-win situation regardless of what those phone records said. They had it all to gain and nothing to lose, IMO. the Brown's did not refuse to have their phone record released. The portion of the phone record that showed the timeline of Juditha's call to the Mezzaluna and Nicole were there and accepted by both the defense and the prosecution as correct and accurate.

It is well known the the police are able to give misleading stories to the families during their questioning, and for the most part I have no issue with this. However, in this case, at the beginning, apparently some of the Browns became convinced that Simpson was guilty when they were told her breasts were slashed. what an outrageous statement to make. in fact, I'm going to say you have just outright lied. when the Brown's were notified, they were not told about any specific injuries and the first thought was that orenthal had killed her. That Simpson was obsessed with them and this was the "sign" they needed to "know" it was Simpson. This was covered in Shelia Weller's book. I wonder what they thought when they found out that wasn't the case.

As you know, I have asked the questions about Nicole's mom and what she did to get the phone number to the Mezzaluna, etc. What if Nicole's mom knew that Nicole was expecting a guest that night, a guest she knew had to leave before 11:00 p.m. and that is why she waited? what if orenthal was in a rage and drove to Bundy to murder Nicole? Ron was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

OMG -- we have stepped off the edge AGAIN.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

Here is something that I think is a major problem with some of the G's on this board. VB outlined his "Uncle Tom" prosecution very clearly. Please note, if anyone tells you they would have remembered this in the book and would not have forgotten it, have used the exact same words MF used when he said that it would have been impossible for him to forget that he used the n-word in the last 10 years.

Also, what is the proof that the G's have that VB is telling the truth about his own "civil right" activities? When did he publically speak out against the racism that he says he knew existed in the LAPD before the Simpson case? What gives him the right to fly his civil rights banner? When did he publically condemn the racism he says he knew existed? I don't remember it.

I have not yet finished his book, but so far, I have not gotten one reference that can confirm his claim of being one of the first DA's to address the racism in CA.

VB makes constant comments and always identifying which witnesses were black and which were white. Why did he feel the need to say that the only witness the defense did not accuse of lying or whatever, was the black photographer, Willie Ford?

I find it interesting that fgump2, who has read this book as well as Hipcheck, who have quoted out of his book did not mention the Uncle Tom file. Of course they can say they didn't remember it, but I find that impossible to believe. IMO.

[weezer]

fgump2,

I have read and re-read that part in VB's book and I still appalled about his "Uncle Tom" file that he felt the taxpayers of CA should have paid for. then you should have read it one more time because what you are posting is an out and out lie. Are you kidding me, assign a member of LE to investigate Mr. Simpson's contributions to black people? An "Uncle Tom" file?!!!!!!

Wasn't VB the one who said Simpson's blood being found at the crime scene was proof of his guilt? and for any reasonable person, it was. That it was the end of the ball game? Well if that was true, why was he wasting time investigating Mr. Simpson's ties to his community and developing his "Uncle Tom" file? he didn't.

And what if VB found out that Simpson, unknown to the public has supported these charties and has donated large amounts of money to these causes, but that didn't happen -- in fact, just exactly the opposite -- what they found out was that the only cause supported by orenthal was his own.was that going to mean that it wasn't his blood? That he would have been incapable of killing his ex-wife?

Doesn't it bother you, that a white man felt it was duty to call all these agencies to find out what a black man had done for his community? he didn't.Doesn't it bother you that some of these people, in these organizations, even talked to this man? they didn't.

Don't you think Chris Darden was appalled by VB doing this? Darden may have believed a million percent that Simpson was guilty, but do you really think that he was not offended by VB's "Uncle Tom" File? let me say this ONE more time -- you are posting lies to inflame this board. there was NO 'uncle tom' file by VB.

Another point to consider, why didn't VB show an interest or investigate all the charities Simpson was involved in and made contributions to? there wasn't any.For an example, lets say it was the "Make A Wish Foundation". If a white child's dream was to meet OJ Simpson, should Simpson have said no because he was black? where in the world do you come up with this stuff? orenthal didn't support any child in any charity.

VB did say that Simpson backed out of some engagements, however, he provided no proof that this was in fact true and if he did, why did he do it? and the defense didn't provide proof that orenthal did what they claimed.

Even if you believe that the defense opened the door to this, that means the DA's had a right to slam this door shut---why didn't they? not a belief but a fact.

BTW, Simpson did open doors to African-Americans that were not only closed but they had a dead bolt on them. Well many of these were opened because he was excellent at playing football, he still opened them and others, many others have walked through it. IMO.

good grief!

[weezer]

Martin,

Here is something that I think is a major problem with some of the G's on this board. VB outlined his "Uncle Tom" prosecution very clearly. Please note, if anyone tells you they would have remembered this in the book and would not have forgotten it, have used the exact same words MF used when he said that it would have been impossible for him to forget that he used the n-word in the last 10 years. THERE WAS NO UNCLE TOM FILE -- WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO TRY TO INCITE THE BOARD?

Also, what is the proof that the G's have that VB is telling the truth about his own "civil right" activities? When did he publically speak out against the racism that he says he knew existed in the LAPD before the Simpson case? What gives him the right to fly his civil rights banner? When did he publically condemn the racism he says he knew existed? I don't remember it. VB's activities are well known -- I'm surprised you 'don't remember'.

I have not yet finished his book, but so far, I have not gotten one reference that can confirm his claim of being one of the first DA's to address the racism in CA. then look elsewhere -- you'll find it.

VB makes constant comments and always identifying which witnesses were black and which were white. Why did he feel the need to say that the only witness the defense did not accuse of lying or whatever, was the black photographer, Willie Ford? maybe there was truth to it?

I find it interesting that fgump2, who has read this book as well as Hipcheck, who have quoted out of his book did not mention the Uncle Tom file. Of course they can say they didn't remember it, but I find that impossible to believe. IMO.

THERE WAS NO UNCLE TOM FILE. :punch:

[weezer]

I think the time is mistaken either on his part or Juditha's.

the detective wrote what Juditha said and when she said it, she was guesstimating. The Brown's telephone records were accepted by the defense and the prosecution as the official and correct timeline of the calls -- it was not 11p.

