Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

Have they forgotten the disguise from 1994? ;)

Whats wrong with a celebrity having a disguise. many use them to evade the public. MJ is a good example. OJ used his when he took his kids to Knox Farm
to evade fans demanding autograhs.

[Kate Sachel]

Leaving abuse can be lengthy, risky process:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/mentalhealth/08/04/abuse.stages/index.html

Kate

[weezer]

Whats wrong with a celebrity having a disguise. many use them to evade the public. MJ is a good example. OJ used his when he took his kids to Knox Farm
to evade fans demanding autograhs.

actually, he had not used the disguise but said he was thinking about using it the next time he took the kids out. of course, we know that he was an absentee dad so his fantasy outings with the kids didn't happen.

[martin II]

GI

Obviously the DA knew that the collection handling and DNA testing was not as strong as they had claimed in the media. If this evisdence was a strong as they claimed there was no reason for them to spend so much time saying the same thing over and over again and again. They took the jury down into the bowels of the science looking at every minute detail using scientific names to describe tiny test operations. It seems that any fool in the DAS office could
have figured out a simple straight forward to explain this DNA evidence to the jury and the public. Nothing is so complicated that it cannot be explained in simple language.

It may be that the jury just like others that watched the trial forgot half of
what they were told.I read a article that said once the trial goes past a month most in the court room cannot remember what most of the testimony was or cannot remember what witnesses 4 said as opposed to what witness 8 said.

This technology was relatively new at the time of the trial and i believe the DA just thought that most would just accept it because it was new.

With the long drawn out testimony it is no surprise that they lost the jury just as they lost most that followed the trial on tv. I remember many talking head lawyer types on tv saying "what are they talking about" and "how do they expect anyone to understand this stuff."

I remember the white juror saying the DNA was basically crap.

No one is to blame for this but the prosecution. Clarke, Hodgman, Darden and the others. They failed to explain the DNA in simple terms.

[weezer]

aw come on mrtin -- as evidenced by their statements and book, it wasn't the DA's fault that the criminal jury was too dang ignorant to grasp the evidence.

[martin II]

Whats odd is that many proprosecution types have laid the blame for the not guilty verdict squarly at the door of the prosecution for the way they handeled the case. It is only here that the jury of average citizens are called ignorant, uneducated and racist by one poster.Simply because this poster dissagreed with the verdict.Something wrong with that.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
killers that left orenthal's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints but nothing of their own. . . .


David Copperfield comes to mind. Does he have an alibi for the night in question? :biggrin:

[weezer]

Whats odd is that many proprosecution types have laid the blame for the not guilty verdict squarly at the door of the prosecution for the way they handeled the case. It is only here that the jury of average citizens are called ignorant, uneducated and racist by one poster.Simply because this poster dissagreed with the verdict.Something wrong with that.

somehow you equate the criminal 'not guilty' with innocence. I thought the blunders and mistakes made by LE did not come close to the outrageous behaviour of the criminal jury. They weren't average citizens -- they were ignorant, uneducated and raciaslly biased. You believe Fuhrman to be a racist for words. I believe the jury to be racist for words AND actions.

[martin II]

Not Guilty = did not do the crimes as charged.

did not do the crimes = innocent of the crimes.

innocent of the crimes = you were wrongly charged of crimes by some fools.

We apologize and you are free to go home or any place you desire to go to.

[bobaugust]

Park testified that he saw Kato 'STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK' i am sure you know that.

Do you understand that Park testified that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway and then stop before he got to the driveway and that is where Kaelin was “still standing” after Park saw Simpson enter his house?

[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, I don’t believe Simpson leaving his bags outside his door had anything to do with appearance; it had to do with planning. Simpson did expect St. John to pick him up and based on his last pickup the prior week Simpson would have expected St. John to be there about 11:00. I believe Simpson planned to park his Bronco in his regular parking place outside the Ashford gate upon his return from Bundy and he left his front door unlocked so he could enter his house.

Park testified that when he exited Rockingham he was concentrating on oncoming traffic before making a left hand turn. Park remembered a parked vehicle to his left because he had to pull around it and said he wasn’t concerned with parked vehicles to his right. Park was evidently mistaken about a second car parked on the driveway. He couldn’t recall any details about it except that he thought it was dark colored.

One recollection has nothing to do with another. You of all people should be able to understand that.

bobaugust

[tv]

Not Guilty = did not do the crimes as charged. Wrong -- it means not proven.

did not do the crimes = innocent of the crimes.

Innocent of the crimes = you were wrongly charged of crimes by some fools. His blood was all over both crime scenes...there are some fools in this case but it's not the prosecution.

We apologize and you are free to go home or any place you desire to go to.

You're making things up. There was no apology --

"All right. The Defendant having been acquitted of both charges, he is ordered transported to an appropriate Sheriff's facility and released forthwith. We'll stand in recess."

[martin II]

GreenIce, I don’t believe Simpson leaving his bags outside his door had anything to do with appearance; it had to do with planning. Simpson did expect St. John to pick him up and based on his last pickup the prior week Simpson would have expected St. John to be there about 11:00. I believe Simpson planned to park his Bronco in his regular parking place outside the Ashford gate upon his return from Bundy and he left his front door unlocked so he could enter his house.

Park testified that when he exited Rockingham he was concentrating on oncoming traffic before making a left hand turn. Park remembered a parked vehicle to his left because he had to pull around it and said he wasn’t concerned with parked vehicles to his right. Park was evidently mistaken about a second car parked on the driveway. He couldn’t recall any details about it except that he thought it was dark colored.

One recollection has nothing to do with another. You of all people should be able to understand that.

bobaugust


Thats not even a good excuse.

Park claimed to be the eagle eye guy when he was Parked at Ashford. He saw everything at ojs front door about 30-40 feet. But when he is stopped at Rockingham gate with his limo 3-4 feet from the white Bronco parked at the gate , he claimed he did not see it when everyone knows it was parked there.

[martin II]

You're making things up. There was no apology --

"All right. The Defendant having been acquitted of both charges, he is ordered transported to an appropriate Sheriff's facility and released forthwith. We'll stand in recess."

i am surprised you did not see my post as a joke.Relax a little.However most people hearing the defendant was found not guilty means to them he was innocent.

[martin II]

GreenIce, I don’t believe Simpson leaving his bags outside his door had anything to do with appearance; it had to do with planning. Simpson did expect St. John to pick him up and based on his last pickup the prior week Simpson would have expected St. John to be there about 11:00. I believe Simpson planned to park his Bronco in his regular parking place outside the Ashford gate upon his return from Bundy and he left his front door unlocked so he could enter his house.

Park testified that when he exited Rockingham he was concentrating on oncoming traffic before making a left hand turn. Park remembered a parked vehicle to his left because he had to pull around it and said he wasn’t concerned with parked vehicles to his right. Park was evidently mistaken about a second car parked on the driveway. He couldn’t recall any details about it except that he thought it was dark colored.

One recollection has nothing to do with another. You of all people should be able to understand that.

bobaugust

bob
Some time ago i remember you saying oj was riding around in his bronco when he got the message from paula and this caused him to loose control and he drove to nicoles and killed her.If this was true, then he had no chance to plan anything before he left home. Is that a correct description to you earlier post?

Also if oj did any planning he would have planned to enter his house by the laundry room and park would not have seen him at all.So the preplanning does not work and try as you might you cannot change the fact that oj brought two duffle bags to his front door while park was at ashford.

[tv]

i am surprised you did not see my post as a joke.Relax a little.However most people hearing the defendant was found not guilty means to them he was innocent.

I've never known you to joke about anything. Next time let us know you're joking. You know very well that not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

[martin II]

I've never known you to joke about anything. Next time let us know you're joking. You know very well that not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

I am talking about what most people think it means to them.I have heard and read so many people saying oj was found innocent.Not everyone is as informed in the law as you. right?

[socaldiva]

I am talking about what most people think it means to them.I have heard and read so many people saying oj was found innocent.Not everyone is as informed in the law as you. right?

I would deem those people to be ignorant ;)

[tv]

I am talking about what most people think it means to them.I have heard and read so many people saying oj was found innocent.Not everyone is as informed in the law as you. right?

If most people think it means innocent then you should be careful not to add to their misinformation.

[martin II]

If most people think it means innocent then you should be careful not to add to their misinformation.

my point is not everyone sees the situation as you obviously do.Many were just pleased that what they thought in the beginning turned out to be true.
That oj was falsely accused, brought before a court of justice and justice prevailed. They were not concerned with the dictionery definition of not guilty
as some are. They do understand that the prosecution did not prove the claims they made and they do believe in the CJS.I am sure you do too.
ps
Are you the poster thats constantly preaching to us that what most people believe has great value?
I have read many post that stated "most people believe this " and most people believe that" etc

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Are you the poster thats constantly preaching to us that what most people believe has great value?



I've never seen TV "preaching" any such thing, but I'd say most people believe OJ is a double murderer. The court of public opinion has rightfully convicted him & that has great value as far as I'm concerned. ;)

[bobaugust]

Thats not even a good excuse.

Park claimed to be the eagle eye guy when he was Parked at Ashford. He saw everything at ojs front door about 30-40 feet. But when he is stopped at Rockingham gate with his limo 3-4 feet from the white Bronco parked at the gate , he claimed he did not see it when everyone knows it was parked there.

Park never claimed to be “the eagle eye guy.” He saw what he saw, he remembered what he remembered. Most of what he remembered was correct. There was no reason for Park to concentrate that night on everything he saw and did; he didn’t know then he would be a witness in a murder case. His explanation that he wasn’t paying any attention to a parked car that had nothing to do with where he was going sounds reasonable to me and has absolutely nothing to do with anything else he did or did not recall that night.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
Some time ago i remember you saying oj was riding around in his bronco when he got the message from paula and this caused him to loose control and he drove to nicoles and killed her.If this was true, then he had no chance to plan anything before he left home. Is that a correct description to you earlier post?

Also if oj did any planning he would have planned to enter his house by the laundry room and park would not have seen him at all.So the preplanning does not work and try as you might you cannot change the fact that oj brought two duffle bags to his front door while park was at ashford.

I never said what you say you remember me saying. Simpson planned to go to Bundy and be back before the limo came to pick him up for the airport and fly out of town. That was to be his alibi.

Simpson purposely changed into all dark colored clothing. He packed two bags for his trip leaving a third one partially packed for when he returned home to change his clothing. He put the two bags outside his front door and left the front door unlocked intending to quickly enter his house upon his return after parking his Bronco in his regular parking space outside his Ashford gate. Simpson drove to Bundy taking with him an old pair of leather gloves, a knit hat, and knife.

There is no evidence that Simpson put those two bags outside his front door when Park was at Rockingham. Only a fabricated story the proven liar Simpson tried to sell to some very gullible people.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I never said what you say you remember me saying. Simpson planned to go to Bundy and be back before the limo came to pick him up for the airport and fly out of town. That was to be his alibi.

Simpson purposely changed into all dark colored clothing. He packed two bags for his trip leaving a third one partially packed for when he returned home to change his clothing. He put the two bags outside his front door and left the front door unlocked intending to quickly enter his house upon his return after parking his Bronco in his regular parking space outside his Ashford gate. Simpson drove to Bundy taking with him an old pair of leather gloves, a knit hat, and knife.

There is no evidence that Simpson put those two bags outside his front door when Park was at Rockingham. Only a fabricated story the proven liar Simpson tried to sell to some very gullible people.

bobaugust

There is not one piece of evidence that oj planned ahead of time to put luggage on his front porch.Just some of what you make up when evidence points to oj being in his house.
There is evidence that Park saw oj as he returned to his house after bringing luggage down to his porch, moving the golf bag to the bench
near the porch. Katos testimony of not seeing the porch lights on when he went for his first search and then seeing the porch lights on, which oj had just turned on,when Kato returned from his first search.

Park testified that he saw the luggage which oj brought down when he drove in to the door.Although you do give it a try, you cannot change the facts by calling others gullible.imo

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, I don’t believe Simpson leaving his bags outside his door had anything to do with appearance; it had to do with planning. Simpson did expect St. John to pick him up and based on his last pickup the prior week Simpson would have expected St. John to be there about 11:00. I believe Simpson planned to park his Bronco in his regular parking place outside the Ashford gate upon his return from Bundy and he left his front door unlocked so he could enter his house.

Park testified that when he exited Rockingham he was concentrating on oncoming traffic before making a left hand turn. Park remembered a parked vehicle to his left because he had to pull around it and said he wasn’t concerned with parked vehicles to his right. Park was evidently mistaken about a second car parked on the driveway. He couldn’t recall any details about it except that he thought it was dark colored.

One recollection has nothing to do with another. You of all people should be able to understand that.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

That is not true, OJ Simpson has been a client of Dale St. John for about 3 years. They had a routine. He knew that St. John came early and he knew it was about 15 to 20 minutes before the scheduled time.

Simpson knew he could not park in his regular spot on Ashford because Kato's car was parked on Ashford, wasn't it?

[fgump2]

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.
I think most people have felt sure they did something, and then discovered they didn't. AM's memory isn't infallible. The testimony about the swatches being dry helped the defense, but didn't impress me. I don't think they preformed any scientific tests to see if the swatches were dry; probably just appearance. Appearance can be deceiving. I have done some painting, and I know that paint that looks dry can smear on clothing. I thought I read that the LAPD criminologists dried their swatches in a manner that some swatches got more air flow than others, this would account for some swatches being more dry than others.

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. I think the testimony of AM and Sim shows that there was no blue blue wall of silence, or if there was it wasn't very solid or air tight. I doubt there has been any scientific research on matching swatches up with the smears they might have left.
A lot of things came up in this trial that have seldom come up before - EDTA (or whatever it is), swatches not being completely dry, a detective being questioned about who he handed a tube of blood to. To expect a police dept to handle new issues like this correctly the first time is unreasonable. In most organizations if a new problem comes along, it takes a while to get it right. I don't claim to understand either EDTA or some of the other issues in the trial. A person could make a career out of trying to make sense out of a fairly small fraction of the Simpson trial. Each side had a fair number of people working full time. .

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? It is easy to make people look bad with hypotheticals. 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. The defense had it's conflicts as well. Big organizations usually have conflicts. I didn't pay much attention to the office politics of the situation.
Have you read VA's and Lange's book? I read the book by VA and Lange, but not lately.
I'd like to make a point about the gloves unrelated to this posting. I think you, or someone, wrote that the gloves in that Mr. SImpson wore broadcasting might have been provided by the network, and therefore not owned by Simpson. I think that this is quite unlikely.
I am pretty sure that gloves sizes aren't standardized like shoe sizes. Expensive gloves usually come in 4 sizes (one lineup for men, anther for women) S, M, Large, extra large. Some people might take either a small or an extra large regardless of the brand, but people in the mid range would have to try one on to get a good fit.

NFL broadcasters have big salaries. People with those incomes often buy custom made clothing, and they would feel more comfortable in their own clothing than clothes that came off a rack; probably look better as well.

The gloves had cashmere lining. Cashmere is soft wool, and allergies to wool are not completely unusual.

I don't think the network would provide shoes either. New shoes are often a little uncomfortable.

Providing the broadcasters with a wardrobe would be an added complication the broadcasters wouldn't want to be bothered with, nor would the network. Just another thing that could go wrong, another thing to take up broadcaster time

[GreenIce]

I read the book by VA and Lange, but not lately.
I'd like to make a point about the gloves unrelated to this posting. I think you, or someone, wrote that the gloves in that Mr. SImpson wore broadcasting might have been provided by the network, and therefore not owned by Simpson. I think that this is quite unlikely.
I am pretty sure that gloves sizes aren't standardized like shoe sizes. Expensive gloves usually come in 4 sizes (one lineup for men, anther for women) S, M, Large, extra large. Some people might take either a small or an extra large regardless of the brand, but people in the mid range would have to try one on to get a good fit.

NFL broadcasters have big salaries. People with those incomes often buy custom made clothing, and they would feel more comfortable in their own clothing than clothes that came off a rack; probably look better as well.

The gloves had cashmere lining. Cashmere is soft wool, and allergies to wool are not completely unusual.

I don't think the network would provide shoes either. New shoes are often a little uncomfortable.

Providing the broadcasters with a wardrobe would be an added complication the broadcasters wouldn't want to be bothered with, nor would the network. Just another thing that could go wrong, another thing to take up broadcaster time

fgump2,

Yes, I did make the post about the possibility that the network did provide gloves for all their broadcasters--which is why I think it would be interesting to see what type of gloves the other broadcasters wore.

I also posted that the network may have given all their broadcasters an clothing allowance, which means they could buy what ever type of gloves or shoes or whatever but had to submit the receipts to the network to get remembursed for these times.

Another factor to consider, even if the network did provide any of these things, Simpson still could have used these purchases for income tax purposes. It appears to me that rich people don't like pay taxes any more then anyone else does.

There is more then one size of extra large. Just like there more sizes in shoes then just the number, such as how wide or narrow they are.

I don't think Simpson could have submitted any receipts for gloves or whatever if Nicole had purchased them and gave them to him as a gift.

However, what is interesting, that other gloves in Simpson's house were found and they were going to be taken but I believe they were not taken into evidence---this makes no sense unless the detectives already knew what type, size, etc., the "murder" gloves were. And there is only one way they could have known that, that early. IMO.

[bobaugust]

There is not one piece of evidence that oj planned ahead of time to put luggage on his front porch.Just some of what you make up when evidence points to oj being in his house.
There is evidence that Park saw oj as he returned to his house after bringing luggage down to his porch, moving the golf bag to the bench
near the porch. Katos testimony of not seeing the porch lights on when he went for his first search and then seeing the porch lights on, which oj had just turned on,when Kato returned from his first search.

Park testified that he saw the luggage which oj brought down when he drove in to the door.Although you do give it a try, you cannot change the facts by calling others gullible.imo

The evidence in this case is that Park first saw Simpson that night come from the driveway into the front entrance of the house, enter his front door and lights come on downstairs in the house. There is no evidence that Simpson was in his house or that his Bronco was parked on Rockingham for at least a half an hour before that when Park first arrived at Rockingham.

There is no evidence that Park first saw Simpson returning from putting luggage outside. The evidence is that Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson at the same time, about two to three minutes after Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. The evidence is that Simpson was coming from behind his house after making those noises when he returned from Bundy.

Kaelin never said he didn’t see the porch lights (front entrance) on when he went past the front of the house on his first trip to behind the garage. If you think he said that then post it please. Be sure and include the date.

I’m not calling you gullible, I’m calling you wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

That is not true, OJ Simpson has been a client of Dale St. John for about 3 years. They had a routine. He knew that St. John came early and he knew it was about 15 to 20 minutes before the scheduled time.

Simpson knew he could not park in his regular spot on Ashford because Kato's car was parked on Ashford, wasn't it?

GreenIce, Dale St. John testified that the last time he drove Simpson to the airport was the week before the murders and that he arrived 45 minutes before Simpson’s flight was scheduled to depart with plenty of time to spare. Simpson’s flight on June 12 was scheduled to depart at 11:45.

Simpson’s regular parking place for his Bronco was on Ashford next to his Ashford gate. Kaelin’s also parked his car on Ashford on the other side of the Ashford gate than where Simpson normally parked. Kaelin didn’t park in Simpson’s spot.

