View Full Version : Random Discussions On The Case
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:44 AM
Since the unidentified prints on the envelope could easily have been from being handled during the manufacturing/packaging process or being handled at the restaurant by unknown persons before Karen Crawford put the glasses in it I can see why it didn't pique anyone's interest. That is, if it's true that all these fingerprints were even on the envelope.
To quote Dr. Lee --
Q. Dr. Lee, are there many occasions where you said as a forensic scientist where you look at a case or a piece of evidence and you just dont have all the answers?
A. That's correct.
Q. And there is nothing surprising about that, is there?
A. Nothing surprising.
What excuse would le have for not testing fingerprints in blood?
the manufacturing process for envelopes is all by machine no humans touch the envelopes.
What excuse would le have for not testing fingerprints in blood?
the manufacturing process for envelopes is all by machine no humans touch the envelopes.
Uh oh -- are those human hands in this video? :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LPdgk6oa1Q
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:58 AM
Where in Vannatters's testimony does he testify that no one jumped the fence?
Vanhatter testified that he thought oj entered his house by the rockingham gate up the driveway to his front door. his investigation of the fence area told him no one jumped the fence through the heavy growth.two other detectives that investigated the fence area testified they saw no evidence that anyone jumped that fence.imo
martin II
08-01-2009, 10:01 AM
Uh oh -- are those human hands in this video? :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LPdgk6oa1Q
are you talking about the envelope found at bundy?
are you talking about the envelope found at bundy?
Isn't that the envelope you're talking about?
martin II
08-01-2009, 10:05 AM
Uh oh -- are those human hands in this video? :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LPdgk6oa1Q
maby i should have said MOST COMPANIES.
That is definately a old process.
maby i should have said MOST COMPANIES.
That is definately a old process.
You mean like maybe 1994?
martin II
08-01-2009, 10:11 AM
yep thats old
how could a fingerprint be in blood from a company or the resturant?
yep thats old
how could a fingerprint be in blood from a company or the resturant?
IIRC, the envelope was only blood spattered. I'm not saying there wasn't a fingerprint but I don't recall it.
yep thats old
how could a fingerprint be in blood from a company or the resturant?
Question of Dennis Fung by Barry Scheck:
Q: I'M ASKING ABOUT THE ENVELOPE. DID THE ENVELOPE THAT CONTAINED THE PRESCRIPTION GLASSES HAVE BLOOD SPATTER ON IT?
A: THERE WAS A BLOOD PATTERN ON IT.
Q: AND IT HAD SHOE IMPRESSIONS ON IT, DID IT NOT?
A: I DON'T RECALL, BUT I DO REMEMBER THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF BLOOD ON THE ENVELOPE.
Q: YOU DON'T RECALL THAT IT HAD SHOE IMPRESSIONS ON IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THAT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU WERE AT THE CRIME SCENE ON JUNE 13TH WERE YOU INTERESTED IN THE POSSIBILITY THAT ONE OF THE KILLERS WOULD HAVE GRABBED OR PULLED AT THAT ENVELOPE AND TOUCHED IT WHILE STRUGGLING WITH MR. GOLDMAN?
MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU WERE AT THE CRIME SCENE ON JUNE 13TH AND YOU SAW THAT ENVELOPE, DID YOU CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ENVELOPE MIGHT HAVE FINGERPRINTS ON IT FROM ONE OF THE KILLERS?
MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE ALSO, YOUR HONOR.
Hipcheck
08-01-2009, 11:31 AM
Here is a link for all the blood evidence found at the crime scenes.
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/Dna.htm
Shows where the blood evidence was found and who the blood belonged to.
GreenIce
08-01-2009, 01:14 PM
What excuse would le have for not testing fingerprints in blood?
the manufacturing process for envelopes is all by machine no humans touch the envelopes.
Martin,
The fingerprints were in blood. They were identifable in regards that had there been a match in the system then the person would have been identified. Bottom line, the envelope was opened and manipulated why the blood was still wet. I believe there was a mirror shoe imprint on the envelope as well. IMO, that means that someone opened the enveloped and looked inside---why would OJ Simpson do this?
Also there was a partial bloody fingeprint on one of the glass lens. From my understanding this lense was later "lost".
So, is this when where we again add up all the bloody fingerprints that were "missed" and "lost" in this case?
Also, I don't believe there was ever a breakdown of where the fingerprints were found. I believe there was 17 identifiable prints, but I don't know if all those belong to 17 different people and was that the total number of prints.
For example if x's prints were found on Nicole's gate, on the envelope, etc., what does that mean?
Another thing that just occurred to me, Nicole had 3 gates between the killing cage and the back gate. The middle gate is the one that the dog walker was said to have heard because the other two didn't make any noise. So why blood only found the back gate? Were all there gates dusted for prints. I have to read the testimony of the guy.
Again, if I have the image right in my head, if you are looking at the gate, the blood that was found later on the fence was on the right of the gate?
Also, how is it that the only blood dripped on that gate that night all landed on the gate. If the wound had just happened, IMO, there should have been a more direct blood trail, like the one at Rockingham. The Rockingham blood trail is consistent with a wound that has occurred but disregarded.
Also, I think there was other blood drops that found at Bundy that were not indentified. If the blood fingeprint was tested and it was determined that it was not Simpson's blood--then chances are that if there was blood on the gate that night, then it was not OJ Simpson's. So technically, Mr. August could be right, however, those pictures don't prove who's blood it was.
Vanatter knew the blood evidence at both scene better then any one--if blood on the back gate was not Simpson's---he was in big trouble! IMO.
GreenIce
08-01-2009, 01:18 PM
Here is a link for all the blood evidence found at the crime scenes.
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/Dna.htm
Shows where the blood evidence was found and who the blood belonged to.
Hipcheck,
The list provided is not accurate.
Martin,
The fingerprints were in blood. They were identifable in regards that had there been a match in the system then the person would have been identified. Bottom line, the envelope was opened and manipulated why the blood was still wet. I believe there was a mirror shoe imprint on the envelope as well. IMO, that means that someone opened the enveloped and looked inside---why would OJ Simpson do this?
Also there was a partial bloody fingeprint on one of the glass lens. From my understanding this lense was later "lost".
So, is this when where we again add up all the bloody fingerprints that were "missed" and "lost" in this case?
Also, I don't believe there was ever a breakdown of where the fingerprints were found. I believe there was 17 identifiable prints, but I don't know if all those belong to 17 different people and was that the total number of prints.
For example if x's prints were found on Nicole's gate, on the envelope, etc., what does that mean?
Another thing that just occurred to me, Nicole had 3 gates between the killing cage and the back gate. The middle gate is the one that the dog walker was said to have heard because the other two didn't make any noise. So why blood only found the back gate? Were all there gates dusted for prints. I have to read the testimony of the guy.
Again, if I have the image right in my head, if you are looking at the gate, the blood that was found later on the fence was on the right of the gate?
Also, how is it that the only blood dripped on that gate that night all landed on the gate. If the wound had just happened, IMO, there should have been a more direct blood trail, like the one at Rockingham. The Rockingham blood trail is consistent with a wound that has occurred but disregarded.
Also, I think there was other blood drops that found at Bundy that were not indentified. If the blood fingeprint was tested and it was determined that it was not Simpson's blood--then chances are that if there was blood on the gate that night, then it was not OJ Simpson's. So technically, Mr. August could be right, however, those pictures don't prove who's blood it was.
Vanatter knew the blood evidence at both scene better then any one--if blood on the back gate was not Simpson's---he was in big trouble! IMO.
OJ still had the glove on as he went down the walk at Bundy which left an abbreviated blood trail. When he removed and dropped the glove from his cut hand at Rockingham, the blood drops increased.
Here is a link for all the blood evidence found at the crime scenes.
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/Dna.htm
Shows where the blood evidence was found and who the blood belonged to.
Thanks for posting this accurate list of the blood evidence. :)
Hipcheck
08-01-2009, 02:37 PM
Hipcheck,
The list provided is not accurate.
What is not accurate with the list?
GreenIce
08-01-2009, 02:41 PM
OJ still had the glove on as he went down the walk at Bundy which left an abbreviated blood trail. When he removed and dropped the glove from his cut hand at Rockingham, the blood drops increased.
Lodi,
What glove are you talking about, the Bundy or Rockingham glove?
Hipcheck
08-01-2009, 02:57 PM
This website not only gives you the blood evidence but it gives you all the evidence which points to one man as being the murder and that person is O,J. Simpson.
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
GreenIce
08-01-2009, 03:18 PM
This website not only gives you the blood evidence but it gives you all the evidence which points to one man as being the murder and that person is O,J. Simpson.
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
Hipchec,
Where is Ron Goldman's blood in the Bronco as well as the unidentified DNA in the Bronco?
Also, the list does not included when it was found, who found it and when it was tested.
Hipcheck
08-01-2009, 03:29 PM
Hipchec,
Where is Ron Goldman's blood in the Bronco as well as the unidentified DNA in the Bronco?
Also, the list does not included when it was found, who found it and when it was tested.
O.J. never stepped in any of Ron's blood but he stepped in Nicole's because there was so much from when he almost cut off her frickin head.
We know the LAPD criminalists found the blood right after the murders and I don't care when it was tested. All I care about are the results from those tests which point to O.J. Simpson as being a double murderer.
What is not accurate with the list?
Hipcheck, I stand corrected. Ron Goldman's blood was found on 31, 303, 304, 305 and C. Nicole's blood was also found on 303, 304, 305. This was all from the Bronco.
Lodi,
What glove are you talking about, the Bundy or Rockingham glove?
The glove that OJ dropped at Rockingham is the only one that could have altered his blood flow at Rockingham.
martin II
08-01-2009, 04:26 PM
OJ still had the glove on as he went down the walk at Bundy which left an abbreviated blood trail. When he removed and dropped the glove from his cut hand at Rockingham, the blood drops increased.
There were no blood drops found at rockingham where the glove was found.
Maybe I didn't make it clear what I was commenting on.
~Snip~
Also, how is it that the only blood dripped on that gate that night all landed on the gate. If the wound had just happened, IMO, there should have been a more direct blood trail, like the one at Rockingham. The Rockingham blood trail is consistent with a wound that has occurred but disregarded. IMO.
OJ still had the glove on as he went down the walk at Bundy which left an abbreviated blood trail. When he removed and dropped the glove from his cut hand at Rockingham, the blood drops increased. IMO
martin II
08-01-2009, 04:30 PM
OJ still had the glove on as he went down the walk at Bundy which left an abbreviated blood trail. When he removed and dropped the glove from his cut hand at Rockingham, the blood drops increased.
This is not accurate.
martin II
08-01-2009, 04:34 PM
Maybe I didn't make it clear what I was commenting on.
~Snip~
[/I]
OJ still had the glove on as he went down the walk at Bundy which left an abbreviated blood trail. When he removed and dropped the glove from his cut hand at Rockingham, the blood drops increased. IMO
There was no blood found in the Rockingham walkway where the glove was found.
There was no blood found in the Rockingham walkway where the glove was found.
Was the blood trail between the glove and the front door?
There was no blood found in the Rockingham walkway where the glove was found.
Presumptive tests for blood on samples from the air conditoner and the cable wire were positive. This is according to Dr. Henry Lee who performed the tests.
martin II
08-01-2009, 04:52 PM
This website not only gives you the blood evidence but it gives you all the evidence which points to one man as being the murder and that person is O,J. Simpson.
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
People that know the evidence in this case know the above site is the most biassed and inaccurate site published. if you knew the evidence i doubt you would use this site as referance.
martin II
08-01-2009, 04:57 PM
Presumptive tests for blood on samples from the air conditoner and the cable wire were positive. This is according to Dr. Henry Lee who performed the tests.
Ithink you know that this means that therre was no proof that there was blood. i am positive you know this.
martin II
08-01-2009, 05:00 PM
Was the blood trail between the glove and the front door?
no
not one drop.
absolutely no blood drops found in the s walkway
martin II
08-01-2009, 05:02 PM
Maybe I didn't make it clear what I was commenting on.
~Snip~
[/I]
OJ still had the glove on as he went down the walk at Bundy which left an abbreviated blood trail. When he removed and dropped the glove from his cut hand at Rockingham, the blood drops increased. IMO
not true
Ithink you know that this means that therre was no proof that there was blood. i am positive you know this.
I know that it means there was most likely blood on the cable wire and the air conditioner. I'm positive that you know the glove found behind Kato's room had the blood of OJ Simpson as well as Ron and Nicole and the sock in his bedroom had three areas of OJ Simpson's blood and three areas of Nicoles blood.
Hipcheck
08-01-2009, 05:58 PM
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
One hair consistent to hair from O.J. found on the hat at Bundy.
Two hairs consistent with hair from O.J. found on Ron's shirt.
One fiber consistent coming from the Ford Bronco found on glove at Rockingham.
Two fiber consistent coming from the Ford Bronco found on the hat at Bundy.
O.J. actually confesses to the murderers and tells us how it went down in the book "If I did it".
Everything points to O.J. Simpson as being guilty of these murders.
martin II
08-01-2009, 06:04 PM
O.J. never stepped in any of Ron's blood but he stepped in Nicole's because there was so much from when he almost cut off her frickin head.
We know the LAPD criminalists found the blood right after the murders and I don't care when it was tested. All I care about are the results from those tests which point to O.J. Simpson as being a double murderer.
The blood from the footprints was NEVER tested so there is no way to know whoes blood made the prints.
martin II
08-01-2009, 06:11 PM
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
One hair consistent to hair from O.J. found on the hat at Bundy.
Consistant with is not proof
Two hairs consistent with hair from O.J. found on Ron's shirt.absolutely not true.
One fiber consistent coming from the Ford Bronco found on glove at Rockingham.absolutely not true
Two fiber consistent coming from the Ford Bronco found on the hat at Bundy.
absolutely not true. no testimony to this
O.J. actually confesses to the murderers and tells us how it went down in the book "If I did it".very few believe it and if you read it you would not believe it either
Everything points to O.J. Simpson as being guilty of these murders.
it is best to read testimony than put your faith is BS web sites.
martin II
08-01-2009, 06:16 PM
I know that it means there was most likely blood on the cable wire and the air conditioner. I'm positive that you know the glove found behind Kato's room had the blood of OJ Simpson as well as Ron and Nicole and the sock in his bedroom had three areas of OJ Simpson's blood and three areas of Nicoles blood.
MOST LIKELY is not proof of anything.
MOST LIKELY NICOLE was freebasing cocain with nicole but we only have fayes claim for that.
martin II
08-01-2009, 06:22 PM
I know that it means there was most likely blood on the cable wire and the air conditioner. I'm positive that you know the glove found behind Kato's room had the blood of OJ Simpson as well as Ron and Nicole and the sock in his bedroom had three areas of OJ Simpson's blood and three areas of Nicoles blood.