[GreenIce]

THERE WAS NO UNCLE TOM FILE. :punch:

FBG,

It is well known that I as well as other posters have you on ignore because you bring nothing to the boards. I have ignored your artfully worded "n-word lover" comment. The fact you don't believe I am is white is very interesting and just proves what type of person you are. However, you proved what you are long before this post.

However, you are lying about VB's "Uncle Tom" file. He wrote about it, he made phone calls and included his "Uncle Tom" file in his book. He wanted the LAPD and the DA's do one, when he got not where on this, he did it himself.

There is an "Uncle Tom" file and you are lying to every poster to say there was not. Your G's that have read this book, know it is in there, lets see how many of them will defend you denials!

You should be ashamed of yourself knowing that VB did in fact write about this in his book and to deny it.

[GreenIce]

the detective wrote what Juditha said and when she said it, she was guesstimating. The Brown's telephone records were accepted by the defense and the prosecution as the official and correct timeline of the calls -- it was not 11p.

FBG,

Again, you making misleading statements. Martin and I made it clear that Judy Brown told Robert Shapiro and Claudine Radcliff that she last spoke to Nicole around 11:00 p.m. She said she was looking at a clock and she repeated the same time every time she was asked.

Those are the facts.

Also, the detective who told the Browns about the murder, never asked her these questions at that time. Unless they did and her answer was buried in their reports.

Bottom line, she did give the 11:00 p.m. time.

It is also a fact that not all the phone records were entered into evidence.

Think before you post FBG, you are killing your side!

[weezer]

FBG,

It is well known that I as well as other posters have you on ignore because you bring nothing to the boards. I have ignored your artfully worded "n-word lover" comment. I take great offense to this The fact you don't believe I am is white I have to admit I'm more than surprised that you took offense to that statement is very interesting and just proves what type of person you are. pray tell, what type of person would that be? However, you proved what you are long before this post.

However, you are lying about VB's "Uncle Tom" file. He wrote about it, he made phone calls and included his "Uncle Tom" file in his book. He wanted the LAPD and the DA's do one, when he got not where on this, he did it himself.

There is an "Uncle Tom" file and you are lying to every poster to say there was not. Your G's that have read this book, know it is in there, lets see how many of them will defend you denials!

You should be ashamed of yourself knowing that VB did in fact write about this in his book and to deny it.

I request that YOU provide the page number(s) where VB writes about his uncle tom file in his book.

[GreenIce]

I request that YOU provide the page number(s) where VB writes about his uncle tom file in his book.

Start at page 186

As you may have noticed, I have taken you off of ignore. So be prepared to walk the walk that you have talked.

[weezer]

FBG,

Again, you making misleading statements. Martin and I made it clear that Judy Brown told Robert Shapiro and Claudine Radcliff that she last spoke to Nicole around 11:00 p.m. She said she was looking at a clock and she repeated the same time every time she was asked.

Those are the facts. no those aren't the facts. the fact is that both the defense and the prosecution stipulated to the Brown's telephone record that was entered as evidence. that telephone record reflected the exact and correct time that Judith Brown called the Mezzaluna and Nicole. that time was NOT 11pm.

Also, the detective who told the Browns about the murder, never asked her these questions at that time. Unless they did and her answer was buried in their reports.

Bottom line, she did give the 11:00 p.m. time.

It is also a fact that not all the phone records were entered into evidence. the Brown's phone bill reflecting the times in question was. Anything before or after is inconsequential.

Think before you post FBG, you are killing your side!

I don't speak for anyone else on this message board -- just myself. I do think and actually check the facts -- it might be a good habit for you to get into.

[weezer]

Start at page 186

As you may have noticed, I have taken you off of ignore. So be prepared to walk the walk that you have talked.

okay so I've started at page 186 and now I'm on page 193 -- care to tell me where it says VB had an uncle tom file -- I must have missed it.

[weezer]

Start at page 186

As you may have noticed, I have taken you off of ignore. So be prepared to walk the walk that you have talked.

great! now can you point me to where in Nicole's autopsy is says her 'breasts were slashed'?

[GreenIce]

okay so I've started at page 186 and now I'm on page 193 -- care to tell me where it says VB had an uncle tom file -- I must have missed it.

FBG,

So you are denying that VB never said a word about an "Uncle Tom" file. You are also denying that he thought that an LE member should have been assigned to gather information for this file. And you are also denying that he made several phone calls and did research on this "Uncle Tom" file?

Just a yes or no will do. Are you denying all of this?

[martin II]

IMO, the jury was getting some information from their families about the mood of the community. I'm not saying it was all the jurors but it would only take one to affect their opinions. If not, why were they so nervous at the reading of the verdict? IIRC, it was Carrie Bess that nearly had a gastrointestinal mishap.

TV
You may not believe me but many times g make up stuff about oj and the jury
in a effort to inflame ng to cause a fight.

How is it that what one jury family members comments about media reports would cause all jury member to accept it.
you don't seem to know very much about the kind of women that served on the criminal jury but i guess it is your right to think they were ignorant uneducated and racist because they did not give you the verdict you may have thought you were entitled to.

Many of these women had civil service or professional jobs. They appeared to church going people that are against any kind of crime in their communities.
They were drawn from the la community and were no different than many other juries that include black women that give the DA A 98% cobviction rate.
These kind of women serving on juries convict black men daily. So the attack on them by some is not fair if being fair is the objective.

[GreenIce]

great! now can you point me to where in Nicole's autopsy is says her 'breasts were slashed'?

FBG,

Again, you are lying. I never said a word that Nicole's autopsy reports said her breasts were slashed. I clearly posted this.

[weezer]

fbg,

so you are denying that vb never said a word about an "uncle tom" file. You are also denying that he thought that an le member should have been assigned to gather information for this file. And you are also denying that he made several phone calls and did research on this "uncle tom" file?

Just a yes or no will do. Are you denying all of this?

there was no uncle tom file!

[weezer]

FBG,

Again, you are lying. I never said a word that Nicole's autopsy reports said her breasts were slashed. I clearly posted this.

not a lie greenice -- "However, in this case, at the beginning, apparently some of the Browns became convinced that Simpson was guilty when they were told her breasts were slashed." -- I just assumed you did due diligence and checked that outrageous lie before you felt compelled to post it on this board.