December 4, 1996 Dale St. John

Q. In fact, about a week before June 12 you had picked him up -- you picked him up and you were taking him on a trip out to LAX, had about 45 minutes to make the flight. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. That was kind of rushed, wasn't it?
A. Not really.
Q. Do you remember on that occasion that you -- and occasions prior to that, having the feeling about Mr. Simpson as a passenger. That you were really cutting it close?
A. He -- I think he felt that way, that he was cutting it real close, because when he'd get in the car he'd say, we gotta go, we got a go.
Q. Okay.
A. But in actuality we would make the airport with usually plenty of time.
Q. The bottom line is there was a lot of rushing around?
A. Yeah, there was.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I never said what you say you remember me saying. Simpson planned to go to Bundy and be back before the limo came to pick him up for the airport and fly out of town. That was to be his alibi.

Simpson purposely changed into all dark colored clothing. He packed two bags for his trip leaving a third one partially packed for when he returned home to change his clothing. He put the two bags outside his front door and left the front door unlocked intending to quickly enter his house upon his return after parking his Bronco in his regular parking space outside his Ashford gate. Simpson drove to Bundy taking with him an old pair of leather gloves, a knit hat, and knife.

There is no evidence that Simpson put those two bags outside his front door when Park was at Rockingham. Only a fabricated story the proven liar Simpson tried to sell to some very gullible people.

bobaugust

you are sure of that right?

[GreenIce]

I never said what you say you remember me saying. Simpson planned to go to Bundy and be back before the limo came to pick him up for the airport and fly out of town. That was to be his alibi.

Simpson purposely changed into all dark colored clothing. He packed two bags for his trip leaving a third one partially packed for when he returned home to change his clothing. He put the two bags outside his front door and left the front door unlocked intending to quickly enter his house upon his return after parking his Bronco in his regular parking space outside his Ashford gate. Simpson drove to Bundy taking with him an old pair of leather gloves, a knit hat, and knife.

There is no evidence that Simpson put those two bags outside his front door when Park was at Rockingham. Only a fabricated story the proven liar Simpson tried to sell to some very gullible people.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Just to be fair, Vanatter, Lange, Phillips, Mark Fuhrman, Lt Spangler and a host of others in this case, on your side, are also proven liars.

I can understand why you feel Simpson was lying because he was guilty and is trying to cover up for the crimes you think he committed.

If that is the case, then you have also say the same about the state's witnesses who lied in this case, they are also guilty of committing crimes and are trying to cover it up.

[martin II]

The evidence in this case is that Park first saw Simpson that night come from the driveway into the front entrance of the house, enter his front door and lights come on downstairs in the house. There is no evidence that Simpson was in his house or that his Bronco was parked on Rockingham for at least a half an hour before that when Park first arrived at Rockingham.

There is no evidence that Park first saw Simpson returning from putting luggage outside. The evidence is that Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson at the same time, about two to three minutes after Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. The evidence is that Simpson was coming from behind his house after making those noises when he returned from Bundy.

Kaelin never said he didn’t see the porch lights (front entrance) on when he went past the front of the house on his first trip to behind the garage. If you think he said that then post it please. Be sure and include the date.

I’m not calling you gullible, I’m calling you wrong.

bobaugust


i posted katos testimony when he said when he walked past the door going to the garage the first time the porch lights were not on. when he walked back from the garage area the porch lights were on. oj turned them on while kato was at the garage at least 5 times and will not do so again because you read my post.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9208918]I read the book by VA and Lange, but not lately.

fgump2,

You need to pay attention to the departments and their relationship with one another. In Lange and Vanatter's book, they claim that Fung or AM was told not to collect the drops on the back gate. There was an alleged investigation but at the time they were writing the book the results have never been made public.

If this is true, then what does that tell you?

[martin II]

I read the book by VA and Lange, but not lately.
I'd like to make a point about the gloves unrelated to this posting. I think you, or someone, wrote that the gloves in that Mr. SImpson wore broadcasting might have been provided by the network, and therefore not owned by Simpson. I think that this is quite unlikely.
I am pretty sure that gloves sizes aren't standardized like shoe sizes. Expensive gloves usually come in 4 sizes (one lineup for men, anther for women) S, M, Large, extra large. Some people might take either a small or an extra large regardless of the brand, but people in the mid range would have to try one on to get a good fit.

NFL broadcasters have big salaries. People with those incomes often buy custom made clothing, and they would feel more comfortable in their own clothing than clothes that came off a rack; probably look better as well.

The gloves had cashmere lining. Cashmere is soft wool, and allergies to wool are not completely unusual.

I don't think the network would provide shoes either. New shoes are often a little uncomfortable.

Providing the broadcasters with a wardrobe would be an added complication the broadcasters wouldn't want to be bothered with, nor would the network. Just another thing that could go wrong, another thing to take up broadcaster time


NOT TRUE

TV networks supply on camera people with wardrobes all the time.Thats what TV fashion consultants do for them.The small details you speak of are not a problem as these consultants know their clients.They are called personal shoppers.imo

[GreenIce]

i posted katos testimony when he said when he walked past the door going to the garage the first time the porch lights were not on. when he walked back from the garage area the porch lights were on. oj turned them on while kato was at the garage at least 5 times and will not do so again because you read my post.

Martin,

This is another issue that DA's insisted they needed to prove. What does it matter if Park saw him coming out of his house or going back into his house? It again made them look desperate and foolish, IMO.

Also, Kato and Park got several key points wrong--again, not saying they lying only they were clearly mistaken about issuses that should not been mistaken about, IMO.

I would think because of the Rockingham blood trail, they would have argued that Simpson arrived just ahead of the limo driver and that is why he used the front door. Again, IMO.

Also, doesn't it make sense the DA's would have taken Simpson's luggage and at least check the outside of it for blood?

[martin II]

fgump2,

Yes, I did make the post about the possibility that the network did provide gloves for all their broadcasters--which is why I think it would be interesting to see what type of gloves the other broadcasters wore.

I also posted that the network may have given all their broadcasters an clothing allowance, which means they could buy what ever type of gloves or shoes or whatever but had to submit the receipts to the network to get remembursed for these times.

Another factor to consider, even if the network did provide any of these things, Simpson still could have used these purchases for income tax purposes. It appears to me that rich people don't like pay taxes any more then anyone else does.

There is more then one size of extra large. Just like there more sizes in shoes then just the number, such as how wide or narrow they are.

I don't think Simpson could have submitted any receipts for gloves or whatever if Nicole had purchased them and gave them to him as a gift.

However, what is interesting, that other gloves in Simpson's house were found and they were going to be taken but I believe they were not taken into evidence---this makes no sense unless the detectives already knew what type, size, etc., the "murder" gloves were. And there is only one way they could have known that, that early. IMO.

Nicole did buy two pairs of gloves. the problem is there is no proof of the size and color. There is also no proof that she gave any gloves to oj.There is proof that she gave the gloves to a friend for xmas gift.So it is not possible to say oj ever wore the gloves she purchased. if Tom mcclouugh gave the prosecution and defence each some gloves ,what happened to them.

The gloves presented in court had the size id ripped out.So we don't actually know what size those gloves were. only Rubins opinion and his opinions turned out to be wrong many times.EXample Rubin tried to say the gloves had shrunk 20% when oj tried them on. If this is true the gloves would have been 20% smaller when oj was supposed to have put them on on 6/12 and they would not have fit him then.Rubin even testified that he could not tell the color of the gloves from those fake pictures. It makes no sense.imo

[tv]

NOT TRUE

TV networks supply on camera people with wardrobes all the time.Thats what TV fashion consultants do for them.The small details you speak of are not a problem as these consultants know their clients.They are called personal shoppers.imo

OJ Simpson was questioned extensively about the clothing he was wearing on the field when the pictures were taken. At no time did he say the clothing had been provided by the network or a personal shopper.

[martin II]

Martin,

This is another issue that DA's insisted they needed to prove. What does it matter if Park saw him coming out of his house or going back into his house? It again made them look desperate and foolish, IMO.

Also, Kato and Park got several key points wrong--again, not saying they lying only they were clearly mistaken about issuses that should not been mistaken about, IMO.

I would think because of the Rockingham blood trail, they would have argued that Simpson arrived just ahead of the limo driver and that is why he used the front door. Again, IMO.

Also, doesn't it make sense the DA's would have taken Simpson's luggage and at least check the outside of it for blood?


When oj returned from Chicago he brought all of his luggage to Rockingham in KR and RK cars.Vanhatter was there but le refused to allow him to bring the luggage to the property to give it to them. Then some time later The defence brought the luggage to court.i think this is correct.Why didn't they take the luggage and search and test it.Vanhatter took a small leather bag from oj when he took him in for the interview. what happened to that bag.

The prosecution spent a lot of time on who loaded what bag into the limo before it left for the airport but when oj brought all the bags back they refused to take them.That makes no sense. I think they knew that according to the timeline there was no time for oj to get rid of any evidence and all the fuss about the bags was just missdirection or fake suggestions to the jury.

Katos and Parks testimony about the loading of the bags was so confused it was enough to make one have a headache.

[martin II]

OJ Simpson was questioned extensively about the clothing he was wearing on the field when the pictures were taken. At no time did he say the clothing had been provided by the network or a personal shopper.

I guess witnesses testify according to what questions they are asked.I am speaking of what i know to be common knowledge concerning what some on camera tv personalities have in their contracts.Brian Gumble had a hugh allocation for his wardrobe with NBC same is true for sue simmons which she has talked about on camera. Same is true for many others.The networks dictates the daily coordination of clothes that on camera people wear and this is not by chance.imo

Have you ever noticed that NBC sports guys wear the same jackets with the NBC logo.Same for others. That women coordinate the colors of their clothes on camera.imo

[tv]

When oj returned from Chicago he brought all of his luggage to Rockingham in KR and RK cars.Vanhatter was there but le refused to allow him to bring the luggage to the property to give it to them. Then some time later The defence brought the luggage to court.i think this is correct.Why didn't they take the luggage and search and test it.Vanhatter took a small leather bag from oj when he took him in for the interview. what happened to that bag.

The prosecution spent a lot of time on who loaded what bag into the limo before it left for the airport but when oj brought all the bags back they refused to take them.That makes no sense. I think they knew that according to the timeline there was no time for oj to get rid of any evidence and all the fuss about the bags was just missdirection or fake suggestions to the jury.

Katos and Parks testimony about the loading of the bags was so confused it was enough to make one have a headache.

He returned the travel bag when he went to Rockingham to take the blood vial to Fung.

[tv]

I guess witnesses testify according to what questions they are asked.I am speaking of what i know to be common knowledge concerning what some on camera tv personalities have in their contracts.Brian Gumble had a hugh allocation for his wardrobe with NBC as does many others.

It would have helped Simpson if he could have said the clothing was provided by the network and he returned them. Not that I think it's very important either way.

[martin II]

He returned the travel bag when he went to Rockingham to take the blood vial to Fung.

If he did, did he test it.That was supposed to be the bag in question.The other bags were the golf bag,the golf bag sheath, the two duffle bags and the LV suit bag.i think that is correct.

[tv]

If he did, did he test it.That was supposed to be the bag in question.The other bags were the golf bag,the golf bag sheath, the two duffle bags and the LV suit bag.i think that is correct.

He searched it before returning it to Rockingham. I don't know what test you're referring to. The bag in question was the crescent or half-moon shaped bag that was never seen again.

[martin II]

It would have helped Simpson if he could have said the clothing was provided by the network and he returned them. Not that I think it's very important either way.

My point is there is no reason to blame oj for not speaking on a subject that he was not asked about. In the civil trial the issue of the gloves fitting had been resolved in the criminal trial. i don't think the glove demo was repeated
in the civil trial. But the central issue of the gloves is still there is no proof that nicole gave that bglove to oj. Just speculation.The other issue is the gloves did not fit.

[martin II]

He searched it before returning it to Rockingham. I don't know what test you're referring to. The bag in question was the crescent or half-moon shaped bag that was never seen again.

Some have claimed that this small bag was the bag that oj hid evidence in.if vanhatter had this bag one would expect that he would have it tested by the lab for blood etc before giving it back to oj. i never read any testimony from Kato or Park that a crescent shapped bag was one of the bags loaded into the limo. Who testified to this shape bag?
GOLF BAG, GOLF BAG SHEATH (COVER) TWO DUFFLE BAGS, THE LV BAG AND A SMALL BAG.

[weezer]

Jurors Carrie Bess and Rubin-Jackson collaborated with Cooley on the book, which comes out this week.

The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody."

[martin II]

tv
Another small issue.

I am thinking about what le calls chain of custody.

In the case of Nicole buying the gloves, chain of custody rules would require that there be proof that nicole purchased gloves and passed them directly to oj to prove that the gloves she purchased were given to oj. There is no such proof so it is not reasonable to think that she did.

[martin II]

After the trial and in a book they wrote two jurors expressed their opinions about the fitting of the gloves. During deliberations these two jurors voted with the other 10 that oj was not guilty. so it is reasonable to think that their comments in the book was just to sell books knowing some would like to read some anti oj comments.Their book comments meant nothing. hahaha

[martin II]

tv
i think i left out ojs attache bag.

[tv]

tv
Another small issue.

I am thinking about what le calls chain of custody.

In the case of Nicole buying the gloves, chain of custody rules would require that there be proof that nicole purchased gloves and passed them directly to oj to prove that the gloves she purchased were given to oj. There is no such proof so it is not reasonable to think that she did.

I don't think whether or not Nicole purchased gloves would be considered chain of custody.

[tv]

tv
Another small issue.

I am thinking about what le calls chain of custody.

In the case of Nicole buying the gloves, chain of custody rules would require that there be proof that nicole purchased gloves and passed them directly to oj to prove that the gloves she purchased were given to oj. There is no such proof so it is not reasonable to think that she did.

Do you think she kept the gloves for her own use or do you have proof that she gave them to someone else?

[martin II]

Do you think she kept the gloves for her own use or do you have proof that she gave them to someone else?

NO

It was widely reported that she gave gloves to a family friend for christmas.
He was mentioned as a friend to oj in civil trial testimony.It was aso mentioned in civil trial testimony that the friend gave gloves to the criminal trial prosecution.

[martin II]

I don't think whether or not Nicole purchased gloves would be considered chain of custody.

Come on tv.

You know that is not what i posted.

Nicole purchased some kind of gloves and if there was proof that she handed/gave the gloves to oj that would be a complete chain of custody. Like proof of what happened to the gloves after she purchased them.Since there is no proof that she actually gave the gloves to oj there is no verifiable chain of custody.

you say vanhatter gave the blood to fung and fung gave it to SID and claim that is the chain of custody complete.

[weezer]

NO

It was widely reported that she gave gloves to a family friend for christmas.
He was mentioned as a friend to oj in civil trial testimony.It was aso mentioned in civil trial testimony that the friend gave gloves to the criminal trial prosecution.

IIRC, the gloves the friend said were given to him, were not the same type, style, brand that were reflected on the sales receipt.

[weezer]

Come on tv.

You know that is not what i posted.

Nicole purchased some kind of gloves and if there was proof that she handed/gave the gloves to oj that would be a complete chain of custody. Like proof of what happened to the gloves after she purchased them.Since there is no proof that she actually gave the gloves to oj there is no verifiable chain of custody.

you say vanhatter gave the blood to fung and fung gave it to SID and claim that is the chain of custody complete.

you mean like seeing him wearing them on tv and in print -- not before -- after the Christmas timeline where she purchased the gloves? ;)

[martin II]

I had to check to make sure my post was addressed to tv. It was.

[weezer]

ha -- guess you felt really stupid -- not remembering who you wrote! ;)

[fgump2]

NOT TRUE

TV networks supply on camera people with wardrobes all the time.Thats what TV fashion consultants do for them.The small details you speak of are not a problem as these consultants know their clients.They are called personal shoppers.imo
You may be right; however I think it is unlikely that a network would buy something as personal and hard to fit as a glove.
If Simpson was given gloves for a broadcast that he would give back afterwards and not wear on his own time, I think the defense would have said something about it the 1995 criminal trial.
The broadcasting photos of him wearing gloves which looked similar to the murder gloves were an item that made many people think he was guilty; and perhaps helped the plaintiffs in the civil trial of 1996 or 1997.
I realize that he wasn't convicted, but it would have helped his public image, and that of his lawyers if he could have weakened the impact of the pictures of him wearing gloves that could have been the murder gloves.

[fgump2]

After the trial and in a book they wrote two jurors expressed their opinions about the fitting of the gloves. During deliberations these two jurors voted with the other 10 that oj was not guilty. so it is reasonable to think that their comments in the book was just to sell books knowing some would like to read some anti oj comments.Their book comments meant nothing. hahaha

This comment is a bit strange coming from a person who has defended the jury with such energy.

[tv]

Come on tv.

You know that is not what i posted.

Nicole purchased some kind of gloves and if there was proof that she handed/gave the gloves to oj that would be a complete chain of custody. Like proof of what happened to the gloves after she purchased them.Since there is no proof that she actually gave the gloves to oj there is no verifiable chain of custody.

you say vanhatter gave the blood to fung and fung gave it to SID and claim that is the chain of custody complete.

This is what you posted -- "In the case of Nicole buying the gloves, chain of custody rules would require that there be proof that nicole purchased gloves and passed them directly to oj..."

[tv]

I had to check to make sure my post was addressed to tv. It was.

This is an open forum and all posters can reply to all posts. I've seen you reply to posts not addressed to you many times.

[tv]

IIRC, the gloves the friend said were given to him, were not the same type, style, brand that were reflected on the sales receipt.

That's my recollection as well. :shrug:

[tv]

You may be right; however I think it is unlikely that a network would buy something as personal and hard to fit as a glove.
If Simpson was given gloves for a broadcast that he would give back afterwards and not wear on his own time, I think the defense would have said something about it the 1995 criminal trial.
The broadcasting photos of him wearing gloves which looked similar to the murder gloves were an item that made many people think he was guilty; and perhaps helped the plaintiffs in the civil trial of 1996 or 1997.
I realize that he wasn't convicted, but it would have helped his public image, and that of his lawyers if he could have weakened the impact of the pictures of him wearing gloves that could have been the murder gloves.

I agree about the gloves being a personal item. I'm sure the same would hold true for shoes. If the defense had any proof at all that the gloves had been provided to him and were no longer in his possession they would have shouted it from the rooftops.

[tv]

Come on tv.

You know that is not what i posted.

Nicole purchased some kind of gloves and if there was proof that she handed/gave the gloves to oj that would be a complete chain of custody. Like proof of what happened to the gloves after she purchased them.Since there is no proof that she actually gave the gloves to oj there is no verifiable chain of custody.

you say vanhatter gave the blood to fung and fung gave it to SID and claim that is the chain of custody complete.

I believe chain of custody is a LE term that wouldn't apply to a private citizen buying gloves.

[martin II]

This is what you posted -- "In the case of Nicole buying the gloves, chain of custody rules would require that there be proof that nicole purchased gloves and passed them directly to oj..."

Correct

I think we agree on what chain of custody means.
So can you give proof that Nicole passed/gave the gloves directly to oj after she purchased them?:cool:

[martin II]

I believe chain of custody is a LE term that wouldn't apply to a private citizen buying gloves.