You don't know whoes blood was on the rockingham glove when it was found. Vanhastter had the blood of oj,ron and nicole in his personal possession when he should not have had it.
martin II
08-01-2009, 06:30 PM
Hipcheck, the list is only inaccurate to people that invent evidence that doesn't exist. This list wasn't disputed by the defense.
this list was never entered into evidence so the defence had no chance to dispute it. this list is not a part of the trial evidence. it is a private web site with wrong opinions.
The blood from the footprints was NEVER tested so there is no way to know whoes blood made the prints.
Wrong. There was a footprint identified as being made in Nicole's blood. Item #56.
this list was never entered into evidence so the defence had no chance to dispute it. this list is not a part of the trial evidence. it is a private web site with wrong opinions.
Wrong again. The list was entered into evidence only this list is missing some of the identifiers of the blood contributions.
You don't know whoes blood was on the rockingham glove when it was found. Vanhastter had the blood of oj,ron and nicole in his personal possession when he should not have had it.
No proof. Do you think they were able to scrape off the some unknown person's blood from the glove and replace it with OJ Simpson's blood? Are you saying you also believe Ron and Nicole's were planted on the glove? Sure.
MOST LIKELY is not proof of anything.
MOST LIKELY NICOLE was freebasing cocain with nicole but we only have fayes claim for that.
You never pass up an opportunity to mention Faye or to bring up Nicole's alleged drug use. I'm repeating what the esteemed Dr. Lee said about presumptive tests he did on the cable and the air conditioner unit. You're free to accept or reject his opinion but trashing Nicole doesn't change the outcome of his tests.
martin II
08-01-2009, 07:33 PM
You never pass up an opportunity to mention Faye or to bring up Nicole's alleged drug use. I'm repeating what the esteemed Dr. Lee said about presumptive tests he did on the cable and the air conditioner unit. You're free to accept or reject his opinion but trashing Nicole doesn't change the outcome of his tests.
Dr Lee never ever testified that there was blood on the air conditioner and i am sure you know this as we discussed this many times previously.
Dr Lee never ever testified that there was blood on the air conditioner and i am sure you know this as we discussed this many times previously.
No one ever testified that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove behind Kato's room but that doesn't stop you from claiming it. Dr. Lee did say that presumptive tests for blood on the cable and the air conditioner were positive.
martin II
08-01-2009, 07:35 PM
You never pass up an opportunity to mention Faye or to bring up Nicole's alleged drug use. I'm repeating what the esteemed Dr. Lee said about presumptive tests he did on the cable and the air conditioner unit. You're free to accept or reject his opinion but trashing Nicole doesn't change the outcome of his tests.
i have posted testimony about many. Sorry if you don't like the facts.
martin II
08-01-2009, 07:40 PM
No one ever testified that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove behind Kato's room but that doesn't stop you from claiming it. Dr. Lee did say that presumptive tests for blood on the cable and the air conditioner were positive.
The presumptive test by Dr Lee indicates that the stain COULD BE BUT NOT PROOF OF BLOOD. The test to prove blood was never done. So there is no proof of blood on the airconditioner.
martin II
08-01-2009, 07:43 PM
No proof. Do you think they were able to scrape off the some unknown person's blood from the glove and replace it with OJ Simpson's blood? Are you saying you also believe Ron and Nicole's were planted on the glove? Sure.
i am saying what i said not what you said.
martin II
08-01-2009, 07:47 PM
Wrong again. The list was entered into evidence only this list is missing some of the identifiers of the blood contributions.
When was this web site entered into evidence in erither trial. Answer: it was not.
martin II
08-01-2009, 08:22 PM
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
One hair consistent to hair from O.J. found on the hat at Bundy.
Two hairs consistent with hair from O.J. found on Ron's shirt.
[no hairs consistant with oj was found on rons shirt. fibers of unknown source were found on rons shirt. see how easy it is to post false info.
One fiber consistent coming from the Ford Bronco found on glove at Rockingham.absolutely wrong. post testimony proving this
Two fiber consistent coming from the Ford Bronco found on the hat at Bundy.
absolutely not true no fiber from the bronco was found on the cap .post testimony to prove this.
O.J. actually confesses to the murderers and tells us how it went down in the book "If I did it".not true post where he said this.
Everything points to O.J. Simpson as being guilty of these murders.
Nothing you posted above proves your claim.
When was this web site entered into evidence in erither trial. Answer: it was not.
Of course the website wasn't entered into evidence. The list of 45 blood drops was entered into evidence.
i am saying what i said not what you said.
Huh? :confused:
The presumptive test by Dr Lee indicates that the stain COULD BE BUT NOT PROOF OF BLOOD. The test to prove blood was never done. So there is no proof of blood on the airconditioner.
I didn't claim otherwise. I believe that there was blood on the air conditioner and the cable. Dr. Lee seemed to think so also.
i have posted testimony about many. Sorry if you don't like the facts.
I don't mind the facts but what you said about Nicole and Faye has nothing to do with the discussion about the DNA entered into evidence.
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:07 PM
No one ever testified that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove behind Kato's room but that doesn't stop you from claiming it. Dr. Lee did say that presumptive tests for blood on the cable and the air conditioner were positive.
furhman is suspect because of his owm words of planting as a lapd officer.
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:17 PM
I don't mind the facts but what you said about Nicole and Faye has nothing to do with the discussion about the DNA entered into evidence.
you posted using your example i posted using mine. you don't get to decide what posters post.or you don't get to decide what i can post.
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:20 PM
I didn't claim otherwise. I believe that there was blood on the air conditioner and the cable. Dr. Lee seemed to think so also.
Dr Lee did a presumptive test. There is nothing that he said that can cause you to belive he said more than what he did say.
furhman is suspect because of his owm words of planting as a lapd officer.
Oh, I see. You can talk about any theories or speculate all you want but I can't talk about the positive presumptive blood tests from the air conditioner and the cable wire because it wasn't evidence -- just the word of Dr. Henry Lee.
Speaking of the pathway behind Kato's room, it's very interesting that the glove was found at the same location where the fence wires were bent inward -- just as if someone had stepped on it to jump over and dropped the glove on the path. I like the double-take that OJ Simpson took when he saw the bent wires. It always makes me laugh. :D
Dr Lee did a presumptive test. There is nothing that he said that can cause you to belive he said more than what he did say.
He said the tests were positive. What more did he need to say?
you posted using your example i posted using mine. you don't get to decide what posters post.or you don't get to decide what i can post.
Why are you being so hostile? :shrug:
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:26 PM
Of course the website wasn't entered into evidence. The list of 45 blood drops was entered into evidence.
The problem is this rag of a web site describes the blood and other evidence differently than the testimony in the trial did.
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:29 PM
Why are you being so hostile? :shrug:
i have responded to your critical post of me. i am not hostile at all.
The problem is this rag of a web site describes the blood and other evidence differently than the testimony in the trial did.
Except for leaving Ron's name off as a contributor of some of the blood evidence the list is correct. I've carefully looked at it and compared it to the official list and that's the only difference.
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:32 PM
He said the tests were positive. What more did he need to say?
many times presumptive test later test negative for blood.
i have responded to your critical post of me. i am not hostile at all.
Sorry you took it as critcism. I thought we were having our usual discussion except without any hard feelings.
many times presumptive test later test negative for blood.
I guess we'll never know for sure but I'm of the opinion it was blood.
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:39 PM
Except for leaving Ron's name off as a contributor of some of the blood evidence the list is correct. I've carefully looked at it and compared it to the official list and that's the only difference.
i have seen 4-5 lies. you need to read it again.
There was no bronco fibers found on rons shirt.
There was no bronco fibers found on the cap.
ETC
I read this web site over a year ago and realized it was a group of biased lies and opinions.believe it if you like.
i have seen 4-5 lies. you need to read it again.
There was no bronco fibers found on rons shirt.
There was no bronco fibers found on the cap.
ETC
I read this web site over a year ago and realized it was a group of biased lies and opinions.believe it if you like.
martin, I'm talking about DNA only -- blood evidence. I think it would be a good idea for someone to post the DNA evidence entered into evidence so we're all talking about the same thing. I would have posted it before now but I figured it wouldn't be welcome. Hipcheck's list is correct except for Ron's name being omitted.
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:48 PM
I guess we'll never know for sure but I'm of the opinion it was blood.
Since Clarke ran away from her theory that oj jumped the fence it really does not matter.
Since Clarke ran away from her theory that oj jumped the fence it really does not matter.
I don't rely on Marcia Clark for my theory. I have my own.
martin II
08-01-2009, 09:55 PM
martin, I'm talking about DNA only -- blood evidence. I think it would be a good idea for someone to post the DNA evidence entered into evidence so we're all talking about the same thing. I would have posted it before now but I figured it wouldn't be welcome. Hipcheck's list is correct except for Ron's name being omitted.
i have posted two issues of hipchecks web site that is wrong. there are many others. it missrepresents ojs book and some info on the jury in addition to how it describes some blood and fiber evidence.it is biased opinions and not to be used as evidence or proof in the case.
i have posted two issues of hipchecks web site that is wrong. there are many others. it missrepresents ojs book and some info on the jury in addition to how it describes some blood and fiber evidence.it is biased opinions and not to be used as evidence or proof in the case.
martin, I have the list of blood evidence entered at trial as I'm sure many others posting here do. It's not in dispute and can be be verified by reading the trial testimony. I'm not relying on anyone's website.
Hipcheck
08-01-2009, 10:04 PM
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 01:43 AM
O.J. never stepped in any of Ron's blood but he stepped in Nicole's because there was so much from when he almost cut off her frickin head.
We know the LAPD criminalists found the blood right after the murders and I don't care when it was tested. All I care about are the results from those tests which point to O.J. Simpson as being a double murderer.
Hipcheck,
The bloody shoe prints at Bundy were never tested to determine who's blood it was. At least that is what we have been lead to believe. There is no logical explaination of why they were not tested unless Clark made sure that was not done. She did want any focus put on the bloody shoe prints, it only hurt her case to focus on them.
Also, according to the DA's timeline as well supporting their theory that since Simpson killed them both from behind and was not covered the blood, there was no way that Simpson could have walked in Nicole's blood to leave any shoe prints unless he hung around at least for 10 minutes or so after Nicole's bleed out. The same goes from Ron Goldman. If both of them were killed under 2 minutes, Simpson's leaves, no way to leave bloody shoe prints.
We know the criminalists made mistake after mistake and destroyed the majority of the blood evidence. We know that blood evidence was discovered weeks and months after the murders. Bottom line, because of the wet transfers and the missing inital and the fact that the blood swatches were never counted, taged or labeled, you have no clue what result came from where.
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 01:48 AM
many times presumptive test later test negative for blood.
Martin,
I rembered hearing a little about the blood the wire and the A/C unit. Weren't the stains so small, that even if it was blood, it could not be determined if it was a human's blood?
And in regards to the wire, since the DA's theory does not have Simpson jumping the fence, then how did the blood get that high up, on the wire and the AC unit. There is no way blood could have gotten on top of the AC unit from a wounded finger, IMO.
May 9th, 1995
MS. CLARKE: With respect to item no. 56, are you aware that that's blood staining removed from a shoeprint found at the Bundy residence?
DR. COTTON: Yes, I am.
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 08:44 AM
Evidence
DNA showed that blood found at the scene of Brown's murder was O.J. Simpson's. The odds it could have come from anyone but Simpson were about one in 170 million.[17]
DNA analysis of blood found on a pair of Simpson's socks found in his bedroom identified it as Nicole Brown's. The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7 billion, with odds rising to one out of 21 billion when compiling results of testing done at the two separate DNA laboratories.[9][17] Each sock had about 20 stains of blood.[9]
DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson's Bronco revealed traces of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's blood.[18]
DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom proved this was Brown's blood. The blood made a similar pattern on both sides of the socks. Defense medical expert Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified that the only way such a pattern could appear was if Simpson had a "hole" in his ankle, or a drop of blood was placed on the sock while it was not being worn. Lee testified the collection procedure of the socks could have caused contamination.[19]
Hair consistent with Simpson's was found on Goldman's shirt.[18]
Several coins were found along with fresh blood drops behind Nicole's condo, in the area where the cars were parked.
DNA analysis of blood on the left-hand glove, found outside Brown's home, was proven to be a mixture of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's. Although the glove was soaked in blood, there were no blood drops leading up to, or away from the glove. No other blood was found in the area of the glove except on the glove.[18]
The gloves contained particles of hair consistent with Goldman's hair and a cap contained carpet fibers consistent with fibers from Simpson's Bronco.[5]
A knit cap at the crime scene contained hairs consistent with Simpson's.[5] Dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman, and the prosecution presented a witness who said Simpson wore a similarly-colored sweat suit that night.[5]
The left-hand glove found at Nicole Brown's home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson's home proved to be a match.[20]
LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter could not explain why he kept the eight CCs taken as a sample of O.J. Simpson's blood for hours before recording it as evidence, and why he had it at Simpson's house when evidence was being collected, as corroborated by TV news footage.
The LA County District Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office could not explain why 1.5 CCs of blood were missing from the original eight CCs taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.[21]
Officers found arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with the beating of his wife Nicole Brown. Photos of Brown's bruised and battered face from that attack were shown.
Much of the incriminating evidence: bloody glove, bloody socks, blood in and on the Bronco, was discovered by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman. He was later charged with perjury for falsely claiming during the trial that he had not used the word "******" within ten years of the trial. During the trial he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to avoid further questioning after his integrity was challenged on this point.[21]
The bloody footprints were identified by FBI shoe expert William Bodziak as having been made by a pair of extremely rare Bruno Magli shoes, of which it has been reported that only 299 pairs were sold in the US.[5] The large size 12 (305 mm) prints matched Simpson's shoe size.[5] In the criminal trial, Simpson defense attorneys had said the prosecution had no proof Simpson had ever bought such shoes,[5] however then free-lance photographer Harry Scull claimed to have found a photograph he had taken of Simpson in 1993 that appeared to show him wearing a pair of the shoes at a public event, which was later published in the National Enquirer. Simpson's defense team claimed the photograph was doctored, although other pre-1994 photos appearing to show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were since discovered and published.[22]
Evidence collected by LAPD criminologist Dennis Fung came under criticism. He admitted to "having missed a few drops of blood on a fence near the bodies," but on the stand he said that he "returned several weeks afterwards to collect them."[21]
Fung admitted that he had not used rubber gloves when collecting some of the evidence.[21]
LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter testified that he saw photographs of press personnel leaning on Simpson's Bronco before evidence was collected.[21]
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 08:48 AM
Hipcheck,
From the second website you linked. Please note it does give the amount of blood drawn from Mr. Simpson and it does say that DA's were unable to account for the missing blood.
Also, please note the additional blood drops found in the back of the condo by the coins. These blood drops were not Simpson's, Nicole's or Goldman's, so who's were they?