[fgump2]

Martin,

Here is something that I think is a major problem with some of the G's on this board. VB outlined his "Uncle Tom" prosecution very clearly. Please note, if anyone tells you they would have remembered this in the book and would not have forgotten it, have used the exact same words MF used when he said that it would have been impossible for him to forget that he used the n-word in the last 10 years.

Also, what is the proof that the G's have that VB is telling the truth about his own "civil right" activities? When did he publically speak out against the racism that he says he knew existed in the LAPD before the Simpson case? What gives him the right to fly his civil rights banner? When did he publically condemn the racism he says he knew existed? I don't remember it.

I have not yet finished his book, but so far, I have not gotten one reference that can confirm his claim of being one of the first DA's to address the racism in CA.

VB makes constant comments and always identifying which witnesses were black and which were white. Why did he feel the need to say that the only witness the defense did not accuse of lying or whatever, was the black photographer, Willie Ford?

I find it interesting that fgump2, who has read this book as well as Hipcheck, who have quoted out of his book did not mention the Uncle Tom file. Of course they can say they didn't remember it, but I find that impossible to believe. IMO.
I think that GI is making mountains out of small mole hills. There is very little worth writing about or analyzing in either VBs writings about race, or in the phone record of the Browns

- On VB and race. As has been posted by several people here, VB wrote that Simpson had little ties to the black community, at least to low income blacks. He wrote this in response to Cochran's comment in the trial about Simpson's giving money to some black group that most people haven't heard of. VB suggested that the prosecution start an Uncle Tom file (he used that phrase on 181) showing that Simpson had few ties to the black community. There was no uncle Tom file used. So what is there to write about? Is there anything dishonest about me not mentioning this part? I also haven't quoted from other parts of the book. VB's writing about this was completely in response to Cochrans statement. I never claimed I agreed with everything in VB's book; however I don't think any of it was racist.

- about Judith Brown's phone call. The defense looked at the Brown's phone record and agreed that the phone call to Nicole was around 10:00 not 11:00. Just a simple mistake. Does this mean that you (GI) think some of the defense people, including Cochran, were in on the plot against SImpson?

[GreenIce]

not a lie greenice -- "However, in this case, at the beginning, apparently some of the Browns became convinced that Simpson was guilty when they were told her breasts were slashed." -- I just assumed you did due diligence and checked that outrageous lie before you felt compelled to post it on this board.

Again, you are lying. I gave the reference for this information. I never said a word about Nicole's autopsy report. I made it clear that the detectives are allowed to make mistatements, even right out lie in the course of their investigations.

Never did I give the impression that the story about the slashed breasts was true.

[fgump2]

Again, you are lying. I gave the reference for this information. I never said a word about Nicole's autopsy report. I made it clear that the detectives are allowed to make mistatements, even right out lie in the course of their investigations.

Never did I give the impression that the story about the slashed breasts was true.
where is the evidence that any detectives said this?

[weezer]

Again, you are lying. I gave the reference for this information. I never said a word about Nicole's autopsy report. I made it clear that the detectives are allowed to make mistatements, even right out lie in the course of their investigations.

Never did I give the impression that the story about the slashed breasts was true.

then why post it?

[martin II]

Dr Golden testified that he made a addendum to his original autopsy report that is listed for the purpose of including more details.I have not found this addendum but his comment indicates that the autposy report posted is not complete. So there are more details than what we know about.

The idea that nicole was knocked out at the beginning of the attack and this allowed the one killer to attack Ron while she was out cold is not true. Golden
labels the bump on her head as one that came after her jugular/neck was cut.
He also identifies defence wounds of nicole that means she was able to fight back before her neck was cut and she received the bump on her head.The bump was small and did not damage her skull or brain.

[weezer]

I think that GI is making mountains out of small mole hills. There is very little worth writing about or analyzing in either VBs writings about race, or in the phone record of the Browns

- On VB and race. As has been posted by several people here, VB wrote that Simpson had little ties to the black community, at least to low income blacks. He wrote this in response to Cochran's comment in the trial about Simpson's giving money to some black group that most people haven't heard of. VB suggested that the prosecution start an Uncle Tom file (he used that phrase on 181) showing that Simpson had few ties to the black community. There was no uncle Tom file used. So what is there to write about? Is there anything dishonest about me not mentioning this part? I also haven't quoted from other parts of the book. VB's writing about this was completely in response to Cochrans statement. I never claimed I agreed with everything in VB's book; however I don't think any of it was racist.

- about Judith Brown's phone call. The defense looked at the Brown's phone record and agreed that the phone call to Nicole was around 10:00 not 11:00. Just a simple mistake. Does this mean that you (GI) think some of the defense people, including Cochran, were in on the plot against SImpson?

GI was implying that there was a file -- I just wanted the record to be straight that there was not.

I don't agree with much about VB -- I never relied on his ideas about how the trial should have been run by the prosecution to come to any conclusion. The trial was over and the verdict rendered long before he wrote that book. I do appreciate his knowledge and experience in the legal field.

[GreenIce]

there was no uncle tom file!

FBG,

Please explain about there being no uncle tom file? Are you saying that I am lying about this? That VB did not make up an Uncle Tom file on OJ Simpson? Are you saying that I am lying that VB thought and LE member should have been assigned to fill this file?

Are you also saying that I am lying that that he took it upon himself to do his own "Uncle Tom" investigation on OJ Simpson?

[weezer]

Dr Golden testified that he made a addendum to his original autopsy report that is listed for the purpose of including more details.I have not found this addendum but his comment indicates that the autposy report posted is not complete. So there are more details than what we know about.

The idea that nicole was knocked out at the beginning of the attack and this allowed the one killer to attack Ron while she was out cold is not true. Golden
labels the bump on her head as one that came after her jugular/neck was cut.
He also identifies defence wounds of nicole that means she was able to fight back before her neck was cut and she received the bump on her head.The bump was small and did not damage her skull or brain.

Early in the attack, the assailant delivered a nasty blow to Ms. Simpson's head, as evidenced by a bruise, nearly an inch in size, on the right side of her head. For the reddish-brown color to appear, Ms. Simpson's heart would have had to be pumping for a minute or more.