I don't agree. Chain of custody is only a term used to identify who had a item and who they gave it to. le uses it as a means of keeping tract with a item as in who had it and what they did with it.

Its ok if you don't like le's use of the term.

My request remains the same.

Please post proof that you have that Nicole physically gave oj the gloves she purchased from Bloomingdales.

[tv]

I don't agree. Chain of custody is only a term used to identify who had a item and who they gave it to. le uses it as a means of keeping tract with a item as in who had it and what they did with it.

Its ok if you don't like le's use of the term.

My request remains the same.

Please post proof that you have that Nicole physically gave oj the gloves she purchased from Bloomingdales.

I like LE's use of the term. I don't think it applies to private citizens. I have no proof she gave him the gloves and I've said before I don't think it's as important as some other people do. The fact that there are photographs of him wearing the gloves is enough for me. Even without the photos I was satisfied with the presence of his blood on the Rockingham glove as proof that the gloves had been on his hands during the murders.

[GreenIce]

Nicole did buy two pairs of gloves. the problem is there is no proof of the size and color. There is also no proof that she gave any gloves to oj.There is proof that she gave the gloves to a friend for xmas gift.So it is not possible to say oj ever wore the gloves she purchased. if Tom mcclouugh gave the prosecution and defence each some gloves ,what happened to them.

The gloves presented in court had the size id ripped out.So we don't actually know what size those gloves were. only Rubins opinion and his opinions turned out to be wrong many times.EXample Rubin tried to say the gloves had shrunk 20% when oj tried them on. If this is true the gloves would have been 20% smaller when oj was supposed to have put them on on 6/12 and they would not have fit him then.Rubin even testified that he could not tell the color of the gloves from those fake pictures. It makes no sense.imo

Martin,

According to Jeff Toobins, both gloves did have tags in them. Also, I don't know if you remember but I made a post about a close up of one of the pictures where MF is pointing at the Bundy glove, IMO, it appears that you can see a bit of the tag. So who cut the tags out the gloves? Had those tags been left in the gloves, there would be no question about what size, color, model, etc. on them.

I also made a post about why the LAPD did not take all of Simpson's gloves into evidence. It makes no sense why they would take them but then just leave them at Rockingham?

Also, doesn't it only make sense that MF would have looked at the tags of both gloves to confirm they were a "pair"?

IMO, I think it is just another cover story of the 4 detectives about MF being sent to Rockingham to see it was a match set. IMO, there is more evidence to suggest, to include the contact sheets that the picture of MF pointing at the glove was taken before he went to Rockingham.

This is another cover story that did not need to be told, what is the big deal if the picture was taken before he went to Rockingham--unless they are trying to hide something. IMO.

[martin II]

This comment is a bit strange coming from a person who has defended the jury with such energy.


I tried but could make no sense of your post.So here is my position again.

Jury members have the right to put what ever they desire in their books.It is to their benefit to know what their customers want to read if their objective is to sell books. It is my opinion that Bess understood this and the idea to say the gloves fit in the book fit their objective of giving their customers what they wanted to read.To sell books.

I am sure you understand that many wrote books and did not really believe
all of the contents. See Faye Resnick or Kato as examples.Take yourself for example. You have made serious claims against certain defence lawyers or oj and followed you claim by saying you don't know if your claim was true or you have no evidence that your claim was factual or not.

However when it was time for Bess to express their opinion on the glove issue in deliberations it obviously was very low or of no concern to them as they voted with the other 10 that oj was not guilty of all of the charges/claims against him. imo

[GreenIce]

You may be right; however I think it is unlikely that a network would buy something as personal and hard to fit as a glove.
If Simpson was given gloves for a broadcast that he would give back afterwards and not wear on his own time, I think the defense would have said something about it the 1995 criminal trial.
The broadcasting photos of him wearing gloves which looked similar to the murder gloves were an item that made many people think he was guilty; and perhaps helped the plaintiffs in the civil trial of 1996 or 1997.
I realize that he wasn't convicted, but it would have helped his public image, and that of his lawyers if he could have weakened the impact of the pictures of him wearing gloves that could have been the murder gloves.

fgump2,

I am not sure you understand what I am trying to say. I think it is possible that items such as gloves and shoes and other accessories were in fact bought by Simpson and other broadcasters for the very reasons you stated. However, my point is that if these items were bought for their job, it is possible that network would reimburse them when they handed in their expense reports or these receipts were submitted for income tax purposes.

I am pretty sure the DA's would have been able to get access to any of these records during the course of the investigation. However, it was well known that Simpson and Nicole did pay for many items, even expensive items with cash. In one of the books, it said that it would not be unusal for Simpson to carry $10,000.00 dollars on him.

[GreenIce]

NO

It was widely reported that she gave gloves to a family friend for christmas.
He was mentioned as a friend to oj in civil trial testimony.It was aso mentioned in civil trial testimony that the friend gave gloves to the criminal trial prosecution.

Martin,

Maybe that is why the tags were removed from the "murder gloves". It really would have sucked for the DA's to have to admit that the gloves they insisted Nicole bought and gave to Simpson really went to the friend.

[bobaugust]

you are sure of that right?

If you are referring to your comment about Simpson riding around in this Bronco and getting a message from Paula that caused him to go an kill Nicole, yes I am sure I have never said anything that ridiculous. The last time Simpson called Paula was at 10:03 well before Simpson left for Bundy and there was no message for him to hear.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Just to be fair, Vanatter, Lange, Phillips, Mark Fuhrman, Lt Spangler and a host of others in this case, on your side, are also proven liars.

I can understand why you feel Simpson was lying because he was guilty and is trying to cover up for the crimes you think he committed.

If that is the case, then you have also say the same about the state's witnesses who lied in this case, they are also guilty of committing crimes and are trying to cover it up.

GreenIce, you understand incorrectly. Simpson was proven to be a liar in the civil trial when portions of his testimony were impeached by telephone records, authenticated photographs, his own doctor’s notes and testimony from a defense witness.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

If he did, did he test it.That was supposed to be the bag in question.The other bags were the golf bag,the golf bag sheath, the two duffle bags and the LV suit bag.i think that is correct.

Martin,

The luggage was just another smoke and mirror trick by the DA's. It is clear they felt that Simpson got rid of all the items before he got back to Rockingham or left them at Rockingham.

How and from items did the Nicole's and Ron's blood come from? There is no outline of any weapon, glove--so where did he keep these items so they would leave no blood outline?

[bobaugust]

i posted katos testimony when he said when he walked past the door going to the garage the first time the porch lights were not on. when he walked back from the garage area the porch lights were on. oj turned them on while kato was at the garage at least 5 times and will not do so again because you read my post.

Park testified that when he parked at the Ashford gate there was a light on in the entrance of the front door and light on above the garage. Park testified that when he first saw Kaelin come from around the house down the pathway to the driveway almost simultaneously he saw Simpson come from the driveway into the front entrance enter the front door and then lights come on downstairs in the house.

Kaelin then continued on to the garage passing by the front of the house. I have never read any testimony where Kaelin said that the front entrance lights were not on then.

It you think you posted testimony 5 times where you think Kaelin said “porch lights” then you should have no problem posting it again.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, you understand incorrectly. Simpson was proven to be a liar in the civil trial when portions of his testimony were impeached by telephone records, authenticated photographs, his own doctor’s notes and testimony from a defense witness.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

No, I understand correctly that the lead detectives and many other state witnesses were also proven liars.

Fair is fair, IMO.

[Hipcheck]

Correct

I think we agree on what chain of custody means.
So can you give proof that Nicole passed/gave the gloves directly to oj after she purchased them?:cool:

We know Nicole bought two pair of Aris Light XL gloves from Bloomingdales in 1990.

We also know that there are pictures of O.J. wearing Aris light gloves.

We also know that Aris Light XL gloves were found at the murder scenes, one at Bundy and one at Rockingham.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out who Nicole bought and gave those gloves to.

[GreenIce]

We know Nicole bought two pair of Aris Light XL gloves from Bloomingdales in 1990.

We also know that there are pictures of O.J. wearing Aris light gloves.

We also know that Aris Light XL gloves were found at the murder scenes, one at Bundy and one at Rockingham.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out who Nicole bought and gave those gloves to.

Hipcheck,

We also know that Nicole gave two pairs of Aris Light XL gloves to a family friend.

We also know that both State witnesses were not employees of the company and they were basing their opinons on observation only. Since the tags were gut out of the "murder" gloves and all other identification was missing, there is no way to prove what size they were, what color they were,etc.

We also know that Nicole's receipt did not indicate color. We also know that there are different sizes of x-tra large.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that all the testimony about the gloves was not based on any thing more then opinon. Those gloves could not be identified without the tags.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

No, I understand correctly that the lead detectives and many other state witnesses were also proven liars.

Fair is fair, IMO.

The only state witness who was proved to have lied was Mark Fuhrman who lied about never saying the n-word in the previous ten years.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Hipcheck,

We also know that Nicole gave two pairs of Aris Light XL gloves to a family friend.

We also know that both State witnesses were not employees of the company and they were basing their opinons on observation only. Since the tags were gut out of the "murder" gloves and all other identification was missing, there is no way to prove what size they were, what color they were,etc.

We also know that Nicole's receipt did not indicate color. We also know that there are different sizes of x-tra large.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that all the testimony about the gloves was not based on any thing more then opinon. Those gloves could not be identified without the tags.

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. Okay. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at the inside of the lining of the glove, underneath?
A. I did during the criminal trial.
Q. If you recall still, are there any identifying characteristics or anything that appear on the lining of the -- the inside of that glove?
A. There's a size marking, there's a cutter number, and a sequence control number.
Q. Okay. First of all, we know the size number just indicates the size of the glove, correct?
A. Correct.
*
Q. Now, what exactly is a cutter number?
A. The cutter number is the actual individual who was given the leather to cut X amount
of pair of this style during the manufacturing process. It was a way of controlling the leather.
Q. And what is the sequence number, by definition?
A. The sequence number was to keep all the parts together so that the colors matched, because they did vary across the skins. They would actually -- the cutter would say, this is the first pair; I made the second, the third, the fourth. And he would keep all the parts together. That way -- this was nine pair of that particular lot of leather that was given to the cutter.
Q. Okay. There was an extra large; the cutter number sequence number 9?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

According to Jeff Toobins, both gloves did have tags in them. Also, I don't know if you remember but I made a post about a close up of one of the pictures where MF is pointing at the Bundy glove, IMO, it appears that you can see a bit of the tag. So who cut the tags out the gloves? Had those tags been left in the gloves, there would be no question about what size, color, model, etc. on them.

I also made a post about why the LAPD did not take all of Simpson's gloves into evidence. It makes no sense why they would take them but then just leave them at Rockingham?

Also, doesn't it only make sense that MF would have looked at the tags of both gloves to confirm they were a "pair"?

IMO, I think it is just another cover story of the 4 detectives about MF being sent to Rockingham to see it was a match set. IMO, there is more evidence to suggest, to include the contact sheets that the picture of MF pointing at the glove was taken before he went to Rockingham.

This is another cover story that did not need to be told, what is the big deal if the picture was taken before he went to Rockingham--unless they are trying to hide something. IMO.

GI

Thanks for your post.
After collection the gloves were in the posession of le and the prosecution.
The law requires that the content tag on all items never be removed. It shows all Id of the item including size color and most important the manufacturing company's identification number issued by the controlling government.

When the gloves were presented in court there was no content tag attatched. Obviously le or the DA had removed them.This made it impossible for the gloves to identified by size.

[martin II]

We know Nicole bought two pair of Aris Light XL gloves from Bloomingdales in 1990.

We also know that there are pictures of O.J. wearing Aris light gloves.

We also know that Aris Light XL gloves were found at the murder scenes, one at Bundy and one at Rockingham.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out who Nicole bought and gave those gloves to.

Thats not true

The glove sales manager testified that the sales receipt did not indicate the size or the color of the gloves nicole purchased.That is a fact.

There was no testimony in either trial that proves that Nicole gave oj the gloves she purchased at Bloomingdales.That is also a fact.

If you read the testimony you will understand the facts.

[martin II]

Martin,

The luggage was just another smoke and mirror trick by the DA's. It is clear they felt that Simpson got rid of all the items before he got back to Rockingham or left them at Rockingham.

How and from items did the Nicole's and Ron's blood come from? There is no outline of any weapon, glove--so where did he keep these items so they would leave no blood outline?

They didn't find any items oj hid because oj had no items to hide because he was in his house when Nicole was killed.

[martin II]

Park testified that when he parked at the Ashford gate there was a light on in the entrance of the front door and light on above the garage. Park testified that when he first saw Kaelin come from around the house down the pathway to the driveway almost simultaneously he saw Simpson come from the driveway into the front entrance enter the front door and then lights come on downstairs in the house.

Kaelin then continued on to the garage passing by the front of the house. I have never read any testimony where Kaelin said that the front entrance lights were not on then.

It you think you posted testimony 5 times where you think Kaelin said “porch lights” then you should have no problem posting it again.

bobaugust

You are playing word games again
Porch lights or coach lights it is the same.

[martin II]

I like LE's use of the term. I don't think it applies to private citizens. I have no proof she gave him the gloves and I've said before I don't think it's as important as some other people do. The fact that there are photographs of him wearing the gloves is enough for me. Even without the photos I was satisfied with the presence of his blood on the Rockingham glove as proof that the gloves had been on his hands during the murders.

Thanks for your response that you have no proof that nicole gave oj those gloves.If it means anything to you, you are not alone as NO ONE has any proof that nicole have oj those gloves. Those that say he some how got posession of those gloves are just gussing and or making up stuff.

[martin II]

I like LE's use of the term. I don't think it applies to private citizens. I have no proof she gave him the gloves and I've said before I don't think it's as important as some other people do. The fact that there are photographs of him wearing the gloves is enough for me. Even without the photos I was satisfied with the presence of his blood on the Rockingham glove as proof that the gloves had been on his hands during the murders.

I think the term chain of custody is used in many situations that require responsibility for a item. I know it is used in private business.

[martin II]

People are required to sign off on various documents and items as they change hands or work their way through the system at work right ?

[martin II]

That's my recollection as well. :shrug:

tv
You may be recalling something that is not true. Look at the source.

[tv]

They didn't find any items oj hid because oj had no items to hide because he was in his house when Nicole was killed.

Really? Who saw him in his house between 9:45 PM and when Park saw him enter the house?

[tv]

tv
You may be recalling something that is not true. Look at the source.

If by 'the source' you're referring to weezer then I'd prefer you not use me to get to her.

[tv]

I think the term chain of custody is used in many situations that require responsibility for a item. I know it is used in private business.

I wouldn't consider a woman buying her husband a pair of gloves comparable to a private business.

[weezer]

Thats not true

The glove sales manager testified that the sales receipt did not indicate the size or the color of the gloves nicole purchased.That is a fact. the sales receipt identified the manufacturer, style, size, and maybe the color.

There was no testimony in either trial that proves that Nicole gave oj the gloves she purchased at Bloomingdales.That is also a fact. a picture is worth a thousand words!

If you read the testimony you will understand the facts.

:shrug:

[weezer]

SNIPPED****". . .The law requires that the content tag on all items never be removed. It shows all Id of the item including size color and most important the manufacturing company's identification number issued by the controlling government.


ROFLMAO -- please tell me you don't mean this! LOL

[weezer]

You are playing word games again
Porch lights or coach lights it is the same.

porch lights and coach lights are most certainly not the same and especially not in this case. what is it you said? "If you read the testimony you will understand the facts." :eek:

[tv]

ROFLMAO -- please tell me you don't mean this! LOL

Leaving the tag on only applies to the merchant -- not the consumer.

[weezer]

Leaving the tag on only applies to the merchant -- not the consumer.

I guess the poster thinks there's pillow, mattress, and glove police out there just waiting to catch the person who dares remove their tags! LOL

[tv]

I guess the poster thinks there's pillow, mattress, and glove police out there just waiting to catch the person who dares remove their tags! LOL

If that was the case there wouldn't be enough jail space to hold all the tag removers! :tongue:

[bobaugust]

You are playing word games again
Porch lights or coach lights it is the same.

No word games just facts. I don’t care what you call them, Kaelin never said the coach lights or as you call them porch lights were not on when he walked past the front of Simpson’s house on his way to the garage. It you think that you know of some testimony that contradicts that, then post it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Martin,

According to Jeff Toobins, both gloves did have tags in them. Also, I don't know if you remember but I made a post about a close up of one of the pictures where MF is pointing at the Bundy glove, IMO, it appears that you can see a bit of the tag. So who cut the tags out the gloves? Had those tags been left in the gloves, there would be no question about what size, color, model, etc. on them.

I also made a post about why the LAPD did not take all of Simpson's gloves into evidence. It makes no sense why they would take them but then just leave them at Rockingham?

Also, doesn't it only make sense that MF would have looked at the tags of both gloves to confirm they were a "pair"?

IMO, I think it is just another cover story of the 4 detectives about MF being sent to Rockingham to see it was a match set. IMO, there is more evidence to suggest, to include the contact sheets that the picture of MF pointing at the glove was taken before he went to Rockingham.

This is another cover story that did not need to be told, what is the big deal if the picture was taken before he went to Rockingham--unless they are trying to hide something. IMO.

There is no evidence that the photograph of Fuhrman pointing at the glove was taken before the detectives went to Rockingham.

Officer Riske testified he saw that photograph taken and it was after Phillips and Fuhrman returned from Rockingham. The contract prints prove it as well.

October 28, 1996 Riske

Q. Now, after Detective Phillips and Fuhrman left at 5:30, did you have occasion to see them again?
A. Little later. Possibly an hour later.
Q. Okay. And under what circumstances did you happen to see them?
A. I saw Detective Fuhrman and the photographer approaching the crime scene and then
Detective Fuhrman was pointing to the evidence and the photographer took a picture.
Q. Do you recall what evidence Detective Fuhrman was pointing at?
A. The (glove I) believe and the hat.
Q. Okay. If I could see number 92, Steve. Now, do you recognize that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Is that the photograph you just referenced Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat that morning?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you actually observed the photographer take that photograph at that time?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. You can remove that photo. (Steve complies.)
Did there come a time that you were 22 relieved of your post of 875 south Bundy?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately what time was that?
A. 7:15.

Q. And how long prior to you being relieved of your post did you observed those photographs being taken from what Detective Fuhrman pointed to the evidence?
A. Possibly 40 minutes, 45 minutes.
Q. So was it starting to get light out at that time?
A. Yeah, it was dawn.
Q. And one of the one other things: Did you have any contact with Detective Phillips around the same time that those photographs were being taken?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what was that?
A. I saw him on the east side of the street talking to some other people and I took him his phone back.
Q. Was that before or after you observed those photographs being taken?
A. It was just after.