And who's bloody fingerprint was the back gate?
martin II
08-02-2009, 08:52 AM
Martin,
I rembered hearing a little about the blood the wire and the A/C unit. Weren't the stains so small, that even if it was blood, it could not be determined if it was a human's blood?
And in regards to the wire, since the DA's theory does not have Simpson jumping the fence, then how did the blood get that high up, on the wire and the AC unit. There is no way blood could have gotten on top of the AC unit from a wounded finger, IMO.
first of all i never read anything about blood being on a wire.
months after the trial one bent wire was found on the fence which some thought was bent by a photograpoher standing on nthe fence taking pictures.
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 08:57 AM
The problem is this rag of a web site describes the blood and other evidence differently than the testimony in the trial did.
Martin,
IMO, many of these websites are biased against Mr. Simpson. However, they do have a value because many have used "evidence" that they only heard the media say as well as media reports regarding the evidence.
Also, please note the time of the thumps----highlights that Clark did change the timeline in her closing arguments and that it took her 9 months to do this, therefore trashing her own witnesses---again.
martin II
08-02-2009, 08:58 AM
Martin,
I rembered hearing a little about the blood the wire and the A/C unit. Weren't the stains so small, that even if it was blood, it could not be determined if it was a human's blood?
And in regards to the wire, since the DA's theory does not have Simpson jumping the fence, then how did the blood get that high up, on the wire and the AC unit. There is no way blood could have gotten on top of the AC unit from a wounded finger, IMO.
true it was too small
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 09:01 AM
first of all i never read anything about blood being on a wire.
months after the trial one bent wire was found on the fence which some thought was bent by a photograpoher standing on nthe fence taking pictures.
Martin,
I believe it was Fung who found the blood on a piece of wiring overhanging the alley.
I don't remember anything about this or blood allegedly found on the AC unit during the trial.
martin II
08-02-2009, 09:03 AM
Hipcheck,
The bloody shoe prints at Bundy were never tested to determine who's blood it was. At least that is what we have been lead to believe. There is no logical explaination of why they were not tested unless Clark made sure that was not done. She did want any focus put on the bloody shoe prints, it only hurt her case to focus on them.
Also, according to the DA's timeline as well supporting their theory that since Simpson killed them both from behind and was not covered the blood, there was no way that Simpson could have walked in Nicole's blood to leave any shoe prints unless he hung around at least for 10 minutes or so after Nicole's bleed out. The same goes from Ron Goldman. If both of them were killed under 2 minutes, Simpson's leaves, no way to leave bloody shoe prints.
We know the criminalists made mistake after mistake and destroyed the majority of the blood evidence. We know that blood evidence was discovered weeks and months after the murders. Bottom line, because of the wet transfers and the missing inital and the fact that the blood swatches were never counted, taged or labeled, you have no clue what result came from where.
The site does mention that when Park drove to the front door he saw two duffle bags that oj had just brought down stairs from his house. He could not have done this unless he was in his house when park was at the ashford gate.
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 09:07 AM
true it was too small
Martin,
I just thought of something, perhaps Clark and Darden did lead the jury to believe that Simpson jumped the fence, however, maybe backed off once they knew the jury saw where the glove was found, saw the fence and vegitation as well as where the AC unit was.
IMO, the trip to Bundy and to Rockingham totally worked in favor for the defense.
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 09:11 AM
The site does mention that when Park drove to the front door he saw two duffle bags that oj had just brought down stairs from his house. He could not have done this unless he was in his house when park was at the ashford gate.
Martin,
In Joe Bosco's book, he says that when Park saw the AA, it was OJ and he was going into the house the second time after going to his Bentley to get his black golf shoes.
So this means that Park missed seeing Simpson leaving his home twice, doesn't it?
martin II
08-02-2009, 09:11 AM
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
This is not a official web site either.
Anyone can post to this site and post or change the content.
The trial testimony is where the factual evidence can be found not private web sites.This is gossip like the first site.
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 09:22 AM
This is not a official web site either.
Anyone can post to this site and post or change the content.
The trial testimony is where the factual evidence can be found not private web sites.This is gossip like the first site.
Martin,
I agree with you about the gossip. However, many people have taken this "gossip" to be in fact, true as well as it being presented in the trial.
However, what I do have a problem with the first website is that it does not address the defense's response to such evidence and the "stuff" the jury didn't into the jury room is a complete joke.
To say that defendants who are innocent always take the stand is nothing but a joke---if that was the case, then what stoped MF from taking the stand in the defense's case in chief?
martin II
08-02-2009, 09:22 AM
Martin,
In Joe Bosco's book, he says that when Park saw the AA, it was OJ and he was going into the house the second time after going to his Bentley to get his black golf shoes.
So this means that Park missed seeing Simpson leaving his home twice, doesn't it?
When park was at ashford oj was in his house.OJ cane down stairs and put two duffle bags on his front porch. He then moved the golf bag to the bencg at the front door. When he turned to reenter his house park saw him go back in.Park saw the two duffle bags at the front door when he drove in after kato opened the gate. after oj finished his shower he heard park ring the bell but he was on his way down stairs.
Park also missed seeing kato walk to the garage area on his first trip which indicates that kato heard the noise at 10:45 as he testified to.
The site fails to mention any of this testimony.
i don't know about oj getting any black golf shoes.
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 09:27 AM
When park was at ashford oj was in his house.OJ cane down stairs and put two duffle bags on his front porch. He then moved the golf bag to the bencg at the front door. When he turned to reenter his house park saw him go back in.Park saw the two duffle bags at the front door when he drove in after kato opened the gate. after oj finished his shower he heard park ring the bell but he was on his way down stairs.
Park also missed seeing kato walk to the garage area on his first trip which indicates that kato heard the noise at 10:45 as he testified to.
The site fails to mention any of this testimony.
i don't know about oj getting any black golf shoes.
Martin,
In Simpson's depo, does he say that he spoke to Park using the intercom?
In regards to the black golf shoes, Simpson was deciding what he was going to wear that the golf event, either all black or yellow in reference to the Hertz's colors. He decided that he was going to wear all black and realized his black golfing shoes were in the Bently. Again, according to Bosco's book and his conversations with Pat McKenna.
Pat McKenna also said that he went over this and many other issues with Simpson a "million" times because they had to be ready for any door that the DA's were going to open. Basically, his team did everything to make sure they would not be blindsided by the DA's and made sure they weren't blind sided by the answers.
My son has a game, I will be back a few hours.
martin II
08-02-2009, 09:27 AM
Martin,
I agree with you about the gossip. However, many people have taken this "gossip" to be in fact, true as well as it being presented in the trial.
However, what I do have a problem with the first website is that it does not address the defense's response to such evidence and the "stuff" the jury didn't into the jury room is a complete joke.
To say that defendants who are innocent always take the stand is nothing but a joke---if that was the case, then what stoped MF from taking the stand in the defense's case in chief?
If one is interested in the facts the best place to look is trial testimony and some times that is not all factual.
posting gossip from private pr public sites is a waste of time.
it is not true that most defendants testify. Absolute garbage.That is a biased opinion.
martin II
08-02-2009, 10:13 AM
Martin,
In Simpson's depo, does he say that he spoke to Park using the intercom?
In regards to the black golf shoes, Simpson was deciding what he was going to wear that the golf event, either all black or yellow in reference to the Hertz's colors. He decided that he was going to wear all black and realized his black golfing shoes were in the Bently. Again, according to Bosco's book and his conversations with Pat McKenna.
Pat McKenna also said that he went over this and many other issues with Simpson a "million" times because they had to be ready for any door that the DA's were going to open. Basically, his team did everything to make sure they would not be blindsided by the DA's and made sure they weren't blind sided by the answers.
My son has a game, I will be back a few hours.
correct
he spoke to park when he went back up stairs
i am not saying oj did not get his golf shoes when he came down stairs
Bosco is very reliable.
martin II
08-02-2009, 10:20 AM
If one is interested in the facts the best place to look is trial testimony and some times that is not all factual.
posting gossip from private pr public sites is a waste of time.
it is not true that most defendants testify. Absolute garbage.That is a biased opinion.
Some times people that did not follow the trial that had biasses against the defence read and believe gossip web sites.
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:17 AM
Evidence
DNA showed that blood found at the scene of Brown's murder was O.J. Simpson's. The odds it could have come from anyone but Simpson were about one in 170 million.[17]
DNA analysis of blood found on a pair of Simpson's socks found in his bedroom identified it as Nicole Brown's. The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7 billion, with odds rising to one out of 21 billion when compiling results of testing done at the two separate DNA laboratories.[9][17] Each sock had about 20 stains of blood.[9]
DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson's Bronco revealed traces of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's blood.[18]
DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom proved this was Brown's blood. The blood made a similar pattern on both sides of the socks. Defense medical expert Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified that the only way such a pattern could appear was if Simpson had a "hole" in his ankle, or a drop of blood was placed on the sock while it was not being worn. Lee testified the collection procedure of the socks could have caused contamination.[19]
Hair consistent with Simpson's was found on Goldman's shirt.[18]
Several coins were found along with fresh blood drops behind Nicole's condo, in the area where the cars were parked.
DNA analysis of blood on the left-hand glove, found outside Brown's home, was proven to be a mixture of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's. Although the glove was soaked in blood, there were no blood drops leading up to, or away from the glove. No other blood was found in the area of the glove except on the glove.[18]
The gloves contained particles of hair consistent with Goldman's hair and a cap contained carpet fibers consistent with fibers from Simpson's Bronco.[5]
A knit cap at the crime scene contained hairs consistent with Simpson's.[5] Dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman, and the prosecution presented a witness who said Simpson wore a similarly-colored sweat suit that night.[5]
The left-hand glove found at Nicole Brown's home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson's home proved to be a match.[20]
LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter could not explain why he kept the eight CCs taken as a sample of O.J. Simpson's blood for hours before recording it as evidence, and why he had it at Simpson's house when evidence was being collected, as corroborated by TV news footage.
The LA County District Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office could not explain why 1.5 CCs of blood were missing from the original eight CCs taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.[21]
Officers found arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with the beating of his wife Nicole Brown. Photos of Brown's bruised and battered face from that attack were shown.
Much of the incriminating evidence: bloody glove, bloody socks, blood in and on the Bronco, was discovered by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman. He was later charged with perjury for falsely claiming during the trial that he had not used the word "******" within ten years of the trial. During the trial he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to avoid further questioning after his integrity was challenged on this point.[21]
The bloody footprints were identified by FBI shoe expert William Bodziak as having been made by a pair of extremely rare Bruno Magli shoes, of which it has been reported that only 299 pairs were sold in the US.[5] The large size 12 (305 mm) prints matched Simpson's shoe size.[5] In the criminal trial, Simpson defense attorneys had said the prosecution had no proof Simpson had ever bought such shoes,[5] however then free-lance photographer Harry Scull claimed to have found a photograph he had taken of Simpson in 1993 that appeared to show him wearing a pair of the shoes at a public event, which was later published in the National Enquirer. Simpson's defense team claimed the photograph was doctored, although other pre-1994 photos appearing to show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were since discovered and published.[22]
Evidence collected by LAPD criminologist Dennis Fung came under criticism. He admitted to "having missed a few drops of blood on a fence near the bodies," but on the stand he said that he "returned several weeks afterwards to collect them."[21]
Fung admitted that he had not used rubber gloves when collecting some of the evidence.[21]
LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter testified that he saw photographs of press personnel leaning on Simpson's Bronco before evidence was collected.[21]
This site talks about the sock but does mention that martz found edta on the sock stain.
Some times people that did not follow the trial that had biasses against the defence read and believe gossip web sites.
In Simpson's civil trial testimony he says he took two pairs of golf shoes and two golf shirts to Chicago -- one black and one yellow. He didn't spend time deciding between the two. It's always best to read the trial testimony instead of relying on gossip.
Q: So you went to Chicago on June 12 with two pairs of golf shoes.
A: Possibly, yes.
Q: One in the golf club bag and another in the shoe bag which was in the golf club bag. Correct?
A: No. One was in the golf shoe bag that was in the golf bag, I believe, and the other one definitely was just in the cover bag laying in the shoe-in the golf bag, cover bag of the golf bag.
hellraiser
08-02-2009, 12:24 PM
now i cant hold myself back anymore:
double-crossed for blood, serpents rising, DR. HENRY S. JONSON
according to this man and his investigation team, OJ can't be anything else than just plain innocent.
these guys are selling HUGE stuff.
now WHO buys this?
martin II
08-02-2009, 12:28 PM
martin, I have the list of blood evidence entered at trial as I'm sure many others posting here do. It's not in dispute and can be be verified by reading the trial testimony. I'm not relying on anyone's website.
That is why i was surprised when you told hipcheck that his web site was accurate, i know you know better.
martin II
08-02-2009, 12:36 PM
In Simpson's civil trial testimony he says he took two pairs of golf shoes and two golf shirts to Chicago -- one black and one yellow. He didn't spend time deciding between the two. It's always best to read the trial testimony instead of relying on gossip.
Q: So you went to Chicago on June 12 with two pairs of golf shoes.
A: Possibly, yes.
Q: One in the golf club bag and another in the shoe bag which was in the golf club bag. Correct?
A: No. One was in the golf shoe bag that was in the golf bag, I believe, and the other one definitely was just in the cover bag laying in the shoe-in the golf bag, cover bag of the golf bag.
your post does not say oj did not consider what color shoes to take to chicago.just what he took.
That is why i was surprised when you told hipcheck that his web site was accurate, i know you know better.
At first glance it looked accurate. I don't think it was deliberately deceptive. I think whoever put it together left Ron out of a few places by mistake because otherwise it's accurate.
martin II
08-02-2009, 12:42 PM
now i cant hold myself back anymore:
double-crossed for blood, serpents rising, DR. HENRY S. JONSON
according to this man and his investigation team, OJ can't be anything else than just plain innocent.
these guys are selling HUGE stuff.
now WHO buys this?
JB told a coroners investigator and a few others that she last spoke to nicole at 11 pm on 6/12. That is the major issue Dr Johnson and his team were concerned with. If Big BEN was still posting here he would explain his positions.
martin II
08-02-2009, 12:45 PM
At first glance it looked accurate. I don't think it was deliberately deceptive. I think whoever put it together left Ron out of a few places by mistake because otherwise it's accurate.
If you look at the tone and the content that misrepresents the trial testimony
you will see it is full of untruths.Anyone that knows trial testimony knows the site is all wrong.
your post does not say oj did not consider what color shoes to take to chicago.just what he took.
martin, the point is that he didn't go out and get the shoes. They were already in the golf bag. I didn't post the testimony from him that says he packed a yellow shirt and a black shirt. He had two golf outfits with him. Either Bosco is incorrect or Simpson isn't being honest. While I don't believe a lot of things that he says I don't think OJ Simpson had any reason to lie about what clothes he took to play golf in. He said he there was only one day planned for golf but he often stayed over for another day if he could find someone that wanted to play -- I think he mentioned Mike Ditka. That means to me that packing an extra set of golf clothes was something he usually did.