Her head had to have been struck by something smooth, round and hard, such as the handle end of a knife or a metal handrail or metal post, like those at the crime scene. The coroner ruled out the rough, stucco wall because the wound didn't have any scratches.

The blow was so strong that it left an injury on the surface of her brain.

"Can you give us some indication as to the degree of force that's required?" prosecutor Brian Kelberg asked.

"Well, like a knockout punch," the coroner replied.

[GreenIce]

I think that GI is making mountains out of small mole hills. There is very little worth writing about or analyzing in either VBs writings about race, or in the phone record of the Browns

- On VB and race. As has been posted by several people here, VB wrote that Simpson had little ties to the black community, at least to low income blacks. He wrote this in response to Cochran's comment in the trial about Simpson's giving money to some black group that most people haven't heard of. VB suggested that the prosecution start an Uncle Tom file (he used that phrase on 181) showing that Simpson had few ties to the black community. There was no uncle Tom file used. So what is there to write about? Is there anything dishonest about me not mentioning this part? I also haven't quoted from other parts of the book. VB's writing about this was completely in response to Cochrans statement. I never claimed I agreed with everything in VB's book; however I don't think any of it was racist.

- about Judith Brown's phone call. The defense looked at the Brown's phone record and agreed that the phone call to Nicole was around 10:00 not 11:00. Just a simple mistake. Does this mean that you (GI) think some of the defense people, including Cochran, were in on the plot against SImpson?

fgump2,

You were the one who has supported VB's book. You were the one who wanted an honest discussion about race and the role it played in this case.

IMO, for you not to even condemn the concept an "Uncle Tom" file is not only beyond me as a human being but also should indicate to you that the racial tensions and problems in our country and why blacks and whites are so, so far about apart about how we view our legal system, our accomplishments, everything.

How would you like it fgump if I started a file on you? That I called all your charities and felt that these should be given to a jury to decide what type of person you are?

Also, you fail to comprehend that his ties to his community have nothing to do with the murders, he was being "called out" on his blackness, he was being punished for marrying a white woman, he was being punished for his success. You fail to comprhend that if this is allowed against Simpson, it should be allowed against you, against VB.

You have said that he has done much in civil rights and has spoken out against racism in LE, where is your proof that he in fact did these things? Where is your reference?

[GreenIce]

GI was implying that there was a file -- I just wanted the record to be straight that there was not.

I don't agree with much about VB -- I never relied on his ideas about how the trial should have been run by the prosecution to come to any conclusion. The trial was over and the verdict rendered long before he wrote that book. I do appreciate his knowledge and experience in the legal field.

FBG,

Again, you have proved yourself. I am happy that I proved my point.

[GreenIce]

where is the evidence that any detectives said this?

Shelia Weller's book.

[weezer]

GreenIce
Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,157

SNIPPED***

"FBG,. . .Your disgraceful behavior on this issue is par for your course. I hope your denials on this subject will show your fellow G's just what type of person you are.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU THANK YOU---You have proved what type of person you are. You back off when you are trapped--love it, love it! You appreciate anybody who supports your racial views. It doesn't matter when he wrote the book."

I take this as a personal attack and insult -- we've all been told that calling someone a racist is an insult and won't be tolerated.

[martin II]

FBG,

Again, you making misleading statements. Martin and I made it clear that Judy Brown told Robert Shapiro and Claudine Radcliff that she last spoke to Nicole around 11:00 p.m. She said she was looking at a clock and she repeated the same time every time she was asked.

Those are the facts.

Also, the detective who told the Browns about the murder, never asked her these questions at that time. Unless they did and her answer was buried in their reports.

Bottom line, she did give the 11:00 p.m. time.

It is also a fact that not all the phone records were entered into evidence.

Think before you post FBG, you are killing your side!

Goldens investigator wrote a written report saying juditha told him out of her mouth that she spoke to nicole at 11 pm on 6/12. he had no dog in that fight.

Why did BH take some of the phone records to his home and store them in his garage. Hod did he get by with this?

[fgump2]

fgump2,

You were the one who has supported VB's book. You were the one who wanted an honest discussion about race and the role it played in this case.

IMO, for you not to even condemn the concept an "Uncle Tom" file is not only beyond me as a human being but also should indicate to you that the racial tensions and problems in our country and why blacks and whites are so, so far about apart about how we view our legal system, our accomplishments, everything.

How would you like it fgump if I started a file on you? That I called all your charities and felt that these should be given to a jury to decide what type of person you are? If you and I were in a courtroom struggle, you would have a right to start a file on me. If my side claimed that I had done a lot for some group (say certain kinds of handicapped people) if your side thought that would unfairly help me, your side could start a file on me.
Also, you fail to comprehend that his ties to his community have nothing to do with the murders, he was being "called out" on his blackness, he was being punished for marrying a white woman, he was being punished for his success. You fail to comprhend that if this is allowed against Simpson, it should be allowed against you, against VB. I never said that it should be done only against Simpson.
You have said that he has done much in civil rights and has spoken out against racism in LE, where is your proof that he in fact did these things? Where is your reference?
I have no reference that VB has done a lot for civil righs. If I ever write a book about him, I will probably do the research. Until then I have no motive.

[weezer]

Goldens investigator wrote a written report saying juditha told him out of her mouth that she spoke to nicole at 11 pm on 6/12. he had no dog in that fight.

Why did BH take some of the phone records to his home and store them in his garage. Hod did he get by with this?

both the defense and prosecution accepted the Brown's telephone bill/statement as true and accurate as to the time that the phone calls to the Mezzaluna and Nicole occurred. Witness testimony supports that record.

[martin II]

GI

It appears that one poster is trying to start a fight for the purpose of reporting those that dissagree with her.Some seen to support the idea that the thread should only include people with the same opinions on the issues. If
enough complains are made against ngs only gs will be left to debate the issues. How silly can that be.

[weezer]

GI

It appears that one poster is trying to start a fight for the purpose of reporting those that dissagree with her.Some seen to support the idea that the thread should only include people with the same opinions on the issues. If
enough complains are made against ngs only gs will be left to debate the issues. How silly can that be.