January 27, 1997

MR. PETROCELLI: Let's get the contact sheets. What you are going to see is that the photo of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was, like, number 36, I think, on the roll, and --
MR. FOSTER: 34.
MR. PETROCELLI: 34.
You're going to see that the sun is coming up in the east already, long before the photo --
Why don't you point out where the sun is going out in the east.
MR. BAKER: There's no testimony the sun is coming up in the east in that photo.
MR. PETROCELLI: You see that, it's facing east. You can see the sun coming up.
That's -- that's -- there's a -- the sun coming up -- one, two, three, four, five six --
that's photo number 6. That's photo 6. Now go to 8, Steve; to photo 8. Here's number 46 (indicating to Elmo) You can see the sun coming up in the east right there. Look at that. Sunrise was 5:40, 5:42 a.m. that morning. Here's Fuhrman way down here in frames 34
and 35, pointing to a glove. This is long after the sun's coming up.
They want you to believe that this is taken at nighttime, at 4:00 in the morning. Just look at photographs. You don't have to believe a word I'm saying. Look at the photographs.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. Okay. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at the inside of the lining of the glove, underneath?
A. I did during the criminal trial.
Q. If you recall still, are there any identifying characteristics or anything that appear on the lining of the -- the inside of that glove?
A. There's a size marking, there's a cutter number, and a sequence control number.
Q. Okay. First of all, we know the size number just indicates the size of the glove, correct?
A. Correct.
*
Q. Now, what exactly is a cutter number?
A. The cutter number is the actual individual who was given the leather to cut X amount
of pair of this style during the manufacturing process. It was a way of controlling the leather.
Q. And what is the sequence number, by definition?
A. The sequence number was to keep all the parts together so that the colors matched, because they did vary across the skins. They would actually -- the cutter would say, this is the first pair; I made the second, the third, the fourth. And he would keep all the parts together. That way -- this was nine pair of that particular lot of leather that was given to the cutter.
Q. Okay. There was an extra large; the cutter number sequence number 9?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the gloves that you were shown and that you saw, we all saw during the break, there is no style number on those gloves that's visible; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Not on the outside.
MR. COCHRAN: And if you looked at the label, you couldn't see a 70263, could you?
MR. RUBIN: No. There's no identification on the labels.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Is there--is there a number someplace else on the glove?
MR. RUBIN: During the manufacturing cycle, there are three sets of numbers behind the lining on the back of the gloves during the actual manufacturing process. I don't know if those numbers still exist today in these gloves because of the age of the gloves. But originally, there were three sets of numbers inside, one being a size, two being a 3-digit number which indicated the individual who actually cut the gloves, and then another 2-digit number indicating the sequence in which they were made from the leather that was given to the cutter at a given point in time. But I don't know if those numbers exist in there right now.



Mr. August,

It appears to me on cross, Rubin during the criminal trial, testified he did not know, because of the age of the glove if those numbers exist inside the "murder gloves".

It appears to me that Mr. Rubin does have serious credibility problem.

Also, if the lining of the gloves were removed, why didn't the DA's use this as another excuse for the ill fit of the gloves?

[GreenIce]

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. Okay. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at the inside of the lining of the glove, underneath?
A. I did during the criminal trial.
Q. If you recall still, are there any identifying characteristics or anything that appear on the lining of the -- the inside of that glove?
A. There's a size marking, there's a cutter number, and a sequence control number.
Q. Okay. First of all, we know the size number just indicates the size of the glove, correct?
A. Correct.
*
Q. Now, what exactly is a cutter number?
A. The cutter number is the actual individual who was given the leather to cut X amount
of pair of this style during the manufacturing process. It was a way of controlling the leather.
Q. And what is the sequence number, by definition?
A. The sequence number was to keep all the parts together so that the colors matched, because they did vary across the skins. They would actually -- the cutter would say, this is the first pair; I made the second, the third, the fourth. And he would keep all the parts together. That way -- this was nine pair of that particular lot of leather that was given to the cutter.
Q. Okay. There was an extra large; the cutter number sequence number 9?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Now lets see Brenda V says about this:

MR. DARDEN: Do Aris Isotoner gloves usually have a style number imprinted somewhere on the glove?
MS. VEMICH: Not that I know of.
MR. DARDEN: But you mentioned a moment ago that there was no style number that you could see with the naked eye?
MS. VEMICH: No. There is no style number that you can see.
MR. DARDEN: Are you suggesting that there is some type of number, identification number somewhere on the glove?
MS. VEMICH: I believe there is some kind of identification on the glove underneath the lining that may tell you the lot number or whatever, in what sequence they were made. I am not an expert in this area.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when you identified the two gloves shown to you by Mr. Cochran and myself, was that identification based on the sales receipt or was it based on your observations of the gloves?

MS. VEMICH: The observation of the gloves.

MR. COCHRAN: And in this particular glove, which I guess is the right glove, there are no markings in this glove that came from the factory, are there?
MS. VEMICH: Not, no, no.
MR. COCHRAN: There are no markings that came from the factory; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: No.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. The writing inside this glove was placed by someone at a later time; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: This is a brown glove; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Can you tell the size of this glove from looking at it?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. It appears to be an extra large glove.



Mr. August,

It appears to me that the criminal trial testimony of both Rubin and Vermich impeach Rubin's testimony in the civil trial.

[martin II]

Leaving the tag on only applies to the merchant -- not the consumer.

wrong
look at a pillow in your house. or check the u.s product manufactur law

[GreenIce]

There is no evidence that the photograph of Fuhrman pointing at the glove was taken before the detectives went to Rockingham.

Officer Riske testified he saw that photograph taken and it was after Phillips and Fuhrman returned from Rockingham. The contract prints prove it as well.

October 28, 1996 Riske

Q. Now, after Detective Phillips and Fuhrman left at 5:30, did you have occasion to see them again?
A. Little later. Possibly an hour later.
Q. Okay. And under what circumstances did you happen to see them?
A. I saw Detective Fuhrman and the photographer approaching the crime scene and then
Detective Fuhrman was pointing to the evidence and the photographer took a picture.
Q. Do you recall what evidence Detective Fuhrman was pointing at?
A. The (glove I) believe and the hat.
Q. Okay. If I could see number 92, Steve. Now, do you recognize that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Is that the photograph you just referenced Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat that morning?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you actually observed the photographer take that photograph at that time?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. You can remove that photo. (Steve complies.)
Did there come a time that you were 22 relieved of your post of 875 south Bundy?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately what time was that?
A. 7:15.

Q. And how long prior to you being relieved of your post did you observed those photographs being taken from what Detective Fuhrman pointed to the evidence?
A. Possibly 40 minutes, 45 minutes.
Q. So was it starting to get light out at that time?
A. Yeah, it was dawn.
Q. And one of the one other things: Did you have any contact with Detective Phillips around the same time that those photographs were being taken?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what was that?
A. I saw him on the east side of the street talking to some other people and I took him his phone back.
Q. Was that before or after you observed those photographs being taken?
A. It was just after.


January 27, 1997

MR. PETROCELLI: Let's get the contact sheets. What you are going to see is that the photo of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was, like, number 36, I think, on the roll, and --
MR. FOSTER: 34.
MR. PETROCELLI: 34.
You're going to see that the sun is coming up in the east already, long before the photo --
Why don't you point out where the sun is going out in the east.
MR. BAKER: There's no testimony the sun is coming up in the east in that photo.
MR. PETROCELLI: You see that, it's facing east. You can see the sun coming up.
That's -- that's -- there's a -- the sun coming up -- one, two, three, four, five six --
that's photo number 6. That's photo 6. Now go to 8, Steve; to photo 8. Here's number 46 (indicating to Elmo) You can see the sun coming up in the east right there. Look at that. Sunrise was 5:40, 5:42 a.m. that morning. Here's Fuhrman way down here in frames 34
and 35, pointing to a glove. This is long after the sun's coming up.
They want you to believe that this is taken at nighttime, at 4:00 in the morning. Just look at photographs. You don't have to believe a word I'm saying. Look at the photographs.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Riske did not take the picture. He was not there to observe who was taking pictures and when they were taken. IMO, the photographer who took the picture testimony is more reliable then Riske's.

Also, the defense had to wait months and months to get the contact sheets and their presentation was much different the plaintiffs.

However, in the civil trial, a juror could have believed Simpson planted the glove and that Fuhrman did it, however, they did not have to take this into consideration. They only had to focus on what was found on the glove, it didn't to them how the glove got there.

Petrocelli knew his jury, he knew it didn't matter to them if evidence was planted, he knew his burden of proof was much lower.

What does it matter if Rokhar took the picture before MF left for Rockingham. He was there to photograph evidence--I say the glove was evidence.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9209193]There is no evidence that the photograph of Fuhrman pointing at the glove was taken before the detectives went to Rockingham.

Officer Riske testified he saw that photograph taken and it was after Phillips and Fuhrman returned from Rockingham. The contract prints prove it as well.

Q. And one of the one other things: Did you have any contact with Detective Phillips around the same time that those photographs were being taken?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what was that?
A. I saw him on the east side of the street talking to some other people and I took him his phone back.
Q. Was that before or after you observed those photographs being taken?
A. It was just after.


Mr. August,

Phillips and MF were both sent back to Bundy because of the glove, to see if it was a match. So why was Phillips on the street talking to other people and why did Riske has his cell phone?

Did Philips testify that he also looked at the Bundy glove and believed they were a match or could only MF say they were a match?

Why send two people to do this simple task--unless Phillips was in charge of babysitting Fuhrman. That is the only reason I can think of.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9209189]Leaving the tag on only applies to the merchant -- not the consumer.[/Q

TV

Exactly who told you that untruth that product tage are not for consumers?

[martin II]

If that was the case there wouldn't be enough jail space to hold all the tag removers! :tongue:

If le removed the product safety tag from the gloves they broke the law.Did you know that.

[tv]

I've known this for a long time. ---

http://money.howstuffworks.com/removed-mattress-tag.htm

In case you can't find your copy of the U.S. Code, simply look at the tag in question. One of our pillow tags displayed the following text:

"50910180K C

UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THIS TAG NO TO BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY THE CONSUMER

--------------

ALL NEW MATERIAL CONSISTING OF POLYESTER FIBER

--------------

REGISTRY NO. PA-23841 (KY)

--------------

Certification is made by the manufacturer that the materials in this article are described in accordance with the law."

Once you have purchased a pillow or mattress, it's your right as the "ultimate consumer" to remove the tag. You may want to hang on to the tags for future reference, though -- especially if you have any allergies to certain materials.

[tv]

If le removed the product safety tag from the gloves they broke the law.Did you know that.

No, they did not and you don't know if they removed it anyway.

[martin II]

If that was the case there wouldn't be enough jail space to hold all the tag removers! :tongue:

'IF that were the case'?
Why would you think thast is not the case.
i am ignoring the other silly post.

[tv]

Here's a better link -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_00000070---c000-.html

(a) Removal or mutilation after shipment in commerce

After shipment of a textile fiber product in commerce it shall be unlawful, except as provided in this subchapter, to remove or mutilate, or cause or participate in the removal or mutilation of, prior to the time any textile fiber product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, any stamp, tag, label, or other identification required by this subchapter to be affixed to such textile fiber product, and any person violating this section shall be guilty of an unfair method of competition, and an unfair or deceptive act or practice, under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.].

[tv]

'IF that were the case'?
Why would you think thast is not the case.
i am ignoring the other silly post.

That's your choice. :shrug: If you'll read the US Code I posted above you'll understand why that's not the case.

[GreenIce]

If le removed the product safety tag from the gloves they broke the law.Did you know that.

Martin,

In reading the testimony of Vermich and Rubin, it is clear, they based their opinons on their observation on the outside of the glove. Why didn't either of them testify about the inside the glove, such as these other identifying marks underneath the lining of the gloves?

I thought Rubin brought in a brand new pair of the gloves that were said to be the exact same type, model and size of the murder gloves--so did these gloves have tags? Did these gloves have the markings underneath the lining?

IMO, it is not the outside of the glove that needs to be focused on, it was the inside of the glove that should have been focused on. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

I've known this for a long time. ---

http://money.howstuffworks.com/removed-mattress-tag.htm

In case you can't find your copy of the U.S. Code, simply look at the tag in question. One of our pillow tags displayed the following text:

"50910180K C

UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THIS TAG NO TO BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY THE CONSUMER

--------------

ALL NEW MATERIAL CONSISTING OF POLYESTER FIBER

--------------

REGISTRY NO. PA-23841 (KY)

--------------

Certification is made by the manufacturer that the materials in this article are described in accordance with the law."

Once you have purchased a pillow or mattress, it's your right as the "ultimate consumer" to remove the tag. You may want to hang on to the tags for future reference, though -- especially if you have any allergies to certain materials.

look under leather gloves with wool linings.
Why would a informed consumer remove a product label that is put there for your protection?

[tv]

look under leather gloves with wool linings.
Why would a informed consumer remove a product label that is put there for your protection?

The other link is the actual code. You are wrong.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

Do you know of any site that has very clear, close ups of MF point at the glove? I don't know if you are able to but if can get hold of MF's book, IMO, there may very well be tag inside the glove.

[fgump2]

They didn't find any items oj hid because oj had no items to hide because he was in his house when Nicole was killed.

I thought maybe he was outside practicing his golf swing, maybe putting; or he may have been over at Bundy working on his slice.

[martin II]

Martin,

In reading the testimony of Vermich and Rubin, it is clear, they based their opinons on their observation on the outside of the glove. Why didn't either of them testify about the inside the glove, such as these other identifying marks underneath the lining of the gloves?

I thought Rubin brought in a brand new pair of the gloves that were said to be the exact same type, model and size of the murder gloves--so did these gloves have tags? Did these gloves have the markings underneath the lining?

IMO, it is not the outside of the glove that needs to be focused on, it was the inside of the glove that should have been focused on. Again, IMO.

From memory Rubin said the underside of the leather had a glove cutters id number. i remember nothing stating that the glove size was recorded on the under side of the leather.


i think the prosecutor tried to insert something about size in rubins testimony
but rubin never said size was inside the gloves.

The prosecution never examined the inside of the new gloves maby because they knew the size was not recorded
i will look tomorrow

[GreenIce]

Thats not true

The glove sales manager testified that the sales receipt did not indicate the size or the color of the gloves nicole purchased.That is a fact.

There was no testimony in either trial that proves that Nicole gave oj the gloves she purchased at Bloomingdales.That is also a fact.

If you read the testimony you will understand the facts.

Martin,

The receipt says Nicole bought two pairs of gloves, but the color was not indicated on it right?

So how come everyone seems to believe that Nicole bought a black pair and and a brown pair?

Also, since Simpson owned an apartment in NYC and lived there through the winter months, did the DA's ever try to get a search warrant for Simpson's apartment in NYC to see if they could find the other pair?

[tv]

I thought maybe he was outside practicing his golf swing, maybe putting; or he may have been over at Bundy working on his slice.

I'm going to go with option #3. Park saw him entering the house when he returned, Kato had just heard the thumps-- good grief!

[GreenIce]

From memory Rubin said the underside of the leather had a glove cutters id number. i remember nothing stating that the glove size was recorded on the under side of the leather.


i think the prosecutor tried to insert something about size in rubins testimony
but rubin never said size was inside the gloves.

The prosecution never examined the inside of the new gloves maby because they knew the size was not recorded
i will look tomorrow

Martin,

If you read the testimony that posted, it seems to me that Brenda V, testified there were no markings underneath the lining and Rubin testified he did know if the murder gloves had these markings.

Which appears to be in direct conflict of his civil trial testimony.

Also, in his civil trial testimony, he does not say when and where he saw these numbers? Wouldn't you think he would have told the DA's about the markings and tell them to look underneath the lining? Some identification is better then none, IMO.

[tv]

look under leather gloves with wool linings.
Why would a informed consumer remove a product label that is put there for your protection?

Yes, those gloves should have said 'warning -- buyer beware, you may be killed by the person wearing these gloves'. ;)

[martin II]

I thought maybe he was outside practicing his golf swing, maybe putting; or he may have been over at Bundy working on his slice.

i think he did do some short putting on his front lawn before taking a short nap and hitting the shower.Odd things can happen when some try to think.

[tv]

i think he did do some short putting on his front lawn before taking a short nap and hitting the shower.Odd things can happen when some try to think.

Oops, you forgot about him going to the bathroom. Did something odd happen when you were thinking?

[martin II]

Martin,

If you read the testimony that posted, it seems to me that Brenda V, testified there were no markings underneath the lining and Rubin testified he did know if the murder gloves had these markings.

Which appears to be in direct conflict of his civil trial testimony.

Also, in his civil trial testimony, he does not say when and where he saw these numbers? Wouldn't you think he would have told the DA's about the markings and tell them to look underneath the lining? Some identification is better then none, IMO.

GI Look
Rubin came to la to the trial expecting to be the prosecutions star witness on the gloves.He expected to be the celiberty at the prosecutions Victory party which he begged for a invitation to attend. He turned out to be the prosecutions flunky and when Cochran was finished with him he looked like the fool in the court room.He lied and lied and lied until he could lie no more.
Nothing he said could be believed.
That may be the reason he no longer worked at ARIS glove.imo

[tv]

wrong
look at a pillow in your house. or check the u.s product manufactur law

Okay, I posted the code. Do you understand now that the law only applies until the item is sold to the consumer?

[tv]

GI Look
Rubin came to la to the trial expecting to be the prosecutions star witness on the gloves.He expected to be the celiberty at the prosecutions Victory party which he begged for a invitation to attend. He turned out to be the prosecutions flunky and when Cochran was finished with him he looked like the fool in the court room.He lied and lied and lied until he could lie no more.
Nothing he said could be believed.
That may be the reason he no longer worked at ARIS glove.imo


Rubin hadn't worked for Aris since 1990.

[martin II]

Oops, you forgot about him going to the bathroom. Did something odd happen when you were thinking?

tv

Wrong
i left that out of this post because the last time i posted that he used the toilet, you got bent all out of shape as if you were offended by the word.

[tv]

tv
i left that out of this post because the last time i posted that he used the toilet, you got bent all out of shape as if you were offended by the word.

No, I didn't. I just thought it was funny that you would know that he went to the bathroom. Don't worry about offending me with the word toilet -- I doubt anything on this forum could offend me more then I've already been offended.

[martin II]

Rubin hadn't worked for Aris since 1990.

I never said he did. That must have been the year Aris caught up with him.

[martin II]

No, I didn't. I just thought it was funny that you would know that he went to the bathroom. Don't worry about offending me with the word toilet -- I doubt anything on this forum could offend me more then I've already been offended.

It would only be funny if you had not read the testimony so i guess you didn't. I posted ojs activities from testimony.

[tv]

It would only be funny if you had not read the testimony so i guess you didn't. I posted ojs activities from testimony.

If it's in the testimony I guess I just skimmed over the part where he went to the bathroom -- TMI. :tongue:

[tv]

I never said he did. That must have been the year Aris caught up with him.

Not worth arguing about.

[martin II]

Okay, I posted the code. Do you understand now that the law only applies until the item is sold to the consumer?

Read the product safety code for leather gloves with wool lining.

[martin II]

Not worth arguing about.

Then why mention it?

[tv]

Read the product safety code for leather gloves with wool lining.

Don't be ridiculous, martin. It's the US code for all textiles. If you have a different code then post it.

[tv]

Then why mention it?

Why keep talking about it?

[martin II]

I wouldn't consider a woman buying her husband a pair of gloves comparable to a private business.

If you are interested in following what happened to the gloves you would be interested in the chain of custody of the gloves.Use any word you like. But we both know there is no proof that Nicole gave oj those gloves. That is the issue.