If you look at the tone and the content that misrepresents the trial testimony
you will see it is full of untruths.Anyone that knows trial testimony knows the site is all wrong.
I haven't looked at the website, I only looked at the list of blood evidence. What testimony is wrong? Do you have an example?
now i cant hold myself back anymore:
double-crossed for blood, serpents rising, DR. HENRY S. JONSON
according to this man and his investigation team, OJ can't be anything else than just plain innocent.
these guys are selling HUGE stuff.
now WHO buys this?
I don't know who buys it but they've been hawking this stuff for years. If the defense had thought for one minute that Juditha Brown talked to Nicole at 11:00 they would have been all over it because it would completely exonerate OJ Simpson of the murders. Then there's Ron's hidden court records...more garbage.
martin II
08-02-2009, 01:00 PM
Evidence
DNA showed that blood found at the scene of Brown's murder was O.J. Simpson's. The odds it could have come from anyone but Simpson were about one in 170 million.[17]
DNA analysis of blood found on a pair of Simpson's socks found in his bedroom identified it as Nicole Brown's. The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7 billion, with odds rising to one out of 21 billion when compiling results of testing done at the two separate DNA laboratories.[9][17] Each sock had about 20 stains of blood.[9]
DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson's Bronco revealed traces of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's blood.[18]
DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom proved this was Brown's blood. The blood made a similar pattern on both sides of the socks. Defense medical expert Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified that the only way such a pattern could appear was if Simpson had a "hole" in his ankle, or a drop of blood was placed on the sock while it was not being worn. Lee testified the collection procedure of the socks could have caused contamination.[19]
Hair consistent with Simpson's was found on Goldman's shirt.[18]
Several coins were found along with fresh blood drops behind Nicole's condo, in the area where the cars were parked.
DNA analysis of blood on the left-hand glove, found outside Brown's home, was proven to be a mixture of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's. Although the glove was soaked in blood, there were no blood drops leading up to, or away from the glove. No other blood was found in the area of the glove except on the glove.[18]
The gloves contained particles of hair consistent with Goldman's hair and a cap contained carpet fibers consistent with fibers from Simpson's Bronco.[5]
A knit cap at the crime scene contained hairs consistent with Simpson's.[5] Dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman, and the prosecution presented a witness who said Simpson wore a similarly-colored sweat suit that night.[5]
The left-hand glove found at Nicole Brown's home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson's home proved to be a match.[20]
LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter could not explain why he kept the eight CCs taken as a sample of O.J. Simpson's blood for hours before recording it as evidence, and why he had it at Simpson's house when evidence was being collected, as corroborated by TV news footage.
The LA County District Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office could not explain why 1.5 CCs of blood were missing from the original eight CCs taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.[21]
Officers found arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with the beating of his wife Nicole Brown. Photos of Brown's bruised and battered face from that attack were shown.
Much of the incriminating evidence: bloody glove, bloody socks, blood in and on the Bronco, was discovered by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman. He was later charged with perjury for falsely claiming during the trial that he had not used the word "******" within ten years of the trial. During the trial he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to avoid further questioning after his integrity was challenged on this point.[21]
The bloody footprints were identified by FBI shoe expert William Bodziak as having been made by a pair of extremely rare Bruno Magli shoes, of which it has been reported that only 299 pairs were sold in the US.[5] The large size 12 (305 mm) prints matched Simpson's shoe size.[5] In the criminal trial, Simpson defense attorneys had said the prosecution had no proof Simpson had ever bought such shoes,[5] however then free-lance photographer Harry Scull claimed to have found a photograph he had taken of Simpson in 1993 that appeared to show him wearing a pair of the shoes at a public event, which was later published in the National Enquirer. Simpson's defense team claimed the photograph was doctored, although other pre-1994 photos appearing to show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were since discovered and published.[22]
Evidence collected by LAPD criminologist Dennis Fung came under criticism. He admitted to "having missed a few drops of blood on a fence near the bodies," but on the stand he said that he "returned several weeks afterwards to collect them."[21]
Fung admitted that he had not used rubber gloves when collecting some of the evidence.[21]
LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter testified that he saw photographs of press personnel leaning on Simpson's Bronco before evidence was collected.[21]
The problem with the foot prints is that no Size 12 BM shoes were ever found or presented in court to match the foot prints. only a expert opinion was given in court. BM was not the only company that used that shoe sole.LLOYDS company also used that sole on their shoes.
The shoe manager at Bloomingdales testified that Bloomingdales never sold oj any BM shoes.
martin II
08-02-2009, 01:02 PM
I haven't looked at the website, I only looked at the list of blood evidence. What testimony is wrong? Do you have an example?
i already posted examples.
martin II
08-02-2009, 01:07 PM
martin, the point is that he didn't go out and get the shoes. They were already in the golf bag. I didn't post the testimony from him that says he packed a yellow shirt and a black shirt. He had two golf outfits with him. Either Bosco is incorrect or Simpson isn't being honest. While I don't believe a lot of things that he says I don't think OJ Simpson had any reason to lie about what clothes he took to play golf in. He said he there was only one day planned for golf but he often stayed over for another day if he could find someone that wanted to play -- I think he mentioned Mike Ditka. That means to me that packing an extra set of golf clothes was something he usually did.
he went and moved the golf bag when park did not see him and it had shoes in it.That does not mean he was not considering which pair to take.
he went and moved the golf bag when park did not see him and it had shoes in it.That does not mean he was not considering which pair to take.
He took both pairs by his own testimony. It's not really worth talking about because it doesn't matter. No person still living (except possibly Jill Shively) saw him between 9:45 PM and the time Alan Park saw him go into the house.
i already posted examples.
If one of the examples is the bloody shoeprint -- there was one tested and it was made in Nicole's blood.
The problem with the foot prints is that no Size 12 BM shoes were ever found or presented in court to match the foot prints. only a expert opinion was given in court. BM was not the only company that used that shoe sole.LLOYDS company also used that sole on their shoes.
The shoe manager at Bloomingdales testified that Bloomingdales never sold oj any BM shoes.
I've always thought it was funny that so many people think that if no one remembers OJ Simpson buying the shoes then it didn't happen. For all you know, Nicole bought the shoes and he didn't like them and that's why he seldom wore them. We know for a fact that he had Bruno Magli's in his possession because there are over 30 photographs from at least two different photographers that prove this.
martin II
08-02-2009, 02:01 PM
Bosco and oj could both be correct,
Bosco said oj went to get black shoes oj said he went and got bag with black shoes in it.
martin II
08-02-2009, 02:04 PM
I've always thought it was funny that so many people think that if no one remembers OJ Simpson buying the shoes then it didn't happen. For all you know, Nicole bought the shoes and he didn't like them and that's why he seldom wore them. We know for a fact that he had Bruno Magli's in his possession because there are over 30 photographs from at least two different photographers that prove this.
The shoe manager handeled all celebrity shoe sales.he would know if nicole purchased shoes for oj and he would have to be there to try them on.the manager sold oj shoes but not BM
The shoe manager handeled all celebrity shoe sales.he would know if nicole purchased shoes for oj and he would have to be there to try them on.the manager sold oj shoes but not BM
Martin, NY isn't the only Bloomies in the country.
hellraiser
08-02-2009, 02:16 PM
I don't know who buys it but they've been hawking this stuff for years. If the defense had thought for one minute that Juditha Brown talked to Nicole at 11:00 they would have been all over it because it would completely exonerate OJ Simpson of the murders. Then there's Ron's hidden court records...more garbage.
i though i've seen all stuff about oj's innocence but i heard of dr. johnson just a week ago i admit.
nevertheless. just the PURE thought makes my skin crawl:
oj spending 10 million of his own money, right? how many days in court? MANY.
if they presented the phone recods on the very first day-there would have been no trial and oj would've walked out acquitted the SAME day he walked in as a defendent.
-johnny cochran knew about this but was told to keep his mouth shut by prosecution and live with it....
i know i just saw that this was already discussed on another topic, but this can not be the truth period.
Hipcheck
08-02-2009, 02:21 PM
The shoe manager handeled all celebrity shoe sales.he would know if nicole purchased shoes for oj and he would have to be there to try them on.the manager sold oj shoes but not BM
Does it really matter where O.J. got his Bruno Magli shoes from?
The only thing that does matter is that we know O.J. owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes from all the photographs showing him wearing them before the murders occured.
The evidence showed a bloody size 12 Bruno Magli shoe print was left at the murder scene at Bundy and a bloody Bruno Magli shoe print was found in the Ford Bronco.
O.J.'s shoe size just happens to be a size 12. GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
martin II
08-02-2009, 03:01 PM
The pictures mean nothing. that expert was only able to give his opinion of what he thought the edge of the sole looked to him and he worked for the prosecution.not proof for me especially since it is so easy to manipulate a picture on a computer. since the prosecution had no BM shoes they tried many slight of hand tricks.
martin II
08-02-2009, 03:08 PM
Does it really matter where O.J. got his Bruno Magli shoes from?
The only thing that does matter is that we know O.J. owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes from all the photographs showing him wearing them before the murders occured.
The evidence showed a bloody size 12 Bruno Magli shoe print was left at the murder scene at Bundy and a bloody Bruno Magli shoe print was found in the Ford Bronco.
O.J.'s shoe size just happens to be a size 12. GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was no shoe print left in the bronco. only a smudge as if something had been swiped on the carpet.
The prosecution thought it was important that they prove that oj purchased the shoes where they were sold. Thats why they went to bloomingdales.
They needed to show that oj purchased the shoes. They needed to put oj in the shoes at bundy. They couldn;T
The pictures were fake but even if oj had on that shoe that is not proof that he was the one that made those footprints at bundy on 6/12. just opinions that he must have and that is not proof.
Hipcheck
08-02-2009, 03:12 PM
The pictures mean nothing. that expert was only able to give his opinion of what he thought the edge of the sole looked to him and he worked for the prosecution.not proof for me especially since it is so easy to manipulate a picture on a computer. since the prosecution had no BM shoes they tried many slight of hand tricks.
The photographs were never entered into evidence at the criminal trial so the persn taking those photos never worked for the prosecution.
It might mean nothing to you but it meant alot to the civil jurors who seen the photos from several different sources of O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes before these murders occured.
martin II
08-02-2009, 03:18 PM
The photographs were never entered into evidence at the criminal trial so the persn taking those photos never worked for the prosecution.
It might mean nothing to you but it meant alot to the civil jurors who seen the photos from several different sources of O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes before these murders occured.
The expert worked for the plaintiff.
even if oj owned a pair of the bm shoe that does not mean that he made footprints on 6/12 at bundy and that is the problem.The photos were manipulated and the expert could only give his opinion from looking at the edge of a sole.That is not proof that oj was at bundy wearing that shoe on 6/12 only guesses and opinions.
martin II
08-02-2009, 03:26 PM
Martin, NY isn't the only Bloomies in the country.
there were none in ca at that time and few stores that sold that shoe.NY was the flagship store and that manager knew which stores he sold the shoes in. OJ always purchased his shoes there this manager always serviced him. i am sure the prosecution checked all the stores through the manager.
martin II
08-02-2009, 03:30 PM
The photographs were never entered into evidence at the criminal trial so the persn taking those photos never worked for the prosecution.
It might mean nothing to you but it meant alot to the civil jurors who seen the photos from several different sources of O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes before these murders occured.
Do you know why park testified that he saw Kato "still standing on the sidewalk" ?
martin II
08-02-2009, 03:40 PM
He took both pairs by his own testimony. It's not really worth talking about because it doesn't matter. No person still living (except possibly Jill Shively) saw him between 9:45 PM and the time Alan Park saw him go into the house.
Shively didn;t know what time she though she saw oj because she said it was 10:45 when she left her house going to the market.to move the golf bag you say the shoes were in.imo
Katos and Parks testimony proves this imo
Many people came to Clarke and told her SHIVELY could not be trusted as she was a court junkie
with a habit of filing court cases for money and publicity and when clarke caught her in some lies Shively was no used as a witness.
martin II
08-02-2009, 04:35 PM
The photographs were never entered into evidence at the criminal trial so the persn taking those photos never worked for the prosecution.
It might mean nothing to you but it meant alot to the civil jurors who seen the photos from several different sources of O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes before these murders occured.
i have no problem with you believing in the pictures.That is your option.
Now all you have to do is put oj in those shoes on 6/12 at 10;40 PM at Bundy to prove that he was there.Without using he must have or i think he was.A witness or a picture would do fine since you believe in pictures.:cool:
martin II
08-02-2009, 04:39 PM
Shively didn;t know what time she though she saw oj because she said it was 10:45 when she left her house going to the market.oj came out of his house to move the golf bag you say the shoes were in.imo
Katos and Parks testimony proves this imo
Many people came to Clarke and told her SHIVELY could not be trusted as she was a court junkie
with a habit of filing court cases for money and publicity and when clarke caught her in some lies Shively was no used as a witness.
Clarke found out that there were holes in SHIVELYS story.
There was no shoe print left in the bronco. only a smudge as if something had been swiped on the carpet.
The prosecution thought it was important that they prove that oj purchased the shoes where they were sold. Thats why they went to bloomingdales.
They needed to show that oj purchased the shoes. They needed to put oj in the shoes at bundy. They couldn;T
The pictures were fake but even if oj had on that shoe that is not proof that he was the one that made those footprints at bundy on 6/12. just opinions that he must have and that is not proof.
The pictures were not fake but if you are convinced they are how do you explain him wearing Bruno Magli's in a picture that was published in the Bill's newsletter seven months before the murders?
Clarke found out that there were holes in SHIVELYS story.
No, she didn't. Marcia Clark thought Jill Shively compromised her testimony because she sold her story and refused to put her on after that.
i have no problem with you believing in the pictures.That is your option.
Now all you have to do is put oj in those shoes on 6/12 at 10;40 PM at Bundy to prove that he was there.Without using he must have or i think he was.A witness or a picture would do fine since you believe in pictures.:cool:
Why did OJ Simpson lie about owning Bruno Magli's? I think there's an obvious answer to that question.
there were none in ca at that time and few stores that sold that shoe.NY was the flagship store and that manager knew which stores he sold the shoes in. OJ always purchased his shoes there this manager always serviced him. i am sure the prosecution checked all the stores through the manager.
Nicole bought gloves at Bloomingdales. There's no reason to think she wouldn't also buy shoes for her husband there and not be recognized as OJ Simpson's wife. Most people like to try on shoes before purchasing them but that might be another reason he didn't wear them often besides not liking the look of them -- maybe they didn't fit well. Nicole herself owned Bruno Magli pumps.