I think the thread should be for discussion regarding the simpson trials -- not calling names and not posting half-truth, inaccurate/made up facts, and outrageous lies. I'm not surprised that you have failed to denounce the name calling.

[martin II]

The autospy report and Goldens testimony proved that the bump on nicoles head DID NOT injure or effect her SKULL OR BRAIN in any way.It was a bump that made a bruise on her scapl ONLY. To say otherwise is not being accurate or truthful.Nicole was never knocked out. she was fighting her attacker as evidence by her defence wounds until she received the fatal wounds and died.imo
Read the autopsy report.

[weezer]

The autospy report and Goldens testimony proved that the bump on nicoles head DID NOT injure or effect her SKULL OR BRAIN in any way.It was a bump that made a bruise on her scapl ONLY. To say otherwise is not being accurate or truthful.Nicole was never knocked out. she was fighting her attacker as evidence by her defence wounds until she received the fatal wounds and died.imo
Read the autopsy report.

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

Subgaleal hemorrhage or hematoma is bleeding in the potential space between the skull periosteum and the scalp . . . Subgaleal hematoma has a high frequency of occurrence of associated head trauma (40%), such as intracranial hemorrhage or skull fracture.

[martin II]

I think the thread should be for discussion regarding the simpson trials -- not calling names and not posting half-truth, inaccurate/made up facts, and outrageous lies. I'm not surprised that you have failed to denounce the name calling.

putting you off ignore for this one post.

It is clear that no poster that has ever posted here since my first post has called other poster names as often as you have and i mean mean and nasty names. This is why i have refused to respond to any of your post and why you now go back on ignore.knowing that i don't respond to your post i am puzzeled as to why you continue to post to my every comments. It is like you are trying to force yourself on me/posters.imo
see ya

[weezer]

putting you off ignore for this one post.

It is clear that no poster that has ever posted here since my first post has called other poster names as often as you have and i mean mean and nasty names. This is why i have refused to respond to any of your post and why you now go back on ignore.knowing that i don't respond to your post i am puzzeled as to why you continue to post to my every comments. It is like you are trying to force yourself on me/posters.imo
see ya

LOL -- you crack me up! I don't call names -- you must be thinking of someone else. . . .greenice perhaps?

[tv]

GI

It appears that one poster is trying to start a fight for the purpose of reporting those that dissagree with her.Some seen to support the idea that the thread should only include people with the same opinions on the issues. If
enough complains are made against ngs only gs will be left to debate the issues. How silly can that be.

martin, there would be no dicussion if we didn't have differing opinions. The problem comes in when all respect and discussion is shut down because ONE poster keeps dragging stuff to the board that is exaggerated only to inflame arguments between posters. She is mispresenting Bugliosi's book but even if eveything she says was true it's time for her to stop making her 'uncle tom' posts with all her exclaimation marks and outrage. Nothing she says is going to make me step over the line and call her the names she's called me no matter what I think of her. If she or other NGs don't want complaints against them they need to stop name calling. The announcement at the top wasn't in response to anything weezer or I said. My suggestion is to let this 'uncle tom' line of discussion go because it's causing too much trouble because she isn't being honest about the context.

[tv]

OMG -- we have stepped off the edge AGAIN.

Off the edge and spiraling into outer space. For heaven's sake. :eek:

[tv]

THERE WAS NO UNCLE TOM FILE. :punch:

weezer, this discussion by one poster has turned the board into a 'put VB on trial' thread. He wrote a book about the case after it was over. Should we also put everyone on trial that wrote a book about the trial? We've discussed the juror's book, Schiller's, Toobin's, Weller's, Resnick's, Lange/Vannatter's, Fuhrman's etc...and this is the first one that has been discussed in minute detail as if Bugliosi tried the case himself. The only reason I can think of is to cause problems on the board.

[weezer]

weezer, this discussion by one poster has turned the board into a 'put VB on trial' thread. He wrote a book about the case after it was over. Should we also put everyone on trial that wrote a book about the trial? We've discussed the juror's book, Schiller's, Toobin's, Weller's, Resnick's, Lange/Vannatter's, Fuhrman's etc...and this is the first one that has been discussed in minute detail as if Bugliosi tried the case himself. The only reason I can think of is to cause problems on the board.

:beer::beer:

[tv]

TV
You may not believe me but many times g make up stuff about oj and the jury
in a effort to inflame ng to cause a fight.

How is it that what one jury family members comments about media reports would cause all jury member to accept it.
you don't seem to know very much about the kind of women that served on the criminal jury but i guess it is your right to think they were ignorant uneducated and racist because they did not give you the verdict you may have thought you were entitled to.

Many of these women had civil service or professional jobs. They appeared to church going people that are against any kind of crime in their communities.
They were drawn from the la community and were no different than many other juries that include black women that give the DA A 98% cobviction rate.
These kind of women serving on juries convict black men daily. So the attack on them by some is not fair if being fair is the objective.

I've asked you this many times -- please direct me to my post where I called the women of the jury ignorant, uneducated or racist.

[Deepwater]

The All Members who post here:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/announcement.php?f=284&a=199

Thanks,

--D

[martin II]

The All Members who post here:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/announcement.php?f=284&a=199

Thanks,

--D

DW

Thank you.

[GreenIce]

Goldens investigator wrote a written report saying juditha told him out of her mouth that she spoke to nicole at 11 pm on 6/12. he had no dog in that fight.

Why did BH take some of the phone records to his home and store them in his garage. Hod did he get by with this?

Martin,

It does seem odd to me that JB did give the same answer several times but it was only when she is in an interview that her husband made the comment that perhaps she should back off the time until the phone bill comes in. I find it odd that neither one of them took the stand to explain this. However, I can also understand neither side really wanted to risk calling JB or LB to the stand.

Leslie Abramsom appeared on Nightline around the preliminary hearing and she said she saw the phone records that showed an 11:00 p.m. phone call. I have never been able to find this transcript. I am sure there is a lot of "evidence" that has been taken home and has never been seen again or has been artfully hidden--on both sides, IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

It does seem odd to me that JB did give the same answer several times but it was only when she is in an interview that her husband made the comment that perhaps she should back off the time until the phone bill comes in. I find it odd that neither one of them took the stand to explain this. However, I can also understand neither side really wanted to risk calling JB or LB to the stand.