[tv]

If you are interested in following what happened to the gloves you would be interested in the chain of custody of the gloves.Use any word you like. But we both know there is no proof that Nicole gave oj those gloves. That is the issue.

As I told you earlier, whether or not Nicole purchased the gloves isn't important to me. The gloves are on his hands in the photos on the field and his blood mixed with the blood of Ron and Nicole is on the Rockingham glove. It's more than enough to convince me the gloves belong to him.

[martin II]

If it's in the testimony I guess I just skimmed over the part where he went to the bathroom -- TMI. :tongue:

Do you mean like half cocked? or knowing only part of what was said.

[tv]

Do you mean like half cocked? or knowing only part of what was said.

You might be surprised to know that even though I try I can't remember every single word of testimony from two trials. If the testimony says he was using the john, so be it and so what?

[tv]

Do you mean like half cocked? or knowing only part of what was said.

Looks like you're wrong about him taking a nap -- :shrug:

Q: And it was at this point that you got into the shower--you went to the bathroom and then got into the shower?

A: Yeah, I went to the toilet and then I jumped in the shower.

Q: Mr. Petrocelli asked you during the course of his examination whether you were asleep between I believe 10:00 o'clock and 10:45, and you indicated that you were not. Is that true?

A: Yeah, I was fighting sleep, and that was the biggest problem I was having, falling asleep. So I was sitting there trying not to nod off, that's why I was trying to read and keep myself active.

Q: Okay. Because you were going to take a red eye, and you normally sleep on a red eye. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: In fact it wouldn't make a lot of sense to take a nap or sleep before you go on a red eye. Right?

A: At that late time, no.

Q: Okay. And you deny that you told Mr. Park that you overslept. Right?

A: Correct.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Now lets see Brenda V says about this:

MR. DARDEN: Do Aris Isotoner gloves usually have a style number imprinted somewhere on the glove?
MS. VEMICH: Not that I know of.
MR. DARDEN: But you mentioned a moment ago that there was no style number that you could see with the naked eye?
MS. VEMICH: No. There is no style number that you can see.
MR. DARDEN: Are you suggesting that there is some type of number, identification number somewhere on the glove?
MS. VEMICH: I believe there is some kind of identification on the glove underneath the lining that may tell you the lot number or whatever, in what sequence they were made. I am not an expert in this area.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when you identified the two gloves shown to you by Mr. Cochran and myself, was that identification based on the sales receipt or was it based on your observations of the gloves?

MS. VEMICH: The observation of the gloves.

MR. COCHRAN: And in this particular glove, which I guess is the right glove, there are no markings in this glove that came from the factory, are there?
MS. VEMICH: Not, no, no.
MR. COCHRAN: There are no markings that came from the factory; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: No.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. The writing inside this glove was placed by someone at a later time; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: This is a brown glove; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Can you tell the size of this glove from looking at it?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. It appears to be an extra large glove.



Mr. August,

It appears to me that the criminal trial testimony of both Rubin and Vermich impeach Rubin's testimony in the civil trial.

Ms Vemich testified she was not an expert about Aris gloves but knew there were numbers under the lining that could not be seen. Rubin testified in the criminal trial before the glove demonstration regarding the numbers under the lining of the gloves. Obviously sometime after that demonstration it wasn’t a problem for Rubin to pull the lining out and check for the numbers. In the civil trial Simpson’s defense never disputed Rubin’s testimony regarding those numbers underneath the lining that identified the size of the gloves as extra large.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Phillips and MF were both sent back to Bundy because of the glove, to see if it was a match. So why was Phillips on the street talking to other people and why did Riske has his cell phone?

Did Philips testify that he also looked at the Bundy glove and believed they were a match or could only MF say they were a match?

Why send two people to do this simple task--unless Phillips was in charge of babysitting Fuhrman. That is the only reason I can think of.

GreenIce, the photographer Rokahr did not remember when he took that photo. At the time of his testimony, Rokahr was on off duty-status because of his poor health and was under heavy medication. Like Thano Peratis he has acute heart problems. Consequently, he was a visibly sick and confused witness of whom the defense team took full advantage of that this somehow supported their illogical false claim that Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham.

Not only did Riske witness when the photographer took that picture but another witness Sandra Claiborne testified in the civil trial that she sat in a car with Rokahr for several hours and he never left the car until it started to get light outside when a detective came over and asked him to come into the crime scene.

Read Phillips testimony and you will learn the answer to your questions.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

I never said he did. That must have been the year Aris caught up with him.

Martin,

I find it very interesting that no one from Aris took the stand. I also find it interesting that Brenda V felt she had to the do the investigative work on the gloves as well as not getting any response from Aris.

I think Cochran does mention an Aris employee with connection to Det. Vanatter but Brenda did not know if they had spoken.

IMO, it appears to me that the police did seek out Aris to help their case but apparently VA was wise enough to either ask the wrong questions or ask them not to speak to anyone else about this.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, the photographer Rokahr did not remember when he took that photo. At the time of his testimony, Rokahr was on off duty-status because of his poor health and was under heavy medication. Like Thano Peratis he has acute heart problems. Consequently, he was a visibly sick and confused witness of whom the defense team took full advantage of that this somehow supported their illogical false claim that Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham.

Not only did Riske witness when the photographer took that picture but another witness Sandra Claiborne testified in the civil trial that she sat in a car with Rokahr for several hours and he never left the car until it started to get light outside when a detective came over and asked him to come into the crime scene.

Read Phillips testimony and you will learn the answer to your questions.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I suggest you re-read Rokhar's testimony, to include his cross by Darden. The only thing Darden was able to do was say that he was on many medications do to his health.

If Rohkar was on "off-duty" status, then why did he report for duty?

Phillips has no credibility since he was with Rokhar when MF approached him to take the photos around 4:30 a.m.

The DA's never disputed the fact that it was taken before sun-up.

It is a fact that the DA's refused to let the defense interview Rohkar until September 1995? Why is that? The contact sheets favor the defense.

With that civil trial jury, Petrocelli could have called Gumby and Poky to the stand and let testify about DNA evidence that jury would have considered them top-notch witnesses, IMO.

Again, it is obvious the civil trial jury did not care if the glove was planted or not. They just didn't care.

And another thing, where were this witness in the criminal trial? Did the DA's call her to the stand to impeach Rokhar's testimony? Speaking of which, why didn't the DA's call Rokhar in their case in chief? Sandra C. never saw Mark Fuhrman, Sandra C. never saw the picture being taken, Sandra C. does not know when the picture was taken. So, she really does nothing for the case, accept for that civil trial jury.

What pictures did Rokhar take before MF pointing at the glove and what pictures did he take after the gloves? Was it the keys, the envelope, the hat?

[GreenIce]

Ms Vemich testified she was not an expert about Aris gloves but knew there were numbers under the lining that could not be seen. Rubin testified in the criminal trial before the glove demonstration regarding the numbers under the lining of the gloves. Obviously sometime after that demonstration it wasn’t a problem for Rubin to pull the lining out and check for the numbers. In the civil trial Simpson’s defense never disputed Rubin’s testimony regarding those numbers underneath the lining that identified the size of the gloves as extra large.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Rubin testified he did not know if those numbers were in fact on those gloves.
It was not Mr. Rubin's job to rip out the lining to check for them--it was the DA's job. However, how was Brenda V able to look for these numbers but Rubin couldn't---and he testified after she did.

And who took the tags out of the gloves? You can see one in a picture as well as Jeff Toobin's book says the gloves were found with tags in them.

And you know as well as I do there is more then one size of extra large.

If Vermich is not a glove expert, then why call her to the stand? Where is the Aris representative?

Wait a minute, the lining was removed because someone had written in it, how did that happen? Did some make sure the numbers or the size was unreadable?

I just remembered that, the tags are removed and the writing on the lining of the glove apparently makes it impossible to see the size of it? Interesting!

[weezer]

wrong
look at a pillow in your house. or check the u.s product manufactur law

martin -- the law does apply to the consumer after purchase. LOL

[weezer]

Read the product safety code for leather gloves with wool lining.

someone mind looking at this and seeing what martin is talking about? I can't find it.

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/cpsa15b.html

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .With that civil trial jury, Petrocelli could have called Gumby and Poky to the stand and let testify about DNA evidence that jury would have considered them top-notch witnesses, IMO.

But by then, lee and baden had distanced themselves far, far away from orenthal. ;)

[tv]

But by then, lee and baden had distanced themselves far, far away from orenthal. ;)

Yes, in the civil trial, Scheck was Dr. Lee's attorney. Strange, huh?

[tv]

someone mind looking at this and seeing what martin is talking about? I can't find it.

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/cpsa15b.html

No clue. I haven't understood what he meant about removing tags from leather gloves with a wool lining from the beginning...:shrug:

[Hipcheck]

i think he did do some short putting on his front lawn before taking a short nap and hitting the shower.Odd things can happen when some try to think.

When why was O.J. hot and sweating so much in the limo while going to the airport? Why did O.J. need to drink many glasses kf water while on the airplane?

He did a lot more than just chip a few golf balls because that's not what cause the above behavoir but killing two people would.

[martin II]

Yes, in the civil trial, Scheck was Dr. Lee's attorney. Strange, huh?

Not strange at all.Scheck is a defence lawyer and a real good one.

[martin II]

When why was O.J. hot and sweating so much in the limo while going to the airport? Why did O.J. need to drink many glasses kf water while on the airplane?

He did a lot more than just chip a few golf balls because that's not what cause the above behavoir but killing two people would.

Again Kato.Park. the three sky caps and the captain of the plane never saw what you said oj did.However drinking water means what?

[martin II]

When why was O.J. hot and sweating so much in the limo while going to the airport? Why did O.J. need to drink many glasses kf water while on the airplane?

He did a lot more than just chip a few golf balls because that's not what cause the above behavoir but killing two people would.

Let me get this stuff right

If i am in la on a june night and i am sweating and drink some water this to you means that i have mUrdered two people. What nonsense.

[martin II]

When why was O.J. hot and sweating so much in the limo while going to the airport? Why did O.J. need to drink many glasses kf water while on the airplane?

He did a lot more than just chip a few golf balls because that's not what cause the above behavoir but killing two people would.

Why do you think PARK testified that he saw KATO STILL STANDING ON THE SAIDWALK?

[martin II]

No clue. I haven't understood what he meant about removing tags from leather gloves with a wool lining from the beginning...:shrug:

I understand why you don't understand.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Rubin testified he did not know if those numbers were in fact on those gloves.
It was not Mr. Rubin's job to rip out the lining to check for them--it was the DA's job. However, how was Brenda V able to look for these numbers but Rubin couldn't---and he testified after she did.

And who took the tags out of the gloves? You can see one in a picture as well as Jeff Toobin's book says the gloves were found with tags in them.

And you know as well as I do there is more then one size of extra large.

If Vermich is not a glove expert, then why call her to the stand? Where is the Aris representative?

Wait a minute, the lining was removed because someone had written in it, how did that happen? Did some make sure the numbers or the size was unreadable?

I just remembered that, the tags are removed and the writing on the lining of the glove apparently makes it impossible to see the size of it? Interesting!

There was no size notification inside the gloves.The testimony from the glove sales lady looking at the sales receipt that cochran showed her in court clearly proves that no size or color was written on the sales receipt.

Rubin testified that looking at the glove it looked like a size xl to him but that is only his opinion.Worthless words.

Rubins and the prosecutions problem was they nevber knew the size of ojs hands. They guessed wrong.

Vermich was very willing to try to help the prosecution that is why she testified for the prosecution.
Proof of this is Vermich is not the sales person that actually sold the gloves to nicole.They did not
let the sales girl testify.Vermich got caught by the questions of Cochran and had to ADMIT THAT NO SIZE OR COLOR WAS KNOWN.

[martin II]

Some posters have wrongly posted that they know what size and color the gloves Nicole purchased were.This testimony should put that claim to bed.

The style number on the sales receipt was never sold by Bloomingdales.





Holina Phipps was the sales person that actually sold the gloves not VEMICH.
Phipps was at the court room this day but the prosecution did not allow her to testify.


MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, as I understand your testimony, Miss Vemich, what you've told us is that if we look at this Bloomingdales glove purchase receipt there, you can't tell us the color of the gloves purchased; is that right?

MS. VEMICH: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: You can't tell us the size of the gloves purchased; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Correct.



MR. COCHRAN: You were not the sales person in this transaction; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And you don't--you didn't see who may have purchased this two pair of gloves on that particular evening or that day?

MS. VEMICH: No.



MR. COCHRAN: But you were not present at the time of this purchase; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: No, I was not.

MR. COCHRAN: And what you have been asked to do is to look at some records that are now approximately four and a half years old; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And to try and interpret them for us; isn't that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And I think we've established that you can't tell from this receipt either the color or the size of these particular gloves; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: From the receipt?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MS. VEMICH: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And if we are to look inside this particular item, it has some kind of a lining. And is that cashmere lining, as far as you know?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And in this particular glove, which I guess is the right glove, there are no markings in this glove that came from the factory, are there?

MS. VEMICH: Not, no, no.

MR. COCHRAN: There are no markings that came from the factory; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The writing inside this glove was placed by someone at a later time; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: This is a brown glove; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the two gloves that I put before you, you can't tell by looking at those gloves whether actually they are an actual pair, can you?

MS. VEMICH: They appear to be a pair.

MR. COCHRAN: They look similar, don't they?

MS. VEMICH: They sure do.

MR. COCHRAN: But there is no way you can tell whether those gloves were purchased at the same time, can you?

MS. VEMICH: No, no.



MR. COCHRAN: Were there any other gloves, other than Aris gloves, that sold for that approximate price, $55.00, back in December of 1990?

MS. VEMICH: I don't recall.

MR. COCHRAN: That is what I'm asking. I wasn't just talking about Aris; I was talking about any gloves.

MS. VEMICH: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: In Bloomingdales in December of 1990, were there others or can you not tell us?

MS. VEMICH: I can't recall.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. May I have

[martin II]

Don't be ridiculous, martin. It's the US code for all textiles. If you have a different code then post it.

Obviously you don't understand that leather goods are not the same classification as textiles.The gloves are leather goods.See U S CUSTOMS Tarrif if you need to.hahaha
But i will leave you with what you think.:cool:

[martin II]

Bob has claimed that Kato never said the coach lights were off when he first went pass the front door to investigate and on when he returned.
see Katos testimony below.
PS kato also testified that he did not see the glof bags on his first trip to the garage but saw then on his was back.Oj moved the golf bags to the front bench when he came down to deposit the two duffle bags at the porch.
Hopefully the below testimony will inform bob about the coach lights.


Petrocelli: And these lights that are being called coach lights that were outside the front door, left and right of the door --
Kaelin: I recollect those being off.
Petrocelli: Now, do you recollect those being off as you went by the door the first time to investigate?
Kaelin: Yes.

.Petrocelli: You saw those coach lights on when you came back from the garage. Right?
Kaelin: Yeah. They light up around the house.
Petrocelli: No. I mean right where the doorway is, the entranceway.
Kaelin: Yes, I believe so.

[weezer]

Obviously you don't understand that leather goods are not the same classification as textiles.The gloves are leather goods.See U S CUSTOMS Tarrif if you need to.hahaha
But i will leave you with what you think.:cool:

now you're embarrassing yourself -- ;)

[martin II]

GI

One small issue how VEMICH the person that did not sell the gloves was able to look at the gloves on the witness stand and give a opinion that they were size xl and not l. The differance in the glove size is about 1/2 inch.How could she tell that by just looking at the gloves.impossible.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I suggest you re-read Rokhar's testimony, to include his cross by Darden. The only thing Darden was able to do was say that he was on many medications do to his health.

If Rohkar was on "off-duty" status, then why did he report for duty?

Phillips has no credibility since he was with Rokhar when MF approached him to take the photos around 4:30 a.m.

The DA's never disputed the fact that it was taken before sun-up.

It is a fact that the DA's refused to let the defense interview Rohkar until September 1995? Why is that? The contact sheets favor the defense.

With that civil trial jury, Petrocelli could have called Gumby and Poky to the stand and let testify about DNA evidence that jury would have considered them top-notch witnesses, IMO.

Again, it is obvious the civil trial jury did not care if the glove was planted or not. They just didn't care.

And another thing, where were this witness in the criminal trial? Did the DA's call her to the stand to impeach Rokhar's testimony? Speaking of which, why didn't the DA's call Rokhar in their case in chief? Sandra C. never saw Mark Fuhrman, Sandra C. never saw the picture being taken, Sandra C. does not know when the picture was taken. So, she really does nothing for the case, accept for that civil trial jury.

What pictures did Rokhar take before MF pointing at the glove and what pictures did he take after the gloves? Was it the keys, the envelope, the hat?

In Darden’s cross examination Rokahr said he was under heavy medication when he spoke with Simpson’s attorneys and admitted he couldn’t remember what time he took that photograph.

Rokhar was not on “off duty” status at the time of the murders, he was on “off duty” status when he testified in the criminal trial.

At 4:30 a.m. the investigation had already been turned over to the Robbery Homicide detectives and Vannatter was on the scene. Fuhrman had no authority and never told Rokhar to photograph anything then. After the glove was found at Rockingham Vannatter told Fuhrman to go back to Bundy and see if the gloves were a match and have that glove photographed. That was about 6:30.

Of course the DA’s disputed the defense claim that the photograph was taken at 4:30 in the morning.

No one ever claimed that Sandra Claiborne saw the photograph taken. Patrol Officer Riske testified he saw it taken. Claiborne testified that she was sitting in a car with Rokhar for about three hours when a detective came over and asked Rokhar to come into the crime scene. Claiborne testified that she waited about another half hour before she went into the crime scene at about 7:00.

After Rokhar took the photographs of Fuhrman pointing to the glove he followed Fuhrman back to Rockingham to photograph evidence there.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Rubin testified he did not know if those numbers were in fact on those gloves.
It was not Mr. Rubin's job to rip out the lining to check for them--it was the DA's job. However, how was Brenda V able to look for these numbers but Rubin couldn't---and he testified after she did.

And who took the tags out of the gloves? You can see one in a picture as well as Jeff Toobin's book says the gloves were found with tags in them.

And you know as well as I do there is more then one size of extra large.

If Vermich is not a glove expert, then why call her to the stand? Where is the Aris representative?

Wait a minute, the lining was removed because someone had written in it, how did that happen? Did some make sure the numbers or the size was unreadable?

I just remembered that, the tags are removed and the writing on the lining of the glove apparently makes it impossible to see the size of it? Interesting!

It was not the prosecution’s job to look for numbers under the lining of the glove it was the expert Rubin’s job and after the glove demonstration he evidently did just that. The defense never disputed that the size of the gloves were extra large.

Extra large was the largest size made in that Aris glove. Ruben testified that the patterns that were used were all the same size but each square foot of leather does have its own characteristics as far as stretch ability. So yes one extra large might be smaller than another extra large.

Vemich was Bloomingdales men’s glove’s buyer. Rubin was vice president and general manager of Aris Isotoner in 1990, responsible for the design, manufacturing, production, raw material, sales and marketing of all men’s gloves.