I agree with Hipcheck. What difference does it make where the shoes came from? We know they were in his possession seven months before the murders and then after the murders they were never seen again.
i though i've seen all stuff about oj's innocence but i heard of dr. johnson just a week ago i admit.
nevertheless. just the PURE thought makes my skin crawl:
oj spending 10 million of his own money, right? how many days in court? MANY.
if they presented the phone recods on the very first day-there would have been no trial and oj would've walked out acquitted the SAME day he walked in as a defendent.
-johnny cochran knew about this but was told to keep his mouth shut by prosecution and live with it....
i know i just saw that this was already discussed on another topic, but this can not be the truth period.
Exactly. There's no way the defense would have let this go unchallenged. It's ridiculous for Dr. Johnson and his associates to even try to peddle this load of nonsense. One of Dr. Johnson's minions used to post here but he was banned either for pushing the video or his foul mouth -- not sure which.
martin II
08-02-2009, 07:54 PM
No, she didn't. Marcia Clark thought Jill Shively compromised her testimony because she sold her story and refused to put her on after that.
That was not the only reason.
That was not the only reason.
It wouldn't have matter if she had put her on. The defense would have trashed her reputation and the jury would have stepped right into line and not considered her testimony so it's just as well.
martin II
08-02-2009, 08:12 PM
Nicole bought gloves at Bloomingdales. There's no reason to think she wouldn't also buy shoes for her husband there and not be recognized as OJ Simpson's wife. Most people like to try on shoes before purchasing them but that might be another reason he didn't wear them often besides not liking the look of them -- maybe they didn't fit well. Nicole herself owned Bruno Magli pumps.
I agree with Hipcheck. What difference does it make where the shoes came from? We know they were in his possession seven months before the murders and then after the murders they were never seen again.
oj always baught his own shoes and from the same shoe manager.there is no reason he would not have continued to do so
The shoe manager stated that when oj came to the store he was looking to buy a shoe for his comming NBC work in Buffalo. He testified that he would never sale oj that BM shoe because it was not the shoe to be worn in the buffalo weather. oj baught other shoes.
You can try to creat unreasonable excuses to say someone must have purchassed the shoes for him simply because you don't have the evidence to prove he baught the shoes.But there was no record of a simpson credit card was ever used to purchase THAT BM shoe in any Bloomingdales store.imo
It makes a differance because Bloomingdales is the only place that the shoe could have been purchased and the prosecution knew they had to prove that.
But they couldn:t
Thats why they went to Bloomingdales in the first place.
oj always baught his own shoes and from the same shoe manager.there is no reason he would not have continued to do so
The shoe manager stated that when oj came to the store he was looking to buy a shoe for his comming NBC work in Buffalo. He testified that he would never sale oj that BM shoe because it was not the shoe to be worn in the buffalo weather. oj baught other shoes.
You can try to creat unreasonable excuses to say someone must have purchassed the shoes for him simply because you don't have the evidence to prove he baught the shoes.But there was no record of a simpson credit card was ever used to purchase THAT BM shoe in any Bloomingdales store.imo
It makes a differance because Bloomingdales is the only place that the shoe could have been purchased and the prosecution knew they had to prove that.
But they couldn:t
Thats why they went to Bloomingdales in the first place.
Good grief, martin! There's no way you can know whether or not OJ Simpson personally bought every pair of shoes he owned. What nonsense. The fact is that he was photographed wearing Bruno Magli's before the murders and the photo was published seven months before June 12, 1994. Where are the shoes he's wearing in the photograph? IMO, they're with the murder weapon wherever it might be.
martin II
08-02-2009, 08:16 PM
It wouldn't have matter if she had put her on. The defense would have trashed her reputation and the jury would have stepped right into line and not considered her testimony so it's just as well.
When a case is lost by one side someone has to be unfairly blammed. in this case the mostly black jury is your target.
When a case is lost by one side someone has to be unfairly blammed. in this case the mostly black jury is your target.
I didn't mention the race of any juror. Don't put words in my mouth. Deepwater's admonition is still at the top of the forum.
martin II
08-02-2009, 08:20 PM
Good grief, martin! There's no way you can know whether or not OJ Simpson personally bought every pair of shoes he owned. What nonsense. The fact is that he was photographed wearing Bruno Magli's before the murders and the photo was published seven months before June 12, 1994. Where are the shoes he's wearing in the photograph? IMO, they're with the murder weapon wherever it might be.
Those are the words of the shoe manager at bloomingdales and i take his word before i accept what you think the situation was.
just because you feel strongly about the shoe issue does not make your thoughts fact.
martin II
08-02-2009, 08:25 PM
I didn't mention the race of any juror. Don't put words in my mouth. Deepwater's admonition is still at the top of the forum.
Nothing in my post is in conflict with DW direction. You made a negative comment about the jury, i said the jiury was almost all black and you blame them. i stand by my post.
martin II
08-02-2009, 08:29 PM
I didn't mention the race of any juror. Don't put words in my mouth. Deepwater's admonition is still at the top of the forum.
I have put no word in your mouth. You brought the jury into the discussion with your critical comment about them.A comment that you would never be able to prove.
martin II
08-02-2009, 08:36 PM
Exactly. There's no way the defense would have let this go unchallenged. It's ridiculous for Dr. Johnson and his associates to even try to peddle this load of nonsense. One of Dr. Johnson's minions used to post here but he was banned either for pushing the video or his foul mouth -- not sure which.
Wrong
when the issue of the 11 pm phone call casme out the defence had won the trial as it was over. WTH would they care about what JB said. they were enjoying the big victory.
martin II
08-02-2009, 08:46 PM
He took both pairs by his own testimony. It's not really worth talking about because it doesn't matter. No person still living (except possibly Jill Shively) saw him between 9:45 PM and the time Alan Park saw him go into the house.
At 9;45 OJ and Kato was arriving at the rockingham house so JS did not see him then.hahaha
Hipcheck
08-02-2009, 08:47 PM
A bloody shoe print was found at Bundy which came from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe. O.J. claimed he never owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes but we have numerous photos which say otherwise. O.J.'s shoe size just happens to be size 12.
A hair consistent with O.J.'s hair was found on Ron shirt.
Hair found on the cap found at Bundy was consistent with O.J.'s hair.
A carpet fiber found on the cap found at Bundy was consistent coming from O.J.'s Ford Bronco carpeting.
A carpet fiber found on the glove found at Rockingham was consistent coming from O.J.'s Ford Bronco carpeting.
Add that to all of the blood evidence tells most that O.J. is a double murderer.
Nothing in my post is in conflict with DW direction. You made a negative comment about the jury, i said the jiury was almost all black and you blame them. i stand by my post.
I didn't mention their race and it was unfair of you to decide that's what I meant. It's statements like this that cause tension on the board.
I have put no word in your mouth. You brought the jury into the discussion with your critical comment about them.A comment that you would never be able to prove.
Yes, you have. I am allowed to criticize the jury -- their color wasn't mentioned.
Those are the words of the shoe manager at bloomingdales and i take his word before i accept what you think the situation was.
just because you feel strongly about the shoe issue does not make your thoughts fact.
I doubt very seriously if the shoe manager at Bloomingdale's knows everything about OJ Simpson's footwear choices. That's silly to even suggest.
Wrong
when the issue of the 11 pm phone call casme out the defence had won the trial as it was over. WTH would they care about what JB said. they were enjoying the big victory.
Most people still believe that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. He's never been able to regain his former image which is very important to him. If his attorney's had thought Dr. Johnson had one ounce of credibility when he approached them they would have jumped on it but they didn't. As I recall, Big Ben called OJ Simpson a 'fool' and and said he wasn't interested in their information.
A bloody shoe print was found at Bundy which came from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe. O.J. claimed he never owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes but we have numerous photos which say otherwise. O.J.'s shoe size just happens to be size 12.
A hair consistent with O.J.'s hair was found on Ron shirt.
Hair found on the cap found at Bundy was consistent with O.J.'s hair.
A carpet fiber found on the cap found at Bundy was consistent coming from O.J.'s Ford Bronco carpeting.
A carpet fiber found on the glove found at Rockingham was consistent coming from O.J.'s Ford Bronco carpeting.
Add that to all of the blood evidence tells most that O.J. is a double murderer.
There's a huge amount of evidence that proves he's a double-murderer but now martin has pulled out the race card to distract us from all that -- it's the Johnnie Cochran maneuver.
martin II
08-02-2009, 10:32 PM
A bloody shoe print was found at Bundy which came from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe. O.J. claimed he never owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes but we have numerous photos which say otherwise. O.J.'s shoe size just happens to be size 12.
A hair consistent with O.J.'s hair was found on Ron shirt.
Hair found on the cap found at Bundy was consistent with O.J.'s hair.hair that was consistant is not proof beyond a doubt.
A carpet fiber found on the cap found at Bundy was consistent coming from O.J.'s Ford Bronco carpeting.can you please post a link t0 testimony proving your claim.
A carpet fiber found on the glove found at Rockingham was consistent coming from O.J.'s Ford Bronco carpeting.consistant is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Add that to all of the blood evidence tells most that O.J. is a double murderer.
You must be willing to ignore the AM OJ samples that were switched in the lab.
martin II
08-02-2009, 10:37 PM
There's a huge amount of evidence that proves he's a double-murderer but now martin has pulled out the race card to distract us from all that -- it's the Johnnie Cochran maneuver.
No race card. you as you often times blame the jury for the prosecutions blunders.You critized the jury. i stated that you want to blame the mostly black jury. That is a fact the jury was mostly black.if you are distracted by my post so be it.Stop making false accusations against me.
martin II
08-02-2009, 10:44 PM
I doubt very seriously if the shoe manager at Bloomingdale's knows everything about OJ Simpson's footwear choices. That's silly to even suggest.
According the bloomingdales oj purchased his shoes there.I think they would be in a position to know the facts better than you that know nothing on the subject of where he purchased shoes or the kind he purchased. There is a sales history to back up the celebrity sales managers cdlaims. none to back up what you think is the case.
you are makinh up a lot of stuff because there is no proof of oj ever purchasing that shoe anyplace.
martin II
08-02-2009, 10:48 PM
Most people still believe that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. He's never been able to regain his former image which is very important to him. If his attorney's had thought Dr. Johnson had one ounce of credibility when he approached them they would have jumped on it but they didn't. As I recall, Big Ben called OJ Simpson a 'fool' and and said he wasn't interested in their information.
What matters is the criminal trial verdict not what you think most people think.most people were not on the jury.
Hipcheck
08-02-2009, 10:49 PM
You must be willing to ignore the AM OJ samples that were switched in the lab.
There were never any samples that were switched in the lab.
What about the Bronco fibers and hair evidence? Do you think those items were planted?
The civil jury heard about the Bruno Magli shoes and also got to here from O.J. and they were 100% convinced that he murdered Nicole and Ron.
martin II
08-02-2009, 10:54 PM
Yes, you have. I am allowed to criticize the jury -- their color wasn't mentioned.
You are allowed to criticize the jury, the defence lawyers and anyone else.i am allowed to note the jury was black. if that upsets you in any way just ignore my post.
The fact is that most people blamed the prosecution for claiming they had a mountain of evidence when they only had a bunch of claims that they were not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law.
Hipcheck
08-02-2009, 10:55 PM
you are makinh up a lot of stuff because there is no proof of oj ever purchasing that shoe anyplace.
Talk about calling the kettle black.
We have many, many photos of O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes. If he didn't buy them from Bloomingdales then common sense tells you he bought them from some place else.
martin II
08-02-2009, 10:58 PM
There were never any samples that were switched in the lab.
What about the Bronco fibers and hair evidence? Do you think those items were planted?
The civil jury heard about the Bruno Magli shoes and also got to here from O.J. and they were 100% convinced that he murdered Nicole and Ron.
I suggest again that you read trial testimony so that you can understand the facts of the case.
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:03 PM
Talk about calling the kettle black.
We have many, many photos of O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes. If he didn't buy them from Bloomingdales then common sense tells you he bought them from some place else.
Your post proves that you are not very informed with the facts of the case. The BM shoes were only sold by Bloomingdales so common sense tell you that he could not have baught them some place else as you think. Read the testimony.
You are allowed to criticize the jury, the defence lawyers and anyone else.i am allowed to note the jury was black. if that upsets you in any way just ignore my post.
The fact is that most people blamed the prosecution for claiming they had a mountain of evidence when they only had a bunch of claims that they were not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law.
You can try to say you weren't accusing me of saying the jury found OJ Simpson not guilty because it was mostly black but anyone reading your post knows exactly what you were saying. If what I said about the jury falling in line with Johnnie Cochran upsets you in any way you're also free to ignore my post.
'Most people' didn't blame the prosecution for not proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Most people that believe in the guilt of OJS criticize the prosecution for underestimating the dirty tactics of the defense.
Your post proves that you are not very informed with the facts of the case. The BM shoes were only sold by Bloomingdales so common sense tell you that he could not have baught them some place else as you think. Read the testimony.
Hipcheck posted the truth -- there are many pictures of OJ Simpson wearing the Bruno Maglis and it's in the civil trial testimony.
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:10 PM
There were never any samples that were switched in the lab.
What about the Bronco fibers and hair evidence? Do you think those items were planted?
The civil jury heard about the Bruno Magli shoes and also got to here from O.J. and they were 100% convinced that he murdered Nicole and Ron.
It may be that you don't understand the issue of the AM samples.
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:13 PM
Hipcheck posted the truth -- there are many pictures of OJ Simpson wearing the Bruno Maglis and it's in the civil trial testimony.
The pictures were manipulated and they do not put oj in any BM shoes on 6/12 at Bundy. Just your opinion and that is not proof.
You must be willing to ignore the AM OJ samples that were switched in the lab.
Not one shred of proof.
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:16 PM
You keep saying this to Hipcheck when there are posters here that tell one lie after another and make things up as they go and you don't make a peep. :rolleyes:
I comment on what i think is important. i don't know who you are referring to that post one lie after another.
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:21 PM
Hipcheck posted the truth -- there are many pictures of OJ Simpson wearing the Bruno Maglis and it's in the civil trial testimony.
Where could oj purchase BM shoes from if not at Bloominmgdales as hipcheck claims?
The pictures were manipulated and they do not put oj in any BM shoes on 6/12 at Bundy. Just your opinion and that is not proof.
You keep ignoring the picture in the Bill's newletter seven months before the murders. They were taken by fans at the Bill's game.
The plantiff's photo expert in the civil trial was Jerry Richards, 23 year veteran of the FBI and had been chief of the FBI's questioned documents examination unit. He was an expert in forensic photography which he taught at George Washington University, twice past president of the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, member of the Evidence Photography International Council, member of the Photographic Historic Society; writer of numerous published articles, including "Applications of Electronic Video Techniques to Infrared and Ultraviolet Examinations."
The defense 'expert' gave tours of Dealey Plaza complete with simulated gunfire.
Where could oj purchase BM shoes from if not at Bloominmgdales as hipcheck claims?