Leslie Abramsom appeared on Nightline around the preliminary hearing and she said she saw the phone records that showed an 11:00 p.m. phone call. I have never been able to find this transcript. I am sure there is a lot of "evidence" that has been taken home and has never been seen again or has been artfully hidden--on both sides, IMO.

Leslie Abramson is a pretty reliable person and she would have no reason to lie. Legal action was taken against the phone company to release all of the records but Lou did not allow it. Big Ben had a lot of info on this subject when he was posting.

[weezer]

Juditha Brown's telephone records were presented in the criminal trial. The time of the telephone call Juditha made to the Mezzaluna Restaurant was documented at 9:37 P.M. This was stipulated to by the Simpson's defense.

"Simpson Criminal Trial July 6, 1995

MS. CLARK: First stipulation, counsel, with respect to the testimony of Juditha Brown: May it be stipulated that Juditha Brown was called as a witness, duly sworn and testified as follows: She's the mother of Nicole Brown Simpson, the decedent and named victim in count 1 of this action; on June the 12th, 1994, she attended a dance recital where her granddaughter, Sidney Simpson, performed; thereafter, she accompanied her daughter Nicole, granddaughter Sidney and other family members to the Mezzaluna restaurant for a post-recital celebration; upon arriving, she inadvertently dropped the pair of eyeglasses marked as part of the exhibit designated as People's exhibit 32, which were intact prior to that point, outside the restaurant; at approximately 9:37 P.M. on June the 12th, 1994, Juditha Brown telephoned the Mezzaluna restaurant and spoke to an employee named Karen Crawford, who has testified previously in this case; Miss Brown asked Miss Crawford to locate the eyeglasses
and hold them for pick-up at a later time by Nicole Brown Simpson; Miss Crawford located the eyeglasses and agreed to set them aside for Nicole Brown Simpson; this conversation lasted approximately two minutes; at approximately 940 P.M., Juditha Brown telephoned her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson, reaching her at her daughter's residence located at 875 south Bundy drive in the city of Los Angeles; Juditha Brown conversed with Nicole Brown Simpson for approximately 2 minutes; Nicole Brown Simpson stated that she would arrange for the retrieval of Juditha Brown's eyeglasses; this was the last time that Juditha Brown spoke to her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson? It is further stipulated that Juditha Brown examined the eyeglasses contained in the exhibit marked People's 32 and testified these were the eyeglasses that she left at the Mezzaluna restaurant on June the 12th, 1994 and were the subject of her conversations with Karen Crawford and Nicole Brown Simpson.

Counsel, may it be so stipulated?
MR. COCHRAN: So stipulated, your Honor."
--------------------------------------
http://www.bobaugust.com/gullible.htm

"Juditha Brown and her family left Mezzaluna Restaurant just before 8:30 P.M. June 12, 1994. As they started their drive, Juditha Brown realized she had lost her eyeglasses. She decided to call the restaurant as soon as she got home.

Restaurant employee Karen Crawford testified that Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna at 9:37 P.M. and asked them to look for her eyeglasses. Crawford informed her they had found them, and would put them in an envelope with Nicole's name on it.

Nicole called the Mezzaluna Restaurant after speaking with her mother, identifying herself as Juditha Brown's daughter, and inquiring about the eyeglasses. She asked if Ronald Goldman was still there and then spoke with him. Ron took the glasses, intending to drop them off at Nicole's on his way to meet his friends. He left Mezzaluna at 9:50 P.M.

Nicole Brown Simpson never spoke with her mother again."

[tv]

Juditha Brown's telephone records were presented in the criminal trial. The time of the telephone call Juditha made to the Mezzaluna Restaurant was documented at 9:37 P.M. This was stipulated to by the Simpson's defense.

"Simpson Criminal Trial July 6, 1995

MS. CLARK: First stipulation, counsel, with respect to the testimony of Juditha Brown: May it be stipulated that Juditha Brown was called as a witness, duly sworn and testified as follows: She's the mother of Nicole Brown Simpson, the decedent and named victim in count 1 of this action; on June the 12th, 1994, she attended a dance recital where her granddaughter, Sidney Simpson, performed; thereafter, she accompanied her daughter Nicole, granddaughter Sidney and other family members to the Mezzaluna restaurant for a post-recital celebration; upon arriving, she inadvertently dropped the pair of eyeglasses marked as part of the exhibit designated as People's exhibit 32, which were intact prior to that point, outside the restaurant; at approximately 9:37 P.M. on June the 12th, 1994, Juditha Brown telephoned the Mezzaluna restaurant and spoke to an employee named Karen Crawford, who has testified previously in this case; Miss Brown asked Miss Crawford to locate the eyeglasses
and hold them for pick-up at a later time by Nicole Brown Simpson; Miss Crawford located the eyeglasses and agreed to set them aside for Nicole Brown Simpson; this conversation lasted approximately two minutes; at approximately 940 P.M., Juditha Brown telephoned her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson, reaching her at her daughter's residence located at 875 south Bundy drive in the city of Los Angeles; Juditha Brown conversed with Nicole Brown Simpson for approximately 2 minutes; Nicole Brown Simpson stated that she would arrange for the retrieval of Juditha Brown's eyeglasses; this was the last time that Juditha Brown spoke to her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson? It is further stipulated that Juditha Brown examined the eyeglasses contained in the exhibit marked People's 32 and testified these were the eyeglasses that she left at the Mezzaluna restaurant on June the 12th, 1994 and were the subject of her conversations with Karen Crawford and Nicole Brown Simpson.

Counsel, may it be so stipulated?
MR. COCHRAN: So stipulated, your Honor."
--------------------------------------
http://www.bobaugust.com/gullible.htm

"Juditha Brown and her family left Mezzaluna Restaurant just before 8:30 P.M. June 12, 1994. As they started their drive, Juditha Brown realized she had lost her eyeglasses. She decided to call the restaurant as soon as she got home.

Restaurant employee Karen Crawford testified that Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna at 9:37 P.M. and asked them to look for her eyeglasses. Crawford informed her they had found them, and would put them in an envelope with Nicole's name on it.