I don’t know if the numbers were written or stamped but they were located underneath the lining on the leather. What is your source that all the tags on the gloves were removed?

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, while you're trying that glove on and looking at it, I'm going to ask you to examine it closely once again for all the specific characteristics we discussed before.
A. It has the same characteristics as the other half pair.
Q. That's the Brossar stitch and the three-point needles -- the three needle points; I'm sorry, and the lined hem and the other things?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove?
A. This is an Aris 70263 brown glove.
Q. Okay. Now, I see you're already doing it. I was going to ask you to look inside the lining of that glove, also, for those identifying characteristics. (Witness complies, turns glove inside out.)
A. Yes. The cutter number was 359; the sequence number is 9; and the size is XL, makes it a pair.
Q. As a result of looking at those identifying characteristics of the two gloves, are you
able to tell me what, if any, relationship there is between the two of those gloves?
A. They are a pair.
Q. No doubt about that?
A. No doubt about it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why do you think PARK testified that he saw KATO STILL STANDING ON THE SAIDWALK?

Because Park saw Kaelin there when Simpson entered his house.

[GreenIce]

In Darden’s cross examination Rokahr said he was under heavy medication when he spoke with Simpson’s attorneys and admitted he couldn’t remember what time he took that photograph.

Rokhar was not on “off duty” status at the time of the murders, he was on “off duty” status when he testified in the criminal trial.

At 4:30 a.m. the investigation had already been turned over to the Robbery Homicide detectives and Vannatter was on the scene. Fuhrman had no authority and never told Rokhar to photograph anything then. After the glove was found at Rockingham Vannatter told Fuhrman to go back to Bundy and see if the gloves were a match and have that glove photographed. That was about 6:30.

Of course the DA’s disputed the defense claim that the photograph was taken at 4:30 in the morning.

No one ever claimed that Sandra Claiborne saw the photograph taken. Patrol Officer Riske testified he saw it taken. Claiborne testified that she was sitting in a car with Rokhar for about three hours when a detective came over and asked Rokhar to come into the crime scene. Claiborne testified that she waited about another half hour before she went into the crime scene at about 7:00.

After Rokhar took the photographs of Fuhrman pointing to the glove he followed Fuhrman back to Rockingham to photograph evidence there.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Rohkar worked with Mark Fuhrman before. The photographers work under the direction of the detectives at the scene as well as with SID people at the scene.

He was with Phillips, taking direction from him when Fuhrman approached him and asked him to take a picture of the glove. He asked Fuhrman to point to the glove. If the picture was taken when the sun was up, there would be no reason for MF to point to the glove.

Officer Riske also testified in the civil trial that he told his commander that he thought OJ was involved in the murders and his commander denied this on the stand. So who do we believe?

Riske's partner, Miguel Terraz (sp) wrote one report, Ron Phillips then rewrote his report with descrepancies and they were not minor. So who is the liar?

Vanatter said that MF told him about the thumps, MF said he did not. Who is the liar?

MF said Phillips specifically asked Kato if OJ was in the house and Kato told him he was in Chicago, Lange and Vanatter also heard this. So who is the liar about them not knowing that Simpson was out of town before they spoke to Arnelle?

The photographer met with Neufeld and McKenna as well as a DA, Alan Youchelson. There was no mention of him being undermedication. The DA's did not and could not challenged the contact sheets. They tried to do the same thing with him that they did with the nurse, blame his illness and go with "they don't know what they did".

Phillips was sent with Fuhrman to go look at the glove, why? Please note, Riske was on duty how many hours and he is positive when the picture was taken?

Sorry, the contact sheets tell the truth. The 4 lead detectives have lied time and time again and when they weren't lying, they were making sure they were on the frindges so they could say they didn't know, they didn't see, they didn't hear, etc.

The bottom line, that was a fool's errand to see if the gloves matched. They wanted to make sure that Phillips and Fuhrman were together about the picture being taken. Phillips knew he had to go with MF because he was with the photographer when MF approached him to take the picture.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .Officer Riske also testified in the civil trial that he told his commander that he thought OJ was involved in the murders and his commander denied this on the stand. So who do we believe?. . ."

". . .Q. What, if anything, did you observe after that?

A. I observed a lithograph on the wall. It appeared to be O.J. Simpson. And as I went to the kitchen, there was an envelope, it had O.J. Simpson as a return address.

Q. What did you do next, after making those observations?

A. I used a phone to call my watch commander.

Q. Who was your watch commander?

A. Sergeant David Rossi. . . ."

". . .Q. The only call you made was to the watch commander, right?
A. Right.
Q. And who was that?
A. Sergeant Rossi.
Q. Tell me exactly what you told him?
A. Told him we had a double homicide on Bundy and it was my belief that Mr. Simpson was somehow involved because of the photos and the return address on the envelope.
Q. So you told the watch commander in your first Telephone call that you thought Mr. Simpson was somehow involved?
A. Right.


:eek::shrug:

[martin II]

Because Park saw Kaelin there when Simpson entered his house.

And he saw kato STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK although kato had been to the garage and returned.That is his testimony.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .Riske's partner, Miguel Terraz (sp) wrote one report, Ron Phillips then rewrote his report with descrepancies and they were not minor. So who is the liar?. . ."

what descrepancies? :shrug:

"A. Sir, my report was just a brief overview of what I had done and what I had seen, sir. . ."

[weezer]

And he saw kato STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK although kato had been to the garage and returned.That is his testimony.

you know, you're not near as good at this as william.

[bobaugust]

Bob has claimed that Kato never said the coach lights were off when he first went pass the front door to investigate and on when he returned.
see Katos testimony below.
PS kato also testified that he did not see the glof bags on his first trip to the garage but saw then on his was back.Oj moved the golf bags to the front bench when he came down to deposit the two duffle bags at the porch.
Hopefully the below testimony will inform bob about the coach lights.


Petrocelli: And these lights that are being called coach lights that were outside the front door, left and right of the door --
Kaelin: I recollect those being off.
Petrocelli: Now, do you recollect those being off as you went by the door the first time to investigate?
Kaelin: Yes.

.Petrocelli: You saw those coach lights on when you came back from the garage. Right?
Kaelin: Yeah. They light up around the house.
Petrocelli: No. I mean right where the doorway is, the entranceway.
Kaelin: Yes, I believe so.

Thank you for posting that. You are correct that Kaelin said the coach lights were not on when he went to the garage but here is the problem, Kaelin was confused. He didn’t understand what the coach lights were. He thought the small lights that were on the ground around the house and on each side of the front door were called coach lights. He was confused about this when Shapiro asked him about.
March 23, 1995 Kaelin

Q ABOUT THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS AT THE ROCKINGHAM HOME OF MR. SIMPSON, THE TREES ARE ALL LIT WITH PROFESSIONAL LIGHTING; ARE THEY NOT?
A YES. THERE'S SOME LIGHTS HIT THE -- YES.THERE'S LIGHTS FROM THE BOTTOM AND I THINK THEY GO UP.
Q AND ALSO, AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE, THERE ARE
COACH LIGHTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DOOR?
A I THINK SO.

Kaelin was evidently still confused as to what the coach lights were when Petrocelli asked him. Notice that Kaelin still thinks that the coach lights were the small lights that light up around the house.

Petrocelli: You saw those coach lights on when you came back from the garage. Right?
Kaelin: Yeah. They light up around the house.
Petrocelli: No. I mean right where the doorway is, the entranceway.
Kaelin: Yes, I believe so.

The fact is that the front entrance lights (coach lights) were on when Park pulled his limo up to the gate. That was how Park saw Simpson come from the driveway into the front entrance. After Simpson entered his house Park saw lights come on in the downstairs windows. Simpson evidently also turned on the small lights that Kaelin then saw.

bobaugust

[martin II]

It was not the prosecution’s job to look for numbers under the lining of the glove it was the expert Rubin’s job and after the glove demonstration he evidently did just that. The defense never disputed that the size of the gloves were extra large.

Extra large was the largest size made in that Aris glove. Ruben testified that the patterns that were used were all the same size but each square foot of leather does have its own characteristics as far as stretch ability. So yes one extra large might be smaller than another extra large.

Vemich was Bloomingdales men’s glove’s buyer. Rubin was vice president and general manager of Aris Isotoner in 1990, responsible for the design, manufacturing, production, raw material, sales and marketing of all men’s gloves.

I don’t know if the numbers were written or stamped but they were located underneath the lining on the leather. What is your source that all the tags on the gloves were removed?

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, while you're trying that glove on and looking at it, I'm going to ask you to examine it closely once again for all the specific characteristics we discussed before.
A. It has the same characteristics as the other half pair.
Q. That's the Brossar stitch and the three-point needles -- the three needle points; I'm sorry, and the lined hem and the other things?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove?
A. This is an Aris 70263 brown glove.
Q. Okay. Now, I see you're already doing it. I was going to ask you to look inside the lining of that glove, also, for those identifying characteristics. (Witness complies, turns glove inside out.)
A. Yes. The cutter number was 359; the sequence number is 9; and the size is XL, makes it a pair.
Q. As a result of looking at those identifying characteristics of the two gloves, are you
able to tell me what, if any, relationship there is between the two of those gloves?
A. They are a pair.
Q. No doubt about that?
A. No doubt about it.

bobaugust

Rubin did not evidently do any such thing.
Vemich stated that she thought someone had written the size of the gloves on the inside. not that the size was stamped by the factory.

Vermich could not verify that the two gloves were purchased at the same time.

[martin II]

Thank you for posting that. You are correct that Kaelin said the coach lights were not on when he went to the garage but here is the problem, Kaelin was confused. He didn’t understand what the coach lights were. He thought the small lights that were on the ground around the house and on each side of the front door were called coach lights. He was confused about this when Shapiro asked him about.
March 23, 1995 Kaelin

Q ABOUT THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS AT THE ROCKINGHAM HOME OF MR. SIMPSON, THE TREES ARE ALL LIT WITH PROFESSIONAL LIGHTING; ARE THEY NOT?
A YES. THERE'S SOME LIGHTS HIT THE -- YES.THERE'S LIGHTS FROM THE BOTTOM AND I THINK THEY GO UP.
Q AND ALSO, AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE, THERE ARE
COACH LIGHTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DOOR?
A I THINK SO.

Kaelin was evidently still confused as to what the coach lights were when Petrocelli asked him. Notice that Kaelin still thinks that the coach lights were the small lights that light up around the house.

Petrocelli: You saw those coach lights on when you came back from the garage. Right?
Kaelin: Yeah. They light up around the house.
Petrocelli: No. I mean right where the doorway is, the entranceway.
Kaelin: Yes, I believe so.

The fact is that the front entrance lights (coach lights) were on when Park pulled his limo up to the gate. That was how Park saw Simpson come from the driveway into the front entrance. After Simpson entered his house Park saw lights come on in the downstairs windows. Simpson evidently also turned on the small lights that Kaelin then saw.

bobaugust

bob you cannot just say Kato was confused when his testimony clearly says what he saw.
i have another testimony where he clearly says the exact same thing. the coach lights were off when he first passed and on when he returned.no way to change that.
First you say he never said any such thing. i post the testimony and now YOU
DECLAIR he was confused.please.

[tv]

I understand why you don't understand.

I don't understand what you're talking about because your claim that it's illegal to remove a manufacturer's tag after the consumer has purchased the product is nonsense.

[bobaugust]

And he saw kato STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK although kato had been to the garage and returned.That is his testimony.


No, when Park saw Simpson enter his house Park told his boss someone was there and as he finished his telephone conversation he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin. Park never saw Kaelin walk past him on his way to the garage. While Kaelin was behind the garage Park continued to wait and then got out of his limo and spoke with Simpson. Park got back into his limo and then waited again until he finally saw Kaelin come down the driveway from the direction of the garage and go to the gate control box and open the gate for him. That is what Kaelin testified he did.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Didn't you see where a sheep was in prison and they asked him what's he in for?

The sheep said her was caught tearing the label off a Serta mattres.

This isn't the first time he has embarrassed himself but to state that you could be arrested for tearing the label off a glove is uttery ridiculous.

I cannot prevent you from being uninformed on the issue but i can suggest that you read court testimony in a effort to help you from continuing to post false information on the thread.

You can also stop the personal negative comments towards me.

[martin II]

I don't understand what you're talking about because your claim that it's illegal to remove a manufacturer's tag after the consumer has purchased the product is nonsense.

Thats what i mean.

[martin II]

No, when Park saw Simpson enter his house Park told his boss someone was there and as he finished his telephone conversation he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin. Park never saw Kaelin walk past him on his way to the garage. While Kaelin was behind the garage Park continued to wait and then got out of his limo and spoke with Simpson. Park got back into his limo and then waited again until he finally saw Kaelin come down the driveway from the direction of the garage and go to the gate control box and open the gate for him. That is what Kaelin testified he did.

bobaugust

BOB
i really don't know why you are attempting to discuss this issue with me as William has already corrected your misinformation on the subject so many times in previous post.It is a closed issue.

[martin II]

Hopefully there will be no more false claims that nicole purchased size xl gloves as shown on the sales receipt.:seeya:

[martin II]

Because Park saw Kaelin there when Simpson entered his house.

i don't think you meant to post that.All the testimony states that when oj reentered,went back into the house Kato was at the garage after walking past the front door and seeing no lights on.hahaha

[weezer]

i don't think you meant to post that.All the testimony states that when oj reentered,went back into the house Kato was at the garage after walking past the front door and seeing no lights on.hahaha

Q: After you were dressed.

A: Yes.

Q: Came down with what bag?

A: Louis Vuitton, after I was dressed, completely dressed.

Q: Had you turned on any lights by then?

A: I don't know. I don't really know.

Q: What's your best--

A: I may have turned on--then I may have turned on the coach lights.

Q: When you came down with the Louis Vuitton bag?

A: No. I may have turned them on earlier.

Q: What time?

A: When I came down with my suit bag to look for my shoes and my golf bag.

Q: Before or after you dressed?

A: Before I got completely dressed.

Q: Half dressed?

A: Yes.

Q: No shirt on?

A: No shirt on.

Q: You walked downstairs with the suit bag and laid it outside where the golf bag is. Right?

A: Yeah.

Q: And at that time you turned on a light?

A: I may have, when I went back in, turned on the coach lights.

Q: And the coach lights but not the entryway light. Correct?

A: Yes, I believe so.

Q: And Park was already there at that time. Right?

A: He was at the gate.

Q: Not in.

A: Not in.

Q: Kato hadn't let him in yet.

A: As far as I know, no.

[fgump2]

Originally Posted by martin II
If you are interested in following what happened to the gloves you would be interested in the chain of custody of the gloves.Use any word you like. But we both know there is no proof that Nicole gave oj those gloves. That is the issue.


As I told you earlier, whether or not Nicole purchased the gloves isn't important to me. The gloves are on his hands in the photos on the field and his blood mixed with the blood of Ron and Nicole is on the Rockingham glove. It's more than enough to convince me the gloves belong to him.
I don't claim to understand everything about the gloves. I think that the signifigance of the sales slip is that it shows a connection between Mr. Simpson and gloves like the murder gloves. This is important because the gloves were unusual.
There are two pieces of evidence (aside from the glove found at ROckingham and Mr. SImpson's blood). The sales slip and the broadcasting video of Simpson wearing gloves that look identical to the murder gloves. The sales slip provides an additional connection.

I think the broadcasting video(s) are more important than the sales slip. I am not a lawyer but I don't think that term 'chain of custody' applies here.

I also have removed 'do not remove under penalty of law' slips from various things, usually furniture and am not worried about being sent to prison.

[tv]

Originally Posted by martin II
If you are interested in following what happened to the gloves you would be interested in the chain of custody of the gloves.Use any word you like. But we both know there is no proof that Nicole gave oj those gloves. That is the issue.



I don't claim to understand everything about the gloves. I think that the signifigance of the sales slip is that it shows a connection between Mr. Simpson and gloves like the murder gloves. This is important because the gloves were unusual.
There are two pieces of evidence (aside from the glove found at ROckingham and Mr. SImpson's blood). The sales slip and the broadcasting video of Simpson wearing gloves that look identical to the murder gloves. The sales slip provides an additional connection.

I think the broadcasting video(s) are more important than the sales slip. I am not a lawyer but I don't think that term 'chain of custody' applies here.

I also have removed 'do not remove under penalty of law' slips from various things, usually furniture and am not worried about being sent to prison.

I think Nicole did buy the murder gloves for Simpson and I think there's sufficient proof that she did, but even without that evidence the photos are enough.

I researched the term 'chain of custody' and haven't been able to find one definition that would apply to a private citizen making a purchase for personal use.

fg2, you're living on the edge. Didn't you know that removing a manufacturer's tag is right up there with running with scissors?

[GreenIce]

Originally Posted by martin II
If you are interested in following what happened to the gloves you would be interested in the chain of custody of the gloves.Use any word you like. But we both know there is no proof that Nicole gave oj those gloves. That is the issue.



I don't claim to understand everything about the gloves. I think that the signifigance of the sales slip is that it shows a connection between Mr. Simpson and gloves like the murder gloves. This is important because the gloves were unusual.
There are two pieces of evidence (aside from the glove found at ROckingham and Mr. SImpson's blood). The sales slip and the broadcasting video of Simpson wearing gloves that look identical to the murder gloves. The sales slip provides an additional connection.

I think the broadcasting video(s) are more important than the sales slip. I am not a lawyer but I don't think that term 'chain of custody' applies here.

I also have removed 'do not remove under penalty of law' slips from various things, usually furniture and am not worried about being sent to prison.

fgump2,

That is the problem, the gloves may not have been that unusual. The way the gloves are being presented is that only an elite class of people could have bought them and that is not true. There are many people who feel that spending what appears to be a lot of money on items are not just bought because they are expensive, but they are bought for the warmth, comfort and protection they offer.

The DA's mistake on the gloves is that they again made an argument that did not have to make. They insisted that the gloves that Nicole bought were the exact same pair as the murder gloves. They did this knowing that they could not prove this because the receipt was wrong and there was not an accurate description on the gloves.

A million pictures of Simpson wearing gloves or being seen on video do not prove those were the gloves. They prove that Simpson did wear gloves when he was on duty as a broadcaster---that is it. So why did they attempt to force those gloves on Simpson's hands? There were other gloves in Simpson's home, yet they did not take any of them for evaluation purposes. It makes no sense, just like with the timeline and the sweat suit have to have been the only cloth that those fibers could have come from. They kept on insisting that these were facts, when in fact, they were not and could never be proved to be.

The size of the gloves are very important because there is more then one size of extra large--just like with shoes. The criminalist who measured the murder gloves versus what was said to be an exact same pair in regards to model and size were measured. The murder gloves were significantly shorter then the new pair. Simpson wore a very wide glove because he wore heat pads underneath his gloves as well as having permanent swollen knuckles. A man who has large hands may have very long but narrow fingers.

One more point, you often talk how expensive these gloves are and the craftsmanship that went into them---if that is the case, then you are conceding that there is more then one size of extra large--store "glove experts" would know this and cater to their clients. Extra Large is not going to fit every man who has large hands.