I don't really know but the important thing is that a photograph of him wearing Bruno Magli's was published in the Bill's newsletter seven months before the murders.
I comment on what i think is important. i don't know who you are referring to that post one lie after another.
Trying to get me to name who I'm talking about isn't going to work. :)
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:27 PM
You can try to say you weren't accusing me of saying the jury found OJ Simpson not guilty because it was mostly black but anyone reading your post knows exactly what you were saying. If what I said about the jury falling in line with Johnnie Cochran upsets you in any way you're also free to ignore my post.
'Most people' didn't blame the prosecution for not proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Most people that believe in the guilt of OJS criticize the prosecution for underestimating the dirty tactics of the defense.
your attack on the jury did not up set me at all. i am use to it because i understand that someone has to be attacked after that big loss. Too many people are not able to have faith in the cjs when they do not get a verdict that they like. Your attack should be aimed at the prosecution they lost the case not the jury.But i understand.
your attack on the jury did not up set me at all. i am use to it because i understand that someone has to be attacked after that big loss. Too many people are not able to have faith in the cjs when they do not get a verdict that they like. Your attack should be aimed at the prosecution they lost the case not the jury.But i understand.
It wasn't an attack -- it was an opinion just like you express your opinions. You're always attacking Petrocelli because you don't like the civil verdict but I guess that's okay.
GreenIce
08-02-2009, 11:29 PM
he went and moved the golf bag when park did not see him and it had shoes in it.That does not mean he was not considering which pair to take.
Martin,
Just to be clear, it was Pat McKenna who relayed this to Joe Bosco. That Simpson went out twice, he put his clubs and some luggage out and that he remembered that his black golf shoes were in the Bentley. After he got the shoes, is when he went back into the house to get his suit bag and his shoulder bag and finished getting dressed.
However, IMO, insisting that OJ Simpson was not home was another mistake the DA's made. They did not need Alan Park's testimony to prove anything other then what time he left for the airport. By forcing Park to remember and see things that he couldn't have seen, that also hurt their case, IMO.
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:30 PM
Trying to get me to name who I'm talking about isn't going to work. :)
i have no interest in who you are attacking and have not asked you to name anyone. Exactly why did you bring this up again any way?
i have no interest in who you are attacking and have not asked you to name anyone. Exactly why did you bring this up again any way?
You made the comment that I attacked the jury. If you have no interest in what I post don't respond. I really don't care if you never respond to me again. :shrug:
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:43 PM
Martin,
Just to be clear, it was Pat McKenna who relayed this to Joe Bosco. That Simpson went out twice, he put his clubs and some luggage out and that he remembered that his black golf shoes were in the Bentley. After he got the shoes, is when he went back into the house to get his suit bag and his shoulder bag and finished getting dressed.
However, IMO, insisting that OJ Simpson was not home was another mistake the DA's made. They did not need Alan Park's testimony to prove anything other then what time he left for the airport. By forcing Park to remember and see things that he couldn't have seen, that also hurt their case, IMO.
GI
I have no problem with Boscos claim. it makes sence to me and i trust
Bosco.
When oj came down stairs and put the ctwo duffle bags on his front porch Park was at Ashford and did not see him come out. After oj moved the golf bag to the bench on the front porch. he turned to walk back into his house and this is when Park saw him entering his house.OJ was in his house when park arrived at the house.
Park testified to things that he could not see from the Ashford gate. this was the results of Clarke trying to manipulate his testimony.The jury realized this and this is why they asked for the Park readback before voting not guilty. they knew he lied.
martin II
08-02-2009, 11:46 PM
You made the comment that I attacked the jury. If you have no interest in what I post don't respond. I really don't care if you never respond to me again. :shrug:
i said i have no interest in who you are attacking now. i mean the person you say is telling lies after lies.
i said i have no interest in who you are attacking now. i mean the person you say is telling lies after lies.
Then stop talking about it.
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 12:20 AM
GI
I have no problem with Boscos claim. it makes sence to me and i trust
Bosco.
When oj came down stairs and put the ctwo duffle bags on his front porch Park was at Ashford and did not see him come out. After oj moved the golf bag to the bench on the front porch. he turned to walk back into his house and this is when Park saw him entering his house.OJ was in his house when park arrived at the house.
Park testified to things that he could not see from the Ashford gate. this was the results of Clarke trying to manipulate his testimony.The jury realized this and this is why they asked for the Park readback before voting not guilty. they knew he lied.
Martin,
Just wanted to be clear.
The DA's promoted the murder time to be 10:15 p.m. Had they stuck to that timeline, they wouldn't have needed Park because it would have only made sense that Simpson would have been inside his house, he was doing everything that he normally did when he prepared for a trip and it would have made sense that he did take the murder clothes and shoes with him.
Also, why would Simpson make it look like he wasn't home? That makes no sense.
IMO, they should have dropped the Rockingham glove. Enough was released to let this glove "float", like the Bronco chase. Use it without really using it in the trial. IMO, they tried to prove things they couldn't.
In Bosco's book, he claims that Park did change his story about not seeing the Bronco when he drove up. However, he should have seen the Bronco when he left the estate. By using Park, they only highlighted about things he thought he saw and later, a jury visit to Rockingham would prove that he couldn't have seen the stuff he claimed to or didn't see stuff that he should have.
Just to be clear, I do not think that Park was lying, I think he was mistaken. However, I do believe his mother knew the implications of her son's testimony and, IMO, she should not have been advocate for the DA's. Again, IMO.
fgump2
08-03-2009, 12:28 AM
The pictures mean nothing. that expert was only able to give his opinion of what he thought the edge of the sole looked to him and he worked for the prosecution.not proof for me especially since it is so easy to manipulate a picture on a computer. since the prosecution had no BM shoes they tried many slight of hand tricks.
What slight of hand tricks are you referring to? Also one of the photos of OJS in the Bruno shoes was printed in a newsletter before the murders.
Forensic photography analysis has continually improved since the 1997 civil trial. I think it is reasonable to assume that if the photos were faked with 1997 techniques, they could be proved to be fakes by 2009 techniques.
In any case the fact is that the killer used a nearly new pair of suede shoes that hadn't been sold for more than a year before the murders. This would suggest a rich man, or at least a well off man. The shoes cost about $160 in 1992 money. I am guessing that in 1992 most men who bought $160 sued shoes would have been wealthy.
The owner of the shoes bought them, and then rarely used them for more than a year. A person of average wealth would have used older and cheaper shoes if they were thinking of committing a crime.
I think that the soles were used only for Bruno Maglis. In any case the soles were quite unusual when the FBI checked for the sole prints. Japan was the only country with law enforcement records of these soles. So even if there was another type of shoe that used this sole, it was an unusual sole. The fact that there is photofraphic evidence of Mr. Simpson wearing gloves like the murder gloves and shoes like the murder shoes are coincidences that we should not ignore.
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 12:35 AM
Your post proves that you are not very informed with the facts of the case. The BM shoes were only sold by Bloomingdales so common sense tell you that he could not have baught them some place else as you think. Read the testimony.
Martin,
Some interesting points. I believe 299 pairs of these type of shoes were sold and I believe that most of them were traced to the people who bought them. Obviously, none to OJ Simpson but what are the facts surrounding these other purchases? Where did these people live? Where did they buy their shoes?
Also, what colors did these shoes come in?
I have several problems with the pictures, but I am pretty sure in Darden's book he says how much time was spent was looking for pictures with Simpson's feet showing. I think he also said a lot of time was spent in Buffalo reviewing pictures looking for these types of pictures--he said they found none. I believe by specifically mentioning Buffalo, he knew about the pictures. Hank Goldman made a interesting comment during a call in on Court TV about the pictures. He made the comment, IIRC, had they had this picture, they would not have used because of the circumstances surrounding it, I can't remember the exact circumstances.
Also, the DA's said they received tons of pictures showing Simpson wearing gloves but none of OJ with his feet showing. If this is the case, then how can so many people not come forward with pictures showing Simpson's feet?
IMO, it makes no sense that any company who wants to make money would only agree to do business with one major store. I understand how it could be limited to one store in one city, but every city in the USA?
Last comment, only one crime bank had these shoes on file, in this was in Japan.
What I also find interesting, it appears that the DA's did not research Simpson's receipts or his clothing allowance from NBC. As we know, stations do have "official' clothing that their employees must wear.
IMO, just another question to ponder.
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 12:45 AM
What slight of hand tricks are you referring to? Also one of the photos of OJS in the Bruno shoes was printed in a newsletter before the murders.
Forensic photography analysis has continually improved since the 1997 civil trial. I think it is reasonable to assume that if the photos were faked with 1997 techniques, they could be proved to be fakes by 2009 techniques.
In any case the fact is that the killer used a nearly new pair of suede shoes that hadn't been sold for more than a year before the murders. This would suggest a rich man, or at least a well off man. The shoes cost about $160 in 1992 money. I am guessing that in 1992 most men who bought $160 sued shoes would have been wealthy.
The owner of the shoes bought them, and then rarely used them for more than a year. A person of average wealth would have used older and cheaper shoes if they were thinking of committing a crime.
I think that the soles were used only for Bruno Maglis. In any case the soles were quite unusual when the FBI checked for the sole prints. Japan was the only country with law enforcement records of these soles. So even if there was another type of shoe that used this sole, it was an unusual sole. The fact that there is photofraphic evidence of Mr. Simpson wearing gloves like the murder gloves and shoes like the murder shoes are coincidences that we should not ignore.
fgump2,
IMO, you are overlooking a very important fact, pictures would not be needed to identify the murder gloves. A picture of the glove itself does not reflect the size, the model number, the lost number or the exact shade of color. The gloves were identified by sight only. There were no tags or other information on the glove that proved this.
While I disagree with you about only wealthy person could buy those shoes, does not mean only Simpson was able to afford them--I would assume many people who have chosen crime as their career can afford nice and expensive stuff as well.
The plaintiffs' expert testified that photos can be faked and could fool the best experts. While he did not believe that happened in this case, he said it is very possible. Some one with enough money and the right equipment would do this.
The fact that these pictures were sold to the NE as well as being 'verified' in England, IMO, poses fair questions. The person who "verified" them in England, never took the stand. Why take the picture of out the country for verification?
bobaugust
08-03-2009, 06:17 AM
i have seen 4-5 lies. you need to read it again.
There was no bronco fibers found on rons shirt.
There was no bronco fibers found on the cap.
ETC
I read this web site over a year ago and realized it was a group of biased lies and opinions.believe it if you like.
Yes there was one “unusual“ x-shaped” fiber consistent with the Bronco carpeting found on the knit hat.
bobaugust
bobaugust
08-03-2009, 06:17 AM
first of all i never read anything about blood being on a wire.
months after the trial one bent wire was found on the fence which some thought was bent by a photograpoher standing on nthe fence taking pictures.
The photograph taken of the bloody glove on the south path at Rockingham was not taken by a photographer standing on the fence. The photographer was standing on the south path.
http://bobaugust.com/bluepackage.jpg
bobaugust
bobaugust
08-03-2009, 06:18 AM
The site does mention that when Park drove to the front door he saw two duffle bags that oj had just brought down stairs from his house. He could not have done this unless he was in his house when park was at the ashford gate.
Simpson could very well have put the two bags on his front porch before he left Rockingham to go to Bundy.
bobaugust
bobaugust
08-03-2009, 06:19 AM
When park was at ashford oj was in his house.OJ cane down stairs and put two duffle bags on his front porch. He then moved the golf bag to the bencg at the front door. When he turned to reenter his house park saw him go back in.Park saw the two duffle bags at the front door when he drove in after kato opened the gate. after oj finished his shower he heard park ring the bell but he was on his way down stairs.
Park also missed seeing kato walk to the garage area on his first trip which indicates that kato heard the noise at 10:45 as he testified to.
The site fails to mention any of this testimony.
i don't know about oj getting any black golf shoes.
The evidence in this case is that Park first saw Simpson that night when Simpson came from his driveway into the front entrance of his house after returning from Bundy. Your comments are based on Simpson’s unsubstantiated civil trial testimony and unsubstantiated estimated times by Kato Kaelin who testified he never looked at a clock.
bobaugust
martin II
08-03-2009, 06:19 AM
I didn't mention their race and it was unfair of you to decide that's what I meant. It's statements like this that cause tension on the board.
tv
I have not decide anything for you and have not indicated that you mean anything other than you frequently blame the jury for the prosecutions failure to prove their case beyond a reasonable doutbt.
i have also stated that i am not interested in any attacks you want to make against any poster that you say tell lies after lies as that is what causes tensions on the thread.
bobaugust
08-03-2009, 06:19 AM
Do you know why park testified that he saw Kato "still standing on the sidewalk" ?
Park testified that after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on in the downstairs windows Kaelin was still standing on the Ashford sidewalk having come from behind the house and down the Ashford path. That was the last time Park was aware of Kaelin until he saw him a couple of minutes later when Kaelin returned from his first trip to the behind the garage and opened the gate to let Park onto the estate.
bobaugust
martin II
08-03-2009, 06:25 AM
You keep ignoring the picture in the Bill's newletter seven months before the murders. They were taken by fans at the Bill's game.
The plantiff's photo expert in the civil trial was Jerry Richards, 23 year veteran of the FBI and had been chief of the FBI's questioned documents examination unit. He was an expert in forensic photography which he taught at George Washington University, twice past president of the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, member of the Evidence Photography International Council, member of the Photographic Historic Society; writer of numerous published articles, including "Applications of Electronic Video Techniques to Infrared and Ultraviolet Examinations."
The defense 'expert' gave tours of Dealey Plaza complete with simulated gunfire.
I agree that we dissagree on the issues of the pictures.no problem.
martin II
08-03-2009, 06:28 AM
Simpson could very well have put the two bags on his front porch before he left Rockingham to go to Bundy.
bobaugust
very well does not prove that he did.i am sure you know that.
martin II
08-03-2009, 06:30 AM
Park testified that after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on in the downstairs windows Kaelin was still standing on the Ashford sidewalk having come from behind the house and down the Ashford path. That was the last time Park was aware of Kaelin until he saw him a couple of minutes later when Kaelin returned from his first trip to the behind the garage and opened the gate to let Park onto the estate.
bobaugust
Park testified that he saw Kato 'STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK' i am sure you know that.
martin II
08-03-2009, 06:40 AM
Martin,
Just to be clear, it was Pat McKenna who relayed this to Joe Bosco. That Simpson went out twice, he put his clubs and some luggage out and that he remembered that his black golf shoes were in the Bentley. After he got the shoes, is when he went back into the house to get his suit bag and his shoulder bag and finished getting dressed.
However, IMO, insisting that OJ Simpson was not home was another mistake the DA's made. They did not need Alan Park's testimony to prove anything other then what time he left for the airport. By forcing Park to remember and see things that he couldn't have seen, that also hurt their case, IMO.
gi
i think that Park was over rehearsed by the prosecution and maby his mother and this caused him to become confused in some of his testimony.i see no other reason why he would change his testimony as much as he did and say he saw things that he must have known were not accurate.