Nicole called the Mezzaluna Restaurant after speaking with her mother, identifying herself as Juditha Brown's daughter, and inquiring about the eyeglasses. She asked if Ronald Goldman was still there and then spoke with him. Ron took the glasses, intending to drop them off at Nicole's on his way to meet his friends. He left Mezzaluna at 9:50 P.M.

Nicole Brown Simpson never spoke with her mother again."

Juditha Brown testified in the civil trial on December 10, 1996. Karen Crawford testified on October 25, 1996. Their testimonies are consistent with the evidence presented in the criminal trial.

[weezer]

ABRAMSON TAKES FIFTH WHEN ASKED ABOUT NOTES.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ABRAMSON+TAKES+FIFTH+WHEN+ASKED+ABOUT+NOTES-a083935861

Byline: Anne Burke Daily News Staff Writer

". . .Defense lawyer Leslie Abramson Leslie Abramson (born c. 1944) is a famous American criminal defense attorney best known for her role in the legal defense of Lyle and Erik Menendez. In 2004, she was hired by Phil Spector, who is charged with fatally shooting actress Lana Clarkson at his suburban Alhambra mansion, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Friday rather than answer a judge's questions about possible attorney misconduct. ."

[martin II]

The question remains why did JB tell more than one person that she spoke to nicole at 11 pm.

[fgump2]

The question remains why did JB tell more than one person that she spoke to nicole at 11 pm.

Another question is if the phone call was around 11:00 PM.why the defense would have gone along with the stipulation that the phone call occured about an hour earlier?

Do you think the dream team was in on a conspiricy to make Simpson look guilty?

[martin II]

When people write or talk about controversial subjects, if they say what they think, they will often offend people.
I think the jury was race prejudiced, but I also think the prosecution could have put on a better case.

if you see a post that angers you you can dissagree in a civil manner or ignor the post.

[weezer]

The question remains why did JB tell more than one person that she spoke to nicole at 11 pm.

". . .It is Simpson's contention that the official certified copy of the phone records will substantiate the statement made by Louis Brown to the Coroner's Investigator, Ms. Claudine Ratcliffe. . ."

". . .The official phone records were sealed by Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell during the preliminary hearing, July 8, 1994. . .A partial replica of the phone record was marked for identification as [I]People's Exhibit No. 35[I] and shown to the jury by Deputy District Attorney Marcia Clar. The official phone records were never entered into evidence.. ."

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING A DEMAND FROM GTE CORPORATION FOR THE PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF THE PHONE RECORDS OF [LOUIS H. AND JUDITH BROWN] AND [NICOLE BROWN-SIMPSON] RESPECTIVELY; FOR JUNE 12TH, 1994 BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 P.M. TO 12:00 MIDNIGHT AND SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS MCCANN

JUNE 12, 2000

[weezer]

such nonsense has been written about the amount of time it would take the Browns to drive from the Mezzaluna to Dana Point that I thought it would be interesting to MapQuest it. Results: Total Travel Estimates: Time: 1 hour 18 minutes Distance: 68.01 miles

8:30 or 8:45 p.m. - Brown family leaves Mezzaluna.
Travel time 1 hour/18 minutes

Time of phone call: approximately 10pm

:shrug:

[tv]

". . .It is Simpson's contention that the official certified copy of the phone records will substantiate the statement made by Louis Brown to the Coroner's Investigator, Ms. Claudine Ratcliffe. . ."

". . .The official phone records were sealed by Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell during the preliminary hearing, July 8, 1994. . .A partial replica of the phone record was marked for identification as [I]People's Exhibit No. 35[I] and shown to the jury by Deputy District Attorney Marcia Clar. The official phone records were never entered into evidence.. ."

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING A DEMAND FROM GTE CORPORATION FOR THE PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF THE PHONE RECORDS OF [LOUIS H. AND JUDITH BROWN] AND [NICOLE BROWN-SIMPSON] RESPECTIVELY; FOR JUNE 12TH, 1994 BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 P.M. TO 12:00 MIDNIGHT AND SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS MCCANN

JUNE 12, 2000

This puts any controversy about the phone call time to rest. There's no way the defense would have agreed to it if there was any chance it was in error. That's why Big Ben's boss couldn't get anywhere with OJS. The time of the phone call from Juditha to Nicole is correct in the phone records.

[tv]

such nonsense has been written about the amount of time it would take the Browns to drive from the Mezzaluna to Dana Point that I thought it would be interesting to MapQuest it. Results: Total Travel Estimates: Time: 1 hour 18 minutes Distance: 68.01 miles

8:30 or 8:45 p.m. - Brown family leaves Mezzaluna.
Travel time 1 hour/18 minutes

Time of phone call: approximately 10pm

:shrug:

Good idea! Thanks. :)

[tv]

The question remains why did JB tell more than one person that she spoke to nicole at 11 pm.

She was mistaken about the time. If she made the mistake once what makes it worse that she did it more than once? :shrug:

[GreenIce]

Leslie Abramson is a pretty reliable person and she would have no reason to lie. Legal action was taken against the phone company to release all of the records but Lou did not allow it. Big Ben had a lot of info on this subject when he was posting.

Martin,

IMO, Mr. Brown was in a win-win situation by having those records released, especially for the custody battle. IMO, I think he was put under pressure not to have these records released.

However, there is one thing to consider as well. Allegedly, Sydney heard her mother crying and fighting. It has never been determined if this was just one phone call or two or more. It is also alleged that Sydney heard the "hey, hey, hey" and the two men fighting. If this is true and it came out in court and Simpson is not the killer, then that means who ever killed them knows that they were at least heard and it eliminates Simpson as the killer.

Also, IMO, had Sydney had any information to bury her father, she would have testified, most likely in camera.

[GreenIce]

Another question is if the phone call was around 11:00 PM.why the defense would have gone along with the stipulation that the phone call occured about an hour earlier?

Do you think the dream team was in on a conspiricy to make Simpson look guilty?

fgump2,

You are making an assumption that there is only one phone record from the Browns'. You are also making an assumption that all the relative phone records were in fact entered into evidence. You are also forgetting that there is another phone record that does exist, that Bill Hodgeman had control off and that phone record has never been released to the public.