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

The issue with the tags is that in at least one book, Jeff Toobin's, says the tags were inside the gloves when they were taken into evidence. IMO, there is one close up picture of the glove at Bundy where it looks like there may be a tag tucked inside. If this is the case, then why were they removed? With the tags being removed you can't identify the exact gloves and only can give an opinon on them. Both Rubin and Vermich said they made their opinons on the outside of the gloves.

Then you throw Fuhrman into the mix and their actions surrounding the glove also fall apart and again you wonder, why would they push the gloves that Nicole bought on to Simpson.

After Fuhrman, you then need to toss in VA and/or Lange into the mix. It is clear, IMO, their actions were done to set up a cover story to protect Mark Fuhrman.

There is a picture of MF pointing at the glove, why was he asked to point at the glove? Because of the lightening conditions, the photographer asked him to do this. He takes two pictures and there are no more pictures of the glove at Bundy. This makes no sense.

Mark Fuhrman and Philips are sent to Bundy to compare the two gloves, to see if they are match, so what if they weren't a match? Does that mean they weren't worn by the killer or killers?

And why insist that a photo be taken of them at that time--what does that prove? Was the photographer suppose to run to his car and set up his dark room and 15 minutes later, Lange and Vanatter would have the picture in their hands to compare it to the Rockingham glove?

The picture of the glove was taken for location purposes only, they did not need pictures to make sure they were a matched set. It was not the job of the detectives to make sure those gloves were a matched set before they were taken into evidence---that is why they have SID departments.

Also, to say that MF was sent to see if the gloves matched, does that mean he was a glove expert? It was two brown gloves--that is it, that is all he could have said about them.

So why did Vanatter and Lange want Fung to bring one of the gloves over to the other? I can't remember which it was and I believe Fung would not do it. I'll to look it up. However, this action also throws more fuel on to the fire. There was no reason for this. It makes no sense.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by martin II
If you are interested in following what happened to the gloves you would be interested in the chain of custody of the gloves.Use any word you like. But we both know there is no proof that Nicole gave oj those gloves. That is the issue.



I don't claim to understand everything about the gloves. I think that the signifigance of the sales slip is that it shows a connection between Mr. Simpson and gloves like the murder gloves. This is important because the gloves were unusual.
There are two pieces of evidence (aside from the glove found at ROckingham and Mr. SImpson's blood). The sales slip and the broadcasting video of Simpson wearing gloves that look identical to the murder gloves. The sales slip provides an additional connection.

I think the broadcasting video(s) are more important than the sales slip. I am not a lawyer but I don't think that term 'chain of custody' applies here.

I also have removed 'do not remove under penalty of law' slips from various things, usually furniture and am not worried about being sent to prison.

Well at least you agree that there is 'DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW ' warmimg on items. i agree that many people do ignore the warning and that it is difficult to enforce.But the warning is there for consumer protection in case of accidents.They are in clothes to tell consumers how to care for them.

The prosecution thought the sales receipt was very important in showing a connection from the purchaser and oj. other wise they would not have had the glove lady testify.

There are many laws that people break and ignore that are difficult to enforce but that does not change the facts that it is a law and illegal to break it.

[martin II]

I think Nicole did buy the murder gloves for Simpson and I think there's sufficient proof that she did, but even without that evidence the photos are enough.

I researched the term 'chain of custody' and haven't been able to find one definition that would apply to a private citizen making a purchase for personal use.

fg2, you're living on the edge. Didn't you know that removing a manufacturer's tag is right up there with running with scissors?

You are making a big issue out of the words chain of custody when the issues is who baught the gloves and who did they bgiove them to.You have no proof of that so in this case you say proof is not important.

[weezer]

Well at least you agree that there is 'DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW ' warmimg on items. i agree that many people do ignore the warning and that it is difficult to enforce.But the warning is there for consumer protection in case of accidents.They are in clothes to tell consumers how to care for them.

The prosecution thought the sales receipt was very important in showing a connection from the purchaser and oj. other wise they would not have had the glove lady testify.

There are many laws that people break and ignore that are difficult to enforce but that does not change the facts that it is a law and illegal to break it.

martin, please don't continue this. you've been given the information that the 'DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW' warming applies to the vendor not the consumer -- to continue to insist otherwise only spreads misinformation and makes you look uninformed. :punch:

[weezer]

You are making a big issue out of the words chain of custody when the issues is who baught the gloves and who did they bgiove them to.You have no proof of that so in this case you say proof is not important.

sooooo, the fact that Nicole purchased that style of glove in that timeframe AND that orenthal was wearing that style of glove in that timeframe is, in your opinion, just a coindinky? thought you didn't believe in those.

[martin II]

You are making a big issue out of the words chain of custody when the issues is who baught the gloves and who did they bgiove them to.You have no proof of that so in this case you say proof is not important.

correction
who did they give it to

[martin II]

Fact

The product warning that is on all products purchased by consumers is for consumers that is why the law requires that the label be on all pduduct purchased by the consumer and that is why the label is on all product purchased.That is why FGMP2 has seen it on products that he purchased
as i have seen it on products i have purchased. And that is why most will find it on their products.If not aimed at the consumer then the manufacture would have no reason to put it on all goods sold.

Others may want to ignore this fact but that does not change the facts. It is just their misinformed opinions.
What we do know is the tags were on the gloves when found and while in the possession of le they were removed. imo

It is the vender/manufacture that has the responsibility to attatch the labels for the consumer
so it is nonsense that the vendor/manufacture would attatch a lebel that gives instructions to themselves.The instructions are to the consumer and are for the life of the product.


To claim otherwise is just plain silly.

[tv]

Well at least you agree that there is 'DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW ' warmimg on items. i agree that many people do ignore the warning and that it is difficult to enforce.But the warning is there for consumer protection in case of accidents.They are in clothes to tell consumers how to care for them.

The prosecution thought the sales receipt was very important in showing a connection from the purchaser and oj. other wise they would not have had the glove lady testify.

There are many laws that people break and ignore that are difficult to enforce but that does not change the facts that it is a law and illegal to break it.

You're still refusing to admit that there is NO law prohibiting the consumer from removing the manufacturer's tag from an item? It's time to give up on this, martin.

[tv]

Fact

The product warning that is on all products purchased by consumers is for consumers that is why the law requires that the label be on all pduduct purchased by the consumer and that is why the label is on all product purchased.That is why FGMP2 has seen it on products that he purchased
as i have seen it on products i have purchased. And that is why most will find it on their products.If not aimed at the consumer then the manufacture would have no reason to put it on all goods sold.

Others may want to ignore this fact but that does not change the facts. It is just their misinformed opinions.
What we do know is the tags were on the gloves when found and while in the possession of le they were removed. imo

It is the vender/manufacture that has the responsibility to attatch the labels for the consumer
so it is nonsense that the vendor/manufacture would attatch a lebel that gives instructions to themselves.The instructions are to the consumer and are for the life of the product.


To claim otherwise is just plain silly.

martin, we all understand the label is for the consumer. We disagree with your false claim that it's illegal for the consumer to remove any tag from a product. No such law exists.

[martin II]

You're still refusing to admit that there is NO law prohibiting the consumer from removing the manufacturer's tag from an item? It's time to give up on this, martin.

What is silly is for me to waste my time trying to inform you on this issue.I think it is best that we just dissagree.

Obviously the labels were removed by le so the question is why.

[martin II]

martin, we all understand the label is for the consumer. We disagree with your false claim that it's illegal for the consumer to remove any tag from a product. No such law exists.

"Do not remove under penalty of law" is the label given to the consumer but you now say this does not mean that there is a law. i think you know better.

[tv]

You are making a big issue out of the words chain of custody when the issues is who baught the gloves and who did they bgiove them to.You have no proof of that so in this case you say proof is not important.

I'm not making a big issue of chain of custody. I was explaining to fg2 that I had researched it and couldn't find a definition that applied to Nicole buying the gloves. You fight the proof of Nicole purchasing the gloves because you know that it looks very bad for your guy. It's to be expected.

[tv]

"Do not remove under penalty of law" is the label given to the consumer but you now say this does not mean that there is a law. i think you know better.

Of course there is a law that the tag has to be on the product -- I posted the code. You are the one that said it's illegal for the consumer to remove it.

[tv]

What is silly is for me to waste my time trying to inform you on this issue.I think it is best that we just dissagree.

Obviously the labels were removed by le so the question is why.

It's not obvious to me that the labels were removed by LE. Maybe the defense removed them when they hacked up the inside of the gloves while conducting their own tests. Maybe OJ Simpson removed the tags because they were bothering him. Who cares?

[weezer]

It's not obvious to me that the labels were removed by LE. Maybe the defense removed them when they hacked up the inside of the gloves while conducting their own tests. Maybe OJ Simpson removed the tags because they were bothering him. Who cares?

:beer::beer:

[martin II]

martin, we all understand the label is for the consumer. We disagree with your false claim that it's illegal for the consumer to remove any tag from a product. No such law exists.

"Do not remove under penalty of law" is the label given to the consumer but you now say this does not mean that there is a law. i think you know better.

[martin II]

Mrs tv dinner

I have changed nothing.

"Do not remove under penalty of law" is the label given to the consumer on the product that was purchased. If you believe that this notice does not mean that there IS A LAW covering the removal of the label then continue to be uninformed.

I have said the vendor/manufacture is required to attatch product labels on all consumer product.
I have said there is a law against anyone removing the product lable on consumer goods.The notice above proves this and this notice is for the life of the product.

You have said there is no law.
The label notice on all consumer products proves that there is a law.

[martin II]

It's not obvious to me that the labels were removed by LE. Maybe the defense removed them when they hacked up the inside of the gloves while conducting their own tests. Maybe OJ Simpson removed the tags because they were bothering him. Who cares?

Obviously you don't understand that the labels were on the gloves when le collected them.When le presented them in court there were no labels and no way to prove what the size of the gloves were.

[martin II]

I'm not making a big issue of chain of custody. I was explaining to fg2 that I had researched it and couldn't find a definition that applied to Nicole buying the gloves. You fight the proof of Nicole purchasing the gloves because you know that it looks very bad for your guy. It's to be expected.

i am looking for proof that nicole purchased xl gloves. there is none.

[tv]

Obviously you don't understand that the labels were on the gloves when le collected them.When le presented them in court there were no labels and no way to prove what the size of the gloves were.

Whats your next excuse.

The gloves are x-large.

[tv]

i am looking for proof that nicole purchased xl gloves. there is none.
it seems that when you try for proof and fail, your escape is to say well it does not matter.hahaha

I've given you my opinion on the gloves. If you disagree with me and continue to believe that OJ Simpson has had more bad luck and coincidences happen in his life than anyone else on the planet then you're free to continue to believe that.

[tv]

Mrs tv dinner

I have changed nothing.

"Do not remove under penalty of law" is the label given to the consumer on the product that was purchased. If you believe that this notice does not mean that there IS A LAW covering the removal of the label then continue to be uninformed.

I have said the vendor/manufacture is required to attatch product labels on all consumer product.
I have said there is a law against anyone removing the product lable on consumer goods.The notice above proves this and this notice is for the life of the product.

You have said there is no law.
The label notice on all consumer products proves that there is a law.

You've left out the rest of the notice --- EXCEPT BY THE CONSUMER. This has been added to the notice to clarify the meaning of the warning.

[martin II]

TV

The link you posted has information in a article written by Katherine Neer.It is not OFFICIAL information published by The FTC. I didn't believe that her information that product labels can be removed by consumers was accurate.

So i called the U.S. FTC consumer help line and asked if the product labeling
"do not remove under penalty of the law" is directed or intended as a warning to consumers. The U.S. FTC specialist informed me that that warning
is directed to everyone including consumers.
Check it for yourself 1 877 382 4357

[martin II]

I've given you my opinion on the gloves. If you disagree with me and continue to believe that OJ Simpson has had more bad luck and coincidences happen in his life than anyone else on the planet then you're free to continue to believe that.

Oj simpson having or not having bad luck has nothing to do with the issue.

[martin II]

The gloves are x-large. After all this time, if you refuse to acknowledge this I'd say you have a problem with understanding the testimony. It's your problem not mine.

The testimony proves that there was no identification to prove the gloves was xl. I posted the testimony to prove this.

[martin II]

You've left out the rest of the notice --- EXCEPT BY THE CONSUMER. This has been added to the notice to clarify the meaning of the warning. If you don't mind everyone on this forum laughing at you because you're too stubborn to admit you were wrong then continue with this lunacy but I'm done with it. :seeya:

According to the FTC the words in your article are not accurate. The law prohibits anyone from removing the labels. You can talk until you are blue in the face. That will not chnge the law.
see ya

[weezer]

According to the FTC the words in your article are not accurate.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/textile/textlact.shtm#70c

§ 70c. Removal of stamp, tag, label, or other identification
(a) After shipment of a textile fiber product in commerce it shall be unlawful, except as provided in this subchapter, to remove or mutilate, or cause or participate in the removal or mutilation of, prior to the time any textile fiber product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, any stamp, tag, label, or other identification required by this subchapter to be affixed to such textile fiber product, and any person violating this section shall be guilty of an unfair method of competition, and an unfair or deceptive act or practice, under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).

(b) Any person -

(1) introducing, selling, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or importing into the United States, a textile fiber product subject to the provisions of this subchapter, or

(2) selling, advertising, or offering for sale a textile fiber product whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, which has been shipped, advertised, or offered for sale, in commerce, may substitute for the stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification required to be affixed to such textile product pursuant to section 70b(b) of this title, a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification conforming to the requirements of section 70b(b) of this title, and such substituted stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification shall show the name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission of the person making the substitution.

(c) If any person other than the ultimate consumer breaks a package which bears a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification conforming to the requirements of section 70b of this title, and if such package contains one or more units of a textile fiber product to which a stamp, tag, label, or other identification conforming to the requirements of section 70b of this title is not affixed, such person shall affix a stamp, tag, label, or other identification bearing the information on the stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification attached to such broken package to each unit of textile fiber product taken from such broken package.

[tv]

Oj simpson having or not having bad luck has nothing to do with the issue.But is is a way to try to change the subject.hahaha

I didn't change the subject. :shrug:

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Rohkar worked with Mark Fuhrman before. The photographers work under the direction of the detectives at the scene as well as with SID people at the scene.

He was with Phillips, taking direction from him when Fuhrman approached him and asked him to take a picture of the glove. He asked Fuhrman to point to the glove. If the picture was taken when the sun was up, there would be no reason for MF to point to the glove.

Officer Riske also testified in the civil trial that he told his commander that he thought OJ was involved in the murders and his commander denied this on the stand. So who do we believe?

Riske's partner, Miguel Terraz (sp) wrote one report, Ron Phillips then rewrote his report with descrepancies and they were not minor. So who is the liar?

Vanatter said that MF told him about the thumps, MF said he did not. Who is the liar?

MF said Phillips specifically asked Kato if OJ was in the house and Kato told him he was in Chicago, Lange and Vanatter also heard this. So who is the liar about them not knowing that Simpson was out of town before they spoke to Arnelle?

The photographer met with Neufeld and McKenna as well as a DA, Alan Youchelson. There was no mention of him being undermedication. The DA's did not and could not challenged the contact sheets. They tried to do the same thing with him that they did with the nurse, blame his illness and go with "they don't know what they did".

Phillips was sent with Fuhrman to go look at the glove, why? Please note, Riske was on duty how many hours and he is positive when the picture was taken?

Sorry, the contact sheets tell the truth. The 4 lead detectives have lied time and time again and when they weren't lying, they were making sure they were on the frindges so they could say they didn't know, they didn't see, they didn't hear, etc.

The bottom line, that was a fool's errand to see if the gloves matched. They wanted to make sure that Phillips and Fuhrman were together about the picture being taken. Phillips knew he had to go with MF because he was with the photographer when MF approached him to take the picture.

In the civil trial this issue was cleared up. Riske testified that he saw Rokahr take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove after Phillips and Fuhrman returned to Bundy from Rockingham. Sandra Claiborne testified that at 4:30 that morning Rokhar was sitting with her in a car and he was never asked to go into the crime scene until a couple of hours later. Vannatter was the officer in charge of crime scene at 4:30 a.m. and no photographs were taken at that time. Phillips drove Fuhrman to Bundy in his car. Fuhrman wrote in his book that Rokhar asked him to point to the glove. After Rokhar took those photographs at Bundy he followed Fuhrman back to Rockingham and photographed the evidence there.

Rokhar testified that when he met with the defense attorneys he was under heavy medication. Rokhar admitted he didn’t remember when he took that photograph. Fuhrman, Phillips, Vannatter, Riske, and Claiborne tell us Rokhar took that photograph after Phillips and Fuhrman returned to Bundy after the glove was found at Rockingham. The bottom line is that the contact sheets support their testimony.

bobaugust

[tv]

oh for God's sake martin! of course the labels are to protect the consumer and is intended as a warning for the consumer -- everyone understands that. What YOU can't seem to comprehend is that there is nothing in the law or the funny papers that says the CONSUMER cannot remove the tags. your continued insistence on this is borderline psychotic.

Good heavens -- this is getting very weird.

[bobaugust]

Rubin did not evidently do any such thing.
Vemich stated that she thought someone had written the size of the gloves on the inside. not that the size was stamped by the factory.

Vermich could not verify that the two gloves were purchased at the same time.


Evidently Rubin did look underneath the lining.

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. Okay. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at the inside of the lining of the glove, underneath?
A. I did during the criminal trial.
Q. If you recall still, are there any identifying characteristics or anything that appear on the lining of the -- the inside of that glove?
A. There's a size marking, there's a cutter number, and a sequence control number.
Q. Okay. First of all, we know the size number just indicates the size of the glove, correct?
A. Correct.
*
Q. Now, what exactly is a cutter number?
A. The cutter number is the actual individual who was given the leather to cut X amount of pair of this style during the manufacturing process. It was a way of controlling the leather..
Q. And what is the sequence number, by definition?
A. The sequence number was to keep all the parts together so that the colors matched, because they did vary across the skins. They would actually -- the cutter would say, this is the first pair; I made the second, the third, the fourth. And he would keep all the parts together. That way -- this was nine pair of that particular lot of leather that was given to the cutter.
Q. Okay. There was an extra large; the cutter number sequence number 9?
A. Yes.
*

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, while you're trying that glove on and looking at it, I'm going to ask you to examine it closely once again for all the specific characteristics we discussed before.
A. It has the same characteristics as the other half pair.
Q. That's the Brossar stitch and the three-point needles -- the three needle points; I'm sorry, and the lined hem and the other things?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove?
A. This is an Aris 70263 brown glove.
Q. Okay. Now, I see you're already doing it. I was going to ask you to look inside the lining of that glove, also, for those identifying characteristics. (Witness complies, turns glove inside out.)
A. Yes. The cutter number was 359; the sequence number is 9; and the size is XL, makes it a pair.
Q. As a result of looking at those identifying characteristics of the two gloves, are you
able to tell me what, if any, relationship there is between the two of those gloves?
A. They are a pair.
Q. No doubt about that?
A. No doubt about it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob you cannot just say Kato was confused when his testimony clearly says what he saw.
i have another testimony where he clearly says the exact same thing. the coach lights were off when he first passed and on when he returned.no way to change that.
First you say he never said any such thing. i post the testimony and now YOU
DECLAIR he was confused.please.