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 06:40 AM
Simpson could very well have put the two bags on his front porch before he left Rockingham to go to Bundy.
bobaugust
Mr. August,
Your post makes no sense because if Simpson did as you suggested, then he was trying to give the appearance that he was still home and therefore, would have made sure that he left other "signs" he was inside the house.
You also forget that he did not know that he was going to have a new driver. Dale St. John let himself inside the gates and started to load Simpson's luggage and clubs.
So you now what us to believe that Simpson, knowing all of this was going to use his front door as his only entrance into the house at Rockingham?
There is no way that Park could not have seen the Bronco when he left for the airport. You also forget that Park insisted he saw another car in the driveway when there was not another car in the driverway accept for Simpson's Bentley.
Bottom line, Park's recollection is a total wash because of this. IMO.
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 06:45 AM
gi
i think that Park was over rehearsed by the prosecution and maby his mother and this caused him to become confused in some of his testimony.i see no other reason why he would change his testimony as much as he did and say he saw things that he must have known were not accurate.
Martin,
Dale St. John and Simpson had their routine down pat. If I am understanding your posts correctly, Park did see Simpson's luggage in the driveway, correct?
Did Park ever tell Dale or his mother for that matter that he saw this luggage?
Did Dale ask him if he saw any luggage or clubs in the driveway? I would think his seeing the luggage would have been a pretty good indicator that Simpson was going to be taking the limo.
The information regarding the routine of Simpson's and Dale's routine came from Joe Bosco's book. I wonder if that is why Dale St. John never testified for the DA's. There was nothing unusal about Simpson's behavior that night.
martin II
08-03-2009, 06:50 AM
You keep ignoring the picture in the Bill's newletter seven months before the murders. They were taken by fans at the Bill's game.
The plantiff's photo expert in the civil trial was Jerry Richards, 23 year veteran of the FBI and had been chief of the FBI's questioned documents examination unit. He was an expert in forensic photography which he taught at George Washington University, twice past president of the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, member of the Evidence Photography International Council, member of the Photographic Historic Society; writer of numerous published articles, including "Applications of Electronic Video Techniques to Infrared and Ultraviolet Examinations."
The defense 'expert' gave tours of Dealey Plaza complete with simulated gunfire.
Another FBI expert testified for the prosecution and he tried very hard to help the prosecution support their claims and it turned out that his testimony
was not accurate. Martz was his name. So much for FBI experts. The FBI photo expert worked for the plaintiffs.
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 06:51 AM
gi
i think that Park was over rehearsed by the prosecution and maby his mother and this caused him to become confused in some of his testimony.i see no other reason why he would change his testimony as much as he did and say he saw things that he must have known were not accurate.
Martin,
I agree with you and I think that was a huge mistake on the DA's part. Even if Park did see the Bronco when he pulled up, then what changes? So what if Park saw him enter his house, if the evidence at Bundy was so strong, then they didn't need Park.
IMO, they spent way too much time trying to convince witnesses of what they thought they saw or didn't see, what they thought they heard or didn't hear.
martin II
08-03-2009, 06:57 AM
Martin,
I agree with you and I think that was a huge mistake on the DA's part. Even if Park did see the Bronco when he pulled up, then what changes? So what if Park saw him enter his house, if the evidence at Bundy was so strong, then they didn't need Park.
IMO, they spent way too much time trying to convince witnesses of what they thought they saw or didn't see, what they thought they heard or didn't hear.
The prosecution had park testify that he constantly rang the buzzer as if that meant oj was not at home but had absolutely no answer as to how oj was able to bring the two duffle bags down stairs if he was not in his house
taking a shower when park rang the bell.
martin II
08-03-2009, 07:06 AM
Martin,
Dale St. John and Simpson had their routine down pat. If I am understanding your posts correctly, Park did see Simpson's luggage in the driveway, correct?
Did Park ever tell Dale or his mother for that matter that he saw this luggage?
Did Dale ask him if he saw any luggage or clubs in the driveway? I would think his seeing the luggage would have been a pretty good indicator that Simpson was going to be taking the limo.
The information regarding the routine of Simpson's and Dale's routine came from Joe Bosco's book. I wonder if that is why Dale St. John never testified for the DA's. There was nothing unusal about Simpson's behavior that night.
yes
when Kato opened the gate to asllow park to enter the property,Park drove up to the front door and immediately saw the luggage that oj had just brought down from inside his house. This proved that oj was in his house when park was ringing the buzzer.
when oj re entered his house he went to the special gate buzzer phone and spoke to park.
Dale never asked Park if he saw any luggage before he drove to the front door.
martin II
08-03-2009, 07:09 AM
Martin,
Dale St. John and Simpson had their routine down pat. If I am understanding your posts correctly, Park did see Simpson's luggage in the driveway, correct?
Did Park ever tell Dale or his mother for that matter that he saw this luggage?
Did Dale ask him if he saw any luggage or clubs in the driveway? I would think his seeing the luggage would have been a pretty good indicator that Simpson was going to be taking the limo.
The information regarding the routine of Simpson's and Dale's routine came from Joe Bosco's book. I wonder if that is why Dale St. John never testified for the DA's. There was nothing unusal about Simpson's behavior that night.
no
park saw the luggage on ojs front porch when he drove up to the front door.
not in the driveway.
martin II
08-03-2009, 08:18 AM
Martin,
I agree with you and I think that was a huge mistake on the DA's part. Even if Park did see the Bronco when he pulled up, then what changes? So what if Park saw him enter his house, if the evidence at Bundy was so strong, then they didn't need Park.
IMO, they spent way too much time trying to convince witnesses of what they thought they saw or didn't see, what they thought they heard or didn't hear.
The prosecution knew that their blood evidence was very weak.Thats why they spent months talking about dna
Kate Sachel
08-03-2009, 09:01 AM
The pictures were not fake but if you are convinced they are how do you explain him wearing Bruno Magli's in a picture that was published in the Bill's newsletter seven months before the murders?
An interesting point on the shoes is that I have seen numerous argument that the shoes were never sold to OJ Simpson by the manager at Bloomingdale's. However, OJ by his own admission owned countless pairs of shoes that he did not purchase himself.
That being said, I don't believe that a manager's denial of selling said shoes to OJ Simpson is the end all of this topic.
Kate
tv
I have not decide anything for you and have not indicated that you mean anything other than you frequently blame the jury for the prosecutions failure to prove their case beyond a reasonable doutbt.
i have also stated that i am not interested in any attacks you want to make against any poster that you say tell lies after lies as that is what causes tensions on the thread.
You're commenting on a post I made at 8:51 last night. You keep saying you're not interested so stop bringing it up. It's on the board for everyone to see that you accused me of racism. I let it go last night -- please do the same.
An interesting point on the shoes is that I have seen numerous argument that the shoes were never sold to OJ Simpson by the manager at Bloomingdale's. However, OJ by his own admission owned countless pairs of shoes that he did not purchase himself.
That being said, I don't believe that a manager's denial of selling said shoes to OJ Simpson is the end all of this topic.
Kate
Thank you, Kate. That's my point. It would have been nice if someone remembered him purchasing the Bruno Magli's but even if they didn't I don't find that compelling evidence that he didn't own them.
The prosecution knew that their blood evidence was very weak.Thats why they spent months talking about dna
They spent months talking about DNA because they were trying to educate the jury on it. The DNA evidence was extremely strong in this case.
Another FBI expert testified for the prosecution and he tried very hard to help the prosecution support their claims and it turned out that his testimony
was not accurate. Martz was his name. So much for FBI experts. The FBI photo expert worked for the plaintiffs.
The FBI photo expert for the plaintiffs had an impeccable reputation and extensive experience in his field. You still haven't addressed the picture that was published in the Bill's newsletter seven months before the murders which showed OJ Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli's.
The Boys
08-03-2009, 01:12 PM
Some times people that did not follow the trial that had biasses against the defence read and believe gossip web sites.
Oh dude, your so biased it almost borders on hysteria. If your going to be as biased as you are at least be honest about you are ... even though we've all already figured it out;):eek:
The Boys
08-03-2009, 01:15 PM
gi
i think that Park was over rehearsed by the prosecution and maby his mother and this caused him to become confused in some of his testimony.i see no other reason why he would change his testimony as much as he did and say he saw things that he must have known were not accurate.
Coached by his mother? Oh LOL! You write fan letters to your boy Simpson in the pen don't you?
martin II
08-03-2009, 01:35 PM
Thank you, Kate. That's my point. It would have been nice if someone remembered him purchasing the Bruno Magli's but even if they didn't I don't find that compelling evidence that he didn't own them.
Reebok gave oj 1 or 2 dozen sneakers per year as promotion items. these were sneakers not high top boots or regular shoes. BM never gave oj any shoes and the only place he could have purchased them was at the few Bloomingdale stores that sold them.
The FBI expert went to bloomingdales and all the way to Italy looking for a lead to try to prove oj was connected to that shoe.They found nothing not even a sample BM shoe.
OJ purchased his shoes at BLOOMINGDALES usually when he was in New York Doing his NBC work and there was sales history of him doing so.
If oj had purchased that shoe it would have been at that store and the store said he never did so it is not possible that anyone else could have ever come foward and said he did.
Seems like some may be trying to get blood out of a turnip on this issue.
martin II
08-03-2009, 01:38 PM
The FBI photo expert for the plaintiffs had an impeccable reputation and extensive experience in his field. You still haven't addressed the picture that was published in the Bill's newsletter seven months before the murders which showed OJ Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli's.
i think the pictures were mamipulated you believe them.
weezer
08-03-2009, 01:39 PM
dadgummit -- the oral arguments were podcast and I missed them!
martin II
08-03-2009, 01:41 PM
They spent months talking about DNA because they were trying to educate the jury on it. The DNA evidence was extremely strong in this case.
They spent months talking about DNA because B Schack and others were showing the courtroom that the prosecutions DNA evidence could not be trusted.
i think the pictures were mamipulated you believe them.
The photo that appeared in the Bill's newsletter seven months before the murders shows OJ Simpson wearing Bruno Magli's. You believe that picture was manipulated? :D
They spent months talking about DNA because B Schack and others were showing the courtroom that the prosecutions DNA evidence could not be trusted.
Scheck and others as you call them told lies and made up conspiracy theories. The jury fell right into line with what Johnnie Cochran told them they should do.
dadgummit -- the oral arguments were podcast and I missed them!
When is the decision expected?
weezer
08-03-2009, 03:28 PM
When is the decision expected?
I don't know -- I'm sure not soon enough for orenthal -- he doesn't like to do
lock-up. ;)
I don't know -- I'm sure not soon enough for orenthal -- he doesn't like to do
lock-up. ;)
I guess he never heard 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time'. ;) Seriously, it won't suprise me if he gets out.
weezer
08-03-2009, 03:40 PM
I guess he never heard 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time'. ;) Seriously, it won't suprise me if he gets out.
really? I cannot imagine the justices willing to let him roam free based on his history.
domestic abuse
double murder
road rage
housing a drug dealer
stealing cable
domestic abuse calls from girlfriend
911 call from youngest daughter
911 call from arnelle regarding her smackdown of orenthal
martin II
08-03-2009, 03:41 PM
The photo that appeared in the Bill's newsletter seven months before the murders shows OJ Simpson wearing Bruno Magli's. You believe that picture was manipulated? :D
Wearing what looked like BM to you. easily manipulated by any computer savy graphic artist.A graphic artist could exchange BM shoes for sandels.
GEES
Wearing what looked like BM to you. easily manipulated by any computer savy graphic artist.A graphic artist could exchange BM shoes for sandels.
GEES
The newsletter was published and distributed seven months before the murders. There are many copies in the possession of many different people. Do you really believe they found every copy and manipulated the photograph? Good grief, how do you post this with a straight face?
really? I cannot imagine the justices willing to let him roam free based on his history.
domestic abuse
double murder
road rage
housing a drug dealer
stealing cable
domestic abuse calls from girlfriend
911 call from youngest daughter
911 call from arnelle regarding her smackdown of orenthal
I agree his criminal history is extensive but just the fact that they granted a hearing is highly unusual. Look at it this way, if he does get out on appeal he won't be able to behave. We'll have all kinds of things comment on. ;)
weezer
08-03-2009, 04:03 PM
I agree his criminal history is extensive but just the fact that they granted a hearing is highly unusual. Look at it this way, if he does get out on appeal he won't be able to behave. We'll have all kinds of things comment on. ;)
ha -- I hadn't thought of that. guess it's a win/win for us! :eek::tongue:
ha -- I hadn't thought of that. guess it's a win/win for us! :eek::tongue:
Of course! :D
weezer
08-03-2009, 04:13 PM
Of course! :D
okay -- finally found the audio from today's hearing.
okay -- finally found the audio from today's hearing.
I'm listening -- Yale Galenter is pleading his little heart out. I feel a tear coming to my eye.
weezer
08-03-2009, 04:29 PM
I'm listening -- Yale Galenter is pleading his little heart out. I feel a tear coming to my eye.
galanter thinks orenthal should be free because he's 'the most recognizable' person? Ha
galanter thinks orenthal should be free because he's 'the most recognizable' person? Ha
Have they forgotten the disguise from 1994? ;)
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 05:07 PM
Coached by his mother? Oh LOL! You write fan letters to your boy Simpson in the pen don't you?
The Boys,
Alan Park's mother is a criminal defense lawyer. She sat at the Prosecution's table while he son testified. His testimony changed from one hearing to another. Mr. Park was very reliant on his mother.
In fact, in Marcia Clark's book, she describes just how his mother did in fact coach her son, she, Clark, just took advantage of it and relived her self of being blamed for this.
weezer
08-03-2009, 05:09 PM
The Boys,
Alan Park's mother is a criminal defense lawyer. She sat at the Prosecution's table while he son testified. His testimony changed from one hearing to another. Mr. Park was very reliant on his mother.
In fact, in Marcia Clark's book, she describes just how his mother did in fact coach her son, she, Clark, just took advantage of it and relived her self of being blamed for this.
orenthal had a whole battery of lawyers talking for him -- so what? Park's testimony didn't change -- you are mistaken -- AGAIN.
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 05:23 PM
The prosecution knew that their blood evidence was very weak.Thats why they spent months talking about dna
Martin,
Again, the DA's hurt their own case by dragging out the DNA. First, there was never a question who's blood it was, it was when and how did it get there. DNA had nothing to do with the state experts not seeing blood on the socks for months, it had nothing to do with the blood being found on the back gate weeks later or Goldman's blood being found in the Bronco months later.
The DA's made the decision to delay their testing as long as possible, the longer they delayed it, the better chances they would not have to share any samples and hopefully catch the defense off guard. I think this backfired on them, IMO. I also believe that they were hoping the murder clothes, shoes and weapon would be found. IMO, the DA's and the detectives were most shocked these items were never found. I think they have every confidence they would be able to find them and when that didn't happen with each passing week, I think their panic grew. Again, IMO.