The simple solution is to release the other phone record and see if Dr. Johnson's claims have any merit. The Browns were in a win-win situation to have these records released, IMO.

[weezer]

for the posters who live in the real world, rather than deal with 'alledgedly' I present to you the truth and facts: there is and has never been any credibility to the claim that Sydney heard and/or saw anything on the night orenthal murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. the police report said that the first officer on the scene inside the house found two young children sleeping upstairs. If I am wrong, I ask that someone please post a link.

the phone records were stipulated to by both the defense and the prosecution and the relevant portion given to the jury to see. :shrug:

[weezer]

IMO, the Browns would have released information that pointed to orenthal's innocence IF any had existed -- it did not. The defense, prosecution, and jury all examined the phone record. It was stipulated as being the correct and accurate record of the phone calls as supported by other witness testimony and records.

[tv]

IMO, the Browns would have released information that pointed to orenthal's innocence IF any had existed -- it did not. The defense, prosecution, and jury all examined the phone record. It was stipulated as being the correct and accurate record of the phone calls as supported by other witness testimony and records.

I don't believe the Browns are the kind of people that would hold back evidence that would help OJ Simpson. They simply wanted justice for their daughter. I'll ask the same question fg2 did -- why would the defense stipulate to the phone records if there was any chance they were in error? That would have been a sure acquittal for him if it could be proven that Nicole and Ron were alive at 11:00. It's just more fantasy.

[tv]

for the posters who live in the real world, rather than deal with 'alledgedly' I present to you the truth and facts: there is and has never been any credibility to the claim that Sydney heard and/or saw anything on the night orenthal murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. the police report said that the first officer on the scene inside the house found two young children sleeping upstairs. If I am wrong, I ask that someone please post a link.

the phone records were stipulated to by both the defense and the prosecution and the relevant portion given to the jury to see. :shrug:

:beer:

[martin II]

Good idea! Thanks. :)

it was reported that there wa lots of construction work on that highway which makes map quest travel time not accurate.

[tv]

it was reported that there wa lots of construction work on that highway which makes map quest travel time not accurate.

You think it took 2 and 1/2 hours to drive 68 miles even with construction?

[GreenIce]

it was reported that there wa lots of construction work on that highway which makes map quest travel time not accurate.

Martin,

IMO, this is another question, how long it took them to get home could have been answered by cell phone records and the security of the gated community. However, there are two phone records. The one phone record we know about shows a call between the Brown home and Nicole's home. There is no proof that it was Judy Brown who made that phone call at 9:37 p.m.

Also, I tried to find a close up picture for the phone records and I can't find one. I think a key question, maybe Big Ben knows, but how did Judi Brown get the number from the Mezzaluna. It has been a long time since I read her civil trial testimony but I do remember something about her being concerned about getting her grandson's to bed as well as calling not too late at Nicole's because of the kids.

[weezer]

She was mistaken about the time. If she made the mistake once what makes it worse that she did it more than once? :shrug:

I'm still looking for the multiple times she made the statement. :shrug:

[serpentsfall]

Leslie Abramson is a pretty reliable person and she would have no reason to lie. Legal action was taken against the phone company to release all of the records but Lou did not allow it. Big Ben had a lot of info on this subject when he was posting.

There are actually several "Big Ben" variations. They show up around the internet at sites wherever the Simpson case is discussed in an effort to drum up business for a book and video they have for sale. Their video clips take testimony out of sequence to supposedly support their "theories". The "legal action" was simply a motion made by two brothers behind the book/video who purport to be "investigators". They had no legal standing in the case and in effect were trying to hide behind a borderline sham corporation to gain access to the phone records of a private ciitzen. They admit they weren't working for OJ Simpson - they have their own agenda for their own reasons. Anybody can file a motion asking the court to do something - it doesn't mean they have the right to the information. Not only Lou Brown but the court did not allow them access to the records.

[weezer]

"In 1994, 16 million Americans subscribed to cellular phone services. Today, more than 110 million Americans are subscribers. Some experts predict that worldwide subscribership will reach 1.2 billion people by 2005."

http://www.networkworld.com/research/2001/0702featside.html

I've not seen/read/heard that the Browns even had a cell phone -- obviously it was not as common as it is today. :shrug:

[GreenIce]

There are actually several "Big Ben" variations. They show up around the internet at sites wherever the Simpson case is discussed in an effort to drum up business for a book and video they have for sale. Their video clips take testimony out of sequence to supposedly support their "theories". The "legal action" was simply a motion made by two brothers behind the book/video who purport to be "investigators". They had no legal standing in the case and in effect were trying to hide behind a borderline sham corporation to gain access to the phone records of a private ciitzen. They admit they weren't working for OJ Simpson - they have their own agenda for their own reasons. Anybody can file a motion asking the court to do something - it doesn't mean they have the right to the information. Not only Lou Brown but the court did not allow them access to the records.

Serptsfall,

Can you think of any reason why the Browns and the court refused them access to these records?

[GreenIce]

Fgump2,

If you want to read a good book about the Simpsons' and race, Shelia Weller's book is very informative. She writes about how Nicole and OJ wanted to raise their children regarding race. It also discusses the Simpsons' charity work as well as the causes they supported. It also discusses Simpson's ties to his neighborhood after he became famous.

The book isn't always flattering to Nicole but it was blessed by the Brown family.

What is also interesting about her book is when it was written and published, before the criminal trial. There is some information in this book that could have come from police sources at the time, such as the disguise that was found in the Bronco.

It also talks about Nicole's alleged slashed breasts. I did not get the details right, it was not the Browns, it was Nicole's friends who said that they became convinced of his guilt when they heard about it. I haven't finished it yet but as of yet, I have only found a reference to Nicole's friends on this subject.

[serpentsfall]

Serptsfall,

Can you think of any reason why the Browns and the court refused them access to these records?

Yes. The Brown's personal phone records were none of the Johnson Brothers' business.

The criminal trial was done and Simpson had been found not guilty. OJ had legal representation who, because of their standing in the case, had copies of the phone records. The defense team did not move to have the phone bill itself entered into evidence; that was their choice. They did not contest the prosecution's presentation and chose to stipulate to what the records said. It's done all the time. Its hard to argue with their strategy - after all, they "won".