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 05:34 PM
yes
when Kato opened the gate to asllow park to enter the property,Park drove up to the front door and immediately saw the luggage that oj had just brought down from inside his house. This proved that oj was in his house when park was ringing the buzzer.
when oj re entered his house he went to the special gate buzzer phone and spoke to park.
Dale never asked Park if he saw any luggage before he drove to the front door.
Martin,
The only reason why I asked about Dale because I would think Dale would ask him if did see any luggage or did he look for any luggage. I know that Dale told Park that Simpson was always late and rushing about but I would think that Dale would have done more to calm his nerves and say more if he isn't out by 11:15 p.m., leave.
Again, just some observations. I would think that Mr. Simpson would be considered a high profile client and telling the new guy just to leave at certain time would not help business if Simpson had his luggage out and was obviously expecting the service to the airport.
martin II
08-03-2009, 07:16 PM
If Dale St. John was in the habit of letting himself in and loading Simpson's suitcases when he arrived it makes perfect sense that Simpson had already put the bags out before the limo arrived. That kind of knocks down the story told by Simpson and his ap ologists that when Park saw him he was setting bags outside.
nope dale did not tell park that.Park saw oj when he was returning after setting the bags down on his porch.. not when he was setting the bags outside.
nice try but no cigar.
martin II
08-03-2009, 07:20 PM
The Boys,
Alan Park's mother is a criminal defense lawyer. She sat at the Prosecution's table while he son testified. His testimony changed from one hearing to another. Mr. Park was very reliant on his mother.
In fact, in Marcia Clark's book, she describes just how his mother did in fact coach her son, she, Clark, just took advantage of it and relived her self of being blamed for this.
Parks testimony changed everytime he testified.
martin II
08-03-2009, 09:01 PM
Martin,
The only reason why I asked about Dale because I would think Dale would ask him if did see any luggage or did he look for any luggage. I know that Dale told Park that Simpson was always late and rushing about but I would think that Dale would have done more to calm his nerves and say more if he isn't out by 11:15 p.m., leave.
Again, just some observations. I would think that Mr. Simpson would be considered a high profile client and telling the new guy just to leave at certain time would not help business if Simpson had his luggage out and was obviously expecting the service to the airport.
i understood your idea. Park clained he was looking at the front door all the time he was at ashford and he never testified that he saw any luggage at the door until he drove to the door in the limo.This is right after oj had brought the luggage down and was returning to the house.
martin II
08-03-2009, 09:03 PM
If Dale St. John was in the habit of letting himself in and loading Simpson's suitcases when he arrived it makes perfect sense that Simpson had already put the bags out before the limo arrived. That kind of knocks down the story told by Simpson and his apologists that when Park saw him he was setting bags outside.
nice try but no cigar.
GreenIce
08-03-2009, 11:54 PM
nope dale did not tell park that.Park saw oj when he was returning after setting the bags down on his porch.. not when he was setting the bags outside.
nice try but no cigar.
Martin,
Another point, if Simpson was trying to give the illlusion that he was in fact home, then it only makes sense he would have put the luggage where the driver would not have been able to miss the luggage. By putting it where he did, he set it in a place where the driver would easily be able to load the luggage. Again, IMO.
fgump2
08-04-2009, 12:02 AM
You must be willing to ignore the AM OJ samples that were switched in the lab.
There is not evidence of that. The most you can say for this is that A. Mazzoli thought she had initialed an envelope and her initials weren't there. A switch is one possible explanation, that she forgot to initial it, or initialed another piece of paper by accident is another possibility.
GreenIce
08-04-2009, 12:18 AM
There is not evidence of that. The most you can say for this is that A. Mazzoli thought she had initialed an envelope and her initials weren't there. A switch is one possible explanation, that she forgot to initial it, or initialed another piece of paper by accident is another possibility.
Fgump2,
IIRC, AM said she initialed the envelopes. She testified that she did not know what happened to them but she did initial them. The wet transfer stains is another indiciation of tampering. According to the the testimony, those said swatches were left out, over 12 hours to dry. The testimony was when they were put in bindles or whatever they are called, the swatches were dry.
Also the pattern of the swatch in one envelope did not match the same pattern of the wet transfer. Reference for this is American Tragedy and this was found by Gary Sims--the DA's expert.
The evidence does indicate that something is wrong, missing initials, wet transfers, swatch patterns not matching up, evidence being left out and not secured, etc. Even if it is what you suggest, nothing more then a tremendous amount of errors and poor performance, that still does not bode well for the credibility of the evidence or Fung and Mozzola.
For example, what if AM realized she did not put her initials on the envelopes but refused to cop to on the stand, she inisted she wrote them. What does that say about her? What if she realized that she did put wet swatches in the bindles, but again testifies they were dry. Isn't it fair to say that her work can't be trusted, that she made errors that she tried to cover?
Also, I think it is fair to say that every person associated with this trial was under a tremendous amount of pressure and media attention. Every single state witness had a dog in this fight and it showed. It also showed that each department had a dog that was more then willing to go after another dog of another department. Example, the DA's dog vs LAPD's dog. The SID's dog vs the RH Department, etc.
Have you read VA's and Lange's book?
fgump2
08-04-2009, 12:18 AM
Hipcheck,
The bloody shoe prints at Bundy were never tested to determine who's blood it was. At least that is what we have been lead to believe. There is no logical explaination of why they were not tested unless Clark made sure that was not done. She did want any focus put on the bloody shoe prints, it only hurt her case to focus on them.
Also, according to the DA's timeline as well supporting their theory that since Simpson killed them both from behind and was not covered the blood, there was no way that Simpson could have walked in Nicole's blood to leave any shoe prints unless he hung around at least for 10 minutes or so after Nicole's bleed out. The same goes from Ron Goldman. If both of them were killed under 2 minutes, Simpson's leaves, no way to leave bloody shoe prints.
You are implying that the killer would have had to stay around for a certain amount of time, (3 minutes? 5 minutes?) for Nicole to bleed enough to make a pool of blood the killer couild step in. Where is this testimony (or document) and what is the length of time to create a pool of blood. Nicole was almost beheaded, so I think a pool of blood could form quite fast.
We know the criminalists made mistake after mistake and destroyed the majority of the blood evidence. We know that blood evidence was discovered weeks and months after the murders. Bottom line, because of the wet transfers and the missing inital and the fact that the blood swatches were never counted, taged or labeled, you have no clue what result came from where.
I don't think most of the blood evidence was destroyed. I realize many mistakes were made.
GreenIce
08-04-2009, 12:32 AM
I don't think most of the blood evidence was destroyed. I realize many mistakes were made.
fgump2,
Yes, the killer(s) would have stayed at scene long enough for the bloods of blood to be formed. The DA's have them both dead and the killer leaving the scence within 2 minutes of both victims being dead.
However, the evidence clear indicates the killer(s) was in no hurry to leave the scene. Took unnecessary risks if there was only one killer, showed no fear of being caught in the act or of the children upstairs. IMO, a person who was trying to buy time and make a clean get away would have done a much better job.
The footprints have been yet to be figured out. No one has been able to explain them.
GreenIce
08-04-2009, 12:38 AM
I don't think most of the blood evidence was destroyed. I realize many mistakes were made.
Fgump2,
The credibility of the evidence was destroyed. I have been reading a lot about the evidence truck. I alway thought the AC unit was broken and that is why the evidence cooked itself. However, in a couple of books, it said that AM didn't put the blood evidence in the fridge in the truck. I don't know if that was broken or working.
The "mistakes" that were made did alter the evidence to a such a degree that it was rendered useless. There is no way to prove that the degraded blood happened because it was not properly stored or was it "old" blood.
Send the samples to outside agencies does nothing because those agencies had not control on how the evidence was collected, stored and packaged. What concerns me is the very basics of evidence collection and storaged was bulldozed and completely ignored, and I can't find no logical explaination for this.
socaldiva
08-04-2009, 01:27 AM
*snip*
Yes, the killer(s) would have stayed at scene long enough for the bloods of blood to be formed.
:shrug:
:shrug:
Who knows what that is supposed to mean! One thing I know for sure, as fg2 said, Nicole was all but decapitated so it would take very little time to form a pool of blood. Good heavens, where do they come up with this stuff? :eek:
GreenIce
08-04-2009, 06:52 AM
Fgump2,
I just re-read my post---it takes time for pools of blood to form. The footprints clearly indicated that at least two trips were made back into the killing cage and had walked in blood.
MF made a comment in his book that he believes the wisps of blood that only he could see the morning were made from the shoe still dripping with blood.
There is a website that did some experiments on this. I don't know if this was ever discussed in the criminal trial. I know Dr. Lee and Dr. Baden talked about the length of the struggle but I don't remember if either of them ever were asked about this. However, maybe the guy to did the crime scene resconstruction may have testified about this.
One more thing regarding the blood drops on the back gate, why didn't the DA's ever ask Dr. Baden or Dr. Lee if they saw the blood drops on the back gate?
Did Dr. Lee take pictures of the back gate?
martin II
08-04-2009, 07:19 AM
Who knows what that is supposed to mean! One thing I know for sure, as fg2 said, Nicole was all but decapitated so it would take very little time to form a pool of blood. Good heavens, where do they come up with this stuff? :eek:
It would take more than 1 1/2 minute.
martin II
08-04-2009, 07:29 AM
There is not evidence of that. The most you can say for this is that A. Mazzoli thought she had initialed an envelope and her initials weren't there. A switch is one possible explanation, that she forgot to initial it, or initialed another piece of paper by accident is another possibility.
The evidence is contained in AM TESTIMONY.Just like other evidence is contained in other teastimony.
It would take more than 1 1/2 minute.
Nonsense.
martin II
08-04-2009, 10:23 AM
I don't think most of the blood evidence was destroyed. I realize many mistakes were made.
I have noticed that whenever prosecutions blunders or false testimony is given you seem to always call these blunders mistakes by prosecution witnesses.
Does this mean that you believe the prosecution should expect the jury to convist a defendant based on testimony full of mistakes.Don't you think the prosecution is required to put on mistake free evidence/testimony.
martin II
08-04-2009, 10:28 AM
Nonsense.
It is not really nonsence. It would take time for the blood to obtain the correct viscosity (thickness ) to make the kind of print found at BUNDY.
At 1 minute the blood would still be too liquid.not congealed enough.
weezer
08-04-2009, 10:29 AM
It is not really nonsence. It would take time for the blood to obtain the correct viscosity (thickness ) to make the kind of print found at BUNDY.
At 1 minute the blood would still be too liquid.not congealed enough.
nonsense
martin II
08-04-2009, 10:37 AM
Who knows what that is supposed to mean! One thing I know for sure, as fg2 said, Nicole was all but decapitated so it would take very little time to form a pool of blood. Good heavens, where do they come up with this stuff? :eek:
tv
When nicoles jugular was cut the blood pumped out with great force. When her heart stopped blood would continue to flow out but with less force.This means that the blood on the ground was not congealed enough to make the kind of defined print found until several minutes.
i would think you would understand this before others based on you work.
martin II
08-04-2009, 10:51 AM
I don't think most of the blood evidence was destroyed. I realize many mistakes were made.
There was lots of blood near nicole but it was too liquid,not congealed enough, to allow the kind of foot prints to be formed as found.this would take 10 15 minutes
i think it is unlikely that one person with a 4 inch knife would be able to kill two physically fit people like nicole and ron in a minute. i think ron had about 40 wounds and nicole maby 20 or more. Many have claimed that ron put up a big fight against his killer and there is evidence that they had to be killed at the same time. No way this happened in 1 minute.imo
tv
When nicoles jugular was cut the blood pumped out with great force. When her heart stopped blood would continue to flow out but with less force.This means that the blood on the ground was not congealed enough to make the kind of defined print found until several minutes.
i would think you would understand this before others based on you work.
II know what you're trying to say but I've stepped in blood many times and a little bit of blood goes a long way. IMO, it wouldn't take thick blood to make those footprints. What difference does it make anyway? A few minutes for the killings and another minute or so while he tried to get his bearings and orientation. I don't think it makes much difference either way.
weezer
08-04-2009, 11:18 AM
II know what you're trying to say but I've stepped in blood many times and a little bit of blood goes a long way. IMO, it wouldn't take thick blood to make those footprints. What difference does it make anyway? A few minutes for the killings and another minute or so while he tried to get his bearings and orientation. I don't think it makes much difference either way.
hmmm -- I've stepped out of a pool onto concrete and had a perfect impression of my foot.
martin II
08-04-2009, 11:31 AM
[QUOTE=GreenIce;9208662]fgump2,
Yes, the killer(s) would have stayed at scene long enough for the bloods of blood to be formed. The DA's have them both dead and the killer leaving the scence within 2 minutes of both victims being dead.
However, the evidence clear indicates the killer(s) was in no hurry to leave the scene. Took unnecessary risks if there was only one killer, showed no fear of being caught in the act or of the children upstairs. IMO, a person who was trying to buy time and make a clean get away would have done a much better job.
The footprints have been yet to be figured out. No one has been able to explain them.[/QUOTE
The DA first said the murders took place at 10;20 pm.when this was proven not to be possible they kinda backed off.The killing took place at 10:40 pm and then the DA said it took only 1 1/2 minutes form time attack started until both were dead. The coroner was not called imediately so it is difficult to tell the time of death. I think the killers were there for a period of time cleaning up all traces of them being there.This is evident by the swipes on the ground found at bundy as if footprints had been wipped over with some type of cloth.
But it does not seem reasonable that one killer could have done all of this in a minute.
martin II
08-04-2009, 11:40 AM
II know what you're trying to say but I've stepped in blood many times and a little bit of blood goes a long way. IMO, it wouldn't take thick blood to make those footprints. What difference does it make anyway? A few minutes for the killings and another minute or so while he tried to get his bearings and orientation. I don't think it makes much difference either way.
tv
i don't think you are paying enough attention to the specific point i have made.
The time is important as it goes to how many killers were there.When the coroner gave his opinion of the time the DA had to go along with that small time and the one killer idea but in reality it never made sense.
i am sure you know that blood with ba higher viscosity is more difficult to make a clear print than blood with lower one.If you have ever seem a blood spill age you would know this.
weezer
08-04-2009, 12:34 PM
tv
i don't think you are paying enough attention to the specific point i have made.
The time is important as it goes to how many killers were there.When the coroner gave his opinion of the time the DA had to go along with that small time and the one killer idea but in reality it never made sense.
i am sure you know that blood with ba higher viscosity is more difficult to make a clear print than blood with lower one.If you have ever seem a blood spill age you would know this.
killers that left orenthal's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints but nothing of their own. . . .
the statement about the viscosity of blood and clear prints is nonsense.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.