Of course I can say Kaelin was confused as to what the coach lights were since his testimony shows he wasn’t clear what they were both in the criminal trial and the civil trial. Kaelin thought the lights he was being asked about were the small lights that were on the ground along the driveway, next to the front entrance, and under the trees. “They light up around the house.”

Petrocelli: You saw those coach lights on when you came back from the garage. Right?
Kaelin: Yeah. They light up around the house.
Petrocelli: No. I mean right where the doorway is, the entranceway.
Kaelin: Yes, I believe so.

Park testified the only lights that were on when he drove up and parked at the Ashford gate was a light in the front entrance and a light over the garage. That was how Park was able to see Simpson walk up from the driveway and enter his house. Kaelin never testified that the front entrance light was not on.

bobaugust

[tv]

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/textile/textlact.shtm#70c

§ 70c. Removal of stamp, tag, label, or other identification
(a) After shipment of a textile fiber product in commerce it shall be unlawful, except as provided in this subchapter, to remove or mutilate, or cause or participate in the removal or mutilation of, prior to the time any textile fiber product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, any stamp, tag, label, or other identification required by this subchapter to be affixed to such textile fiber product, and any person violating this section shall be guilty of an unfair method of competition, and an unfair or deceptive act or practice, under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).

(b) Any person -

(1) introducing, selling, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or importing into the United States, a textile fiber product subject to the provisions of this subchapter, or

(2) selling, advertising, or offering for sale a textile fiber product whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, which has been shipped, advertised, or offered for sale, in commerce, may substitute for the stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification required to be affixed to such textile product pursuant to section 70b(b) of this title, a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification conforming to the requirements of section 70b(b) of this title, and such substituted stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification shall show the name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission of the person making the substitution.

(c) If any person other than the ultimate consumer breaks a package which bears a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification conforming to the requirements of section 70b of this title, and if such package contains one or more units of a textile fiber product to which a stamp, tag, label, or other identification conforming to the requirements of section 70b of this title is not affixed, such person shall affix a stamp, tag, label, or other identification bearing the information on the stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification attached to such broken package to each unit of textile fiber product taken from such broken package.

Thank you, weezer. This is about as clear and convincing as it gets. Maybe martin will let it go now.

[bobaugust]

BOB
i really don't know why you are attempting to discuss this issue with me as William has already corrected your misinformation on the subject so many times in previous post.It is a closed issue.

The reason I responded the way I did is that your comment shows that you’re still evidently confused as to when Kaelin was on the sidewalk. Park testified that after Simpson entered his house Kaelin was still on the Ashford path having come from behind the house to investigate the noises. Kaelin told us that when he returned from behind the garage he went to the gate control box and opened the gate to let Park in. Kaelin never returned to that sidewalk until he went back to his room after Simpson left for the airport

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The testimony proves that there was no identification to prove the gloves was xl. I posted the testimony to prove this.

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. Okay. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at the inside of the lining of the glove, underneath?
A. I did during the criminal trial.
Q. If you recall still, are there any identifying characteristics or anything that appear on the lining of the -- the inside of that glove?
A. There's a size marking, there's a cutter number, and a sequence control number.
Q. Okay. First of all, we know the size number just indicates the size of the glove, correct?
A. Correct.
*
Q. Now, what exactly is a cutter number?
A. The cutter number is the actual individual who was given the leather to cut X amount of pair of this style during the manufacturing process. It was a way of controlling the leather..
Q. And what is the sequence number, by definition?
A. The sequence number was to keep all the parts together so that the colors matched, because they did vary across the skins. They would actually -- the cutter would say, this is the first pair; I made the second, the third, the fourth. And he would keep all the parts together. That way -- this was nine pair of that particular lot of leather that was given to the cutter.
Q. Okay. There was an extra large; the cutter number sequence number 9?
A. Yes.
*

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, while you're trying that glove on and looking at it, I'm going to ask you to examine it closely once again for all the specific characteristics we discussed before.
A. It has the same characteristics as the other half pair.
Q. That's the Brossar stitch and the three-point needles -- the three needle points; I'm sorry, and the lined hem and the other things?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove?
A. This is an Aris 70263 brown glove.
Q. Okay. Now, I see you're already doing it. I was going to ask you to look inside the lining of that glove, also, for those identifying characteristics. (Witness complies, turns glove inside out.)
A. Yes. The cutter number was 359; the sequence number is 9; and the size is XL, makes it a pair.
Q. As a result of looking at those identifying characteristics of the two gloves, are you
able to tell me what, if any, relationship there is between the two of those gloves?
A. They are a pair.
Q. No doubt about that?
A. No doubt about it.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Whats funny about this discussion is that to some the consumer warning 'DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW ' by the FTC means that there is no law.

[tv]

Whats funny about this discussion is that to some the consumer warning 'DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW ' by the FTC means that there is no law.

NO ONE is saying that there's no law. We're saying it doesn't apply to the consumer. I've posted the law and weezer has posted the law. You need to stop it -- this is getting crazy.

[weezer]

Whats funny about this discussion is that to some the consumer warning 'DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW ' by the FTC means that there is no law.

let me know when you're feeling risky and considering removing a tag --- I'll see if there's some kind of 'tag removal intervention team' in your area!

[martin II]

The reason I responded the way I did is that your comment shows that you’re still evidently confused as to when Kaelin was on the sidewalk. Park testified that after Simpson entered his house Kaelin was still on the Ashford path having come from behind the house to investigate the noises. Kaelin told us that when he returned from behind the garage he went to the gate control box and opened the gate to let Park in. Kaelin never returned to that sidewalk until he went back to his room after Simpson left for the airport

bobaugust

bob that cannot be true
for the last time.

kato passes the front door and no coach lights are on
While kato is at the garage oj comes out with the bags moves the golf bag goes to his front door to enter the house and turns the coach lights on.
Park see oj as he goes back in the house.
Kato returns past the front door and lights are on.
Kato walks to ashford gate and opens it for Park.

So Park did not see Kato on the sidewalk when oj entered the house as Kato
was at the garage when oj went into the house.

[martin II]

NO ONE is saying that there's no law. We're saying it doesn't apply to the consumer. I've posted the law and weezer has posted the law. You need to stop it -- this is getting crazy.

The FTC says the law applies to everyone including consumers. Thats all i need to know. i have given you the means to check it. Its ok if you dissagree.

[tv]

The FTC says the law applies to everyone including consumers. Thats all i need to know. i have given you the means to check it. Its ok if you dissagree.

You are wrong. I've spent all the time on this that I'm going to. It's total nonsense for you to keep up this charade. Bye.

[GreenIce]

Evidently Rubin did look underneath the lining.

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. Okay. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at the inside of the lining of the glove, underneath?
A. I did during the criminal trial.
Q. If you recall still, are there any identifying characteristics or anything that appear on the lining of the -- the inside of that glove?
A. There's a size marking, there's a cutter number, and a sequence control number.
Q. Okay. First of all, we know the size number just indicates the size of the glove, correct?
A. Correct.
*
Q. Now, what exactly is a cutter number?
A. The cutter number is the actual individual who was given the leather to cut X amount of pair of this style during the manufacturing process. It was a way of controlling the leather..
Q. And what is the sequence number, by definition?
A. The sequence number was to keep all the parts together so that the colors matched, because they did vary across the skins. They would actually -- the cutter would say, this is the first pair; I made the second, the third, the fourth. And he would keep all the parts together. That way -- this was nine pair of that particular lot of leather that was given to the cutter.
Q. Okay. There was an extra large; the cutter number sequence number 9?
A. Yes.
*

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, while you're trying that glove on and looking at it, I'm going to ask you to examine it closely once again for all the specific characteristics we discussed before.
A. It has the same characteristics as the other half pair.
Q. That's the Brossar stitch and the three-point needles -- the three needle points; I'm sorry, and the lined hem and the other things?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove?
A. This is an Aris 70263 brown glove.
Q. Okay. Now, I see you're already doing it. I was going to ask you to look inside the lining of that glove, also, for those identifying characteristics. (Witness complies, turns glove inside out.)
A. Yes. The cutter number was 359; the sequence number is 9; and the size is XL, makes it a pair.
Q. As a result of looking at those identifying characteristics of the two gloves, are you
able to tell me what, if any, relationship there is between the two of those gloves?
A. They are a pair.
Q. No doubt about that?
A. No doubt about it.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

He did not do it during the criminal trial, at least before and while he testified. In fact, he refused to committ to this because of the age of the gloves.

The civil trial is about money and Rubin already proved himself to be a hired gun. Anything that comes out of his mouth is just to get even for being humliated in the criminal trial.

Don't forget those civil trial jurors would have believed anything that came out of a plaintiff's witnesses mouth.

[martin II]

Thank you, weezer. This is about as clear and convincing as it gets. Maybe martin will let it go now.

that sections/rule states what vendors cannot do it is not directed at consumers.

The consumer label 'do not remove under penalty of law ' Is directed to consumers thats why the law requires that vendors make sure the label in attatched when consumers get the product. You can dissagree. no problem.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

I know you are having blast with the labels and it has been very amusing, indeed!

Simpson's blood was not found in a mixture on the Rockingham glove.

Renee Montgomery, criminalist

Montgomery testified that the blood trail at the crime scene and the blood on the rear gate were consistent with O.J. Simpson's blood type. Tests on areas of the glove where blood was collected showed that two bloodstains could not have been Simpson's blood, but could be that of Goldman or Nicole Brown Simpson. A third stain could have been from any of the three. On cross examination, the defense implied that the test interpretation was subjective and relied on terms such as hint and trace which had no objective standard based in science or numbers. The defense also noted that the testing method could create "artifacts" which could affect the test results

[martin II]

Mr. August,

He did not do it during the criminal trial, at least before and while he testified. In fact, he refused to committ to this because of the age of the gloves.

The civil trial is about money and Rubin already proved himself to be a hired gun. Anything that comes out of his mouth is just to get even for being humliated in the criminal trial.

Don't forget those civil trial jurors would have believed anything that came out of a plaintiff's witnesses mouth.

Anyone that believes statements by Rubin is not interested in the truth.Rubin
was a hired gun interested in becomming a important figure in the oj trials

He gave prosecution support type testimony in the criminal trial until his own words caught up with him. He screwed up on his estimations of ojs hand sizes and caused Darden to look like a fool with the demostration. When the gloves did not fit, the next day he testified he came up with what he thought would be a reason for the gloves not fittingt.He yelled SHRINKAGE caused the gloves not to fit. But when later questioned by Cochran he admitted that liquid would not cause his tight fitting expenseve gloves to shrink.
So he was a hired gun that could not deliver for the prosecution although he tried very hard.
If he thought shrinkage had caused the gloves to shrink to the point they would not fit he should have told Darden this before the demo. imo

[martin II]

Martin,

I know you are having blast with the labels and it has been very amusing, indeed!

Simpson's blood was not found in a mixture on the Rockingham glove.

Renee Montgomery, criminalist

Montgomery testified that the blood trail at the crime scene and the blood on the rear gate were consistent with O.J. Simpson's blood type. Tests on areas of the glove where blood was collected showed that two bloodstains could not have been Simpson's blood, but could be that of Goldman or Nicole Brown Simpson. A third stain could have been from any of the three. On cross examination, the defense implied that the test interpretation was subjective and relied on terms such as hint and trace which had no objective standard based in science or numbers. The defense also noted that the testing method could create "artifacts" which could affect the test results

on the labels it has been some fun but have decided to allow some to remain uninformed. i have used too much time on it anyway.

i agree with the defence comments on word play by some prosecution witnesses. Some take "consistant with" as proof that it is.Or "it may be "
as proof of something.

[GreenIce]

Anyone that believes statements by Rubin is not interested in the truth.Rubin
was a hired gun interested in becomming a important figure in the oj trials

He gave prosecution support type testimony in the criminal trial until his own words caught up with him. He screwed up on his estimations of ojs hand sizes and caused Darden to look like a fool with the demostration. When the gloves did not fit, the next day he testified he came up with what he thought would be a reason for the gloves not fittingt.He yelled SHRINKAGE caused the gloves not to fit. But when later questioned by Cochran he admitted that liquid would not cause his tight fitting expenseve gloves to shrink.
So he was a hired gun that could not deliver for the prosecution although he tried very hard.
If he thought shrinkage had caused the gloves to shrink to the point they would not fit he should have told Darden this before the demo. imo

Martin,

Have you read his civil trial testimony? When did he become an advocate for the DA's as well as the plaintiffs?

He said that Simpson's palms are an extra large but this fingers are just a large.

See, extra large does come in different sizes.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9209511]There are two pieces of evidence (aside from the glove found at ROckingham and Mr. SImpson's blood). The sales slip and the broadcasting video of Simpson wearing gloves that look identical to the murder gloves. The sales slip provides an additional connection.

I think the broadcasting video(s) are more important than the sales slip. I am not a lawyer but I don't think that term 'chain of custody' applies here.

fgump2,

I don't think you realized you have just posted contradictory statements regarding the "chain of custody". The DA's were trying to prove a "chain of custody" by insisting the gloves Nicole bought were the exact same gloves of that were found at the murder scenes. In fact, this issue has gotten so out of hand, people feel the know that these were a Christmas gift to Simpson.

If the pictures were so strong, then why introduce a receipt that had the wrong information on it as well no description of the gloves?

Perhaps they were doing another "Kato" with the gloves.

[bobaugust]

bob that cannot be true
for the last time.

kato passes the front door and no coach lights are on
While kato is at the garage oj comes out with the bags moves the golf bag goes to his front door to enter the house and turns the coach lights on.
Park see oj as he goes back in the house.
Kato returns past the front door and lights are on.
Kato walks to ashford gate and opens it for Park.

So Park did not see Kato on the sidewalk when oj entered the house as Kato
was at the garage when oj went into the house.

The undisputed evidence in this case is that the first person Park saw on Simpson’s estate that night was a white male with a flashlight come from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway. Almost simultaneously Park saw a second person walk up from the driveway into the front entrance of the house and enter the front door. Park then saw lights come on in the downstairs windows. Park finished his telephone conversation with his boss and waited to be let in. When no one opened the gate Park got out of his limo and spoke with Simpson on the intercom. Park went back to his vehicle and waited again until finally he saw the white male come up the driveway from the direction of the garage, go to the gate control box and open the gate.

Kato Kaelin testified after hearing the noises on his back wall he left his room went around the house and down the pathway to the driveway where he saw the limo parked at the gate. Kaelin said he continued on to behind the garage, turned around and returned to the driveway and saw that the limo was still parked outside the gate. Kaelin said he went up the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate.

You can fantasize as much nonsense as you wish but your fantasy is contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s undisputed testimony. Kaelin never said the front entrance light was off when he walked past the front of the house to the garage. Park never saw Simpson come out of his house during the fifteen minutes he was waiting at the Ashford gate, ringing the intercom and looking to see if anyone was on the estate.

Your claim that Kaelin was behind the garage when Park saw Simpson enter his house is absolutely false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

He did not do it during the criminal trial, at least before and while he testified. In fact, he refused to committ to this because of the age of the gloves.

The civil trial is about money and Rubin already proved himself to be a hired gun. Anything that comes out of his mouth is just to get even for being humliated in the criminal trial.

Don't forget those civil trial jurors would have believed anything that came out of a plaintiff's witnesses mouth.

In the civil trial Rubin testified to much of the same facts that he testified to in the criminal trial as well as other information that he was never asked about in the criminal trial. He also said that he looked under the lining of the glove sometime during the criminal trial.

In the civil trial Rubin was asked, “Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove?” As Rubin answered that question he actually turned the glove inside out and testified about the numbers he saw and what they meant.

Based on Kelly’s question evidently there was still a label on the glove. What is your source that the label on the gloves had been removed?

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

In the civil trial Rubin testified to much of the same facts that he testified to in the criminal trial as well as other information that he was never asked about in the criminal trial. He also said that he looked under the lining of the glove sometime during the criminal trial.

In the civil trial Rubin was asked, “Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove?” As Rubin answered that question he actually turned the glove inside out and testified about the numbers he saw and what they meant.

Based on Kelly’s question evidently there was still a label on the glove. What is your source that the label on the gloves had been removed?

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I just went back and read Brenda V's testimony in the criminal trial. There appears to be a label but there is no style number anywhere on either glove. Or it was not one you could see with the naked eye--which makes no sense to me but I am sure they may be a reason for this.

[GreenIce]

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Rubin, does your company--did Aris glove lights make a size of glove called double XL?
MR. RUBIN: Not prior to 1990.
MR. COCHRAN: And since 1990, have they made a double XL?
MR. RUBIN: I understand they have.
MR. COCHRAN: And that's an extra, extra large; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the sizes of gloves, these gloves that were made back between the period `82 to `92 that we talked about, were they made so that each extra large was the same size as the next extra large or is there some variation in sizes?

MR. RUBIN: The intent was for them to be exactly the same. The patterns that were utilized were exactly the same size. But each few square feet of leather does have its own characteristics as far as stretch ability.

MR. COCHRAN: So that some--one extra large might actually be smaller than another extra large. Is that a fair statement?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And there is that variability in the lots as they turned out; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: That is correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And you would expect that an extra, extra large would be larger than an extra large; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, sir.

[GreenIce]

In the civil trial Rubin testified to much of the same facts that he testified to in the criminal trial as well as other information that he was never asked about in the criminal trial. He also said that he looked under the lining of the glove sometime during the criminal trial.

In the civil trial Rubin was asked, “Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove?” As Rubin answered that question he actually turned the glove inside out and testified about the numbers he saw and what they meant.

Based on Kelly’s question evidently there was still a label on the glove. What is your source that the label on the gloves had been removed?

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I did post Rubin's testimony about the numbers under the lining. He did not know if the numbers were there. His testimony is inconsistent on this issue.

In Vermich testimony, she says the name of the manufacturer is not in the gloves and does not appear any where on the glove. "Made in the Phillipines" is the identifier.

[martin II]

Martin,

Have you read his civil trial testimony? When did he become an advocate for the DA's as well as the plaintiffs?

He said that Simpson's palms are an extra large but this fingers are just a large.

See, extra large does come in different sizes.

I didn't read all of his civil trial testimony.

i am sure that lx does come in different sizes depending on the company.ITS just like shoes and most other things.i think he tried to slant his testimony for the prosecution

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9209511]There are two pieces of evidence (aside from the glove found at ROckingham and Mr. SImpson's blood). The sales slip and the broadcasting video of Simpson wearing gloves that look identical to the murder gloves. The sales slip provides an additional connection.

I think the broadcasting video(s) are more important than the sales slip. I am not a lawyer but I don't think that term 'chain of custody' applies here.

fgump2,

I don't think you realized you have just posted contradictory statements regarding the "chain of custody". The DA's were trying to prove a "chain of custody" by insisting the gloves Nicole bought were the exact same gloves of that were found at the murder scenes. In fact, this issue has gotten so out of hand, people feel the know that these were a Christmas gift to Simpson.

If the pictures were so strong, then why introduce a receipt that had the wrong information on it as well no description of the gloves?

Perhaps they were doing another "Kato" with the gloves.


my question to some is if the chain of custody does not apply why did the prosecution use it so much when trying to show who had what evidence? To say it does not apply makes no sense.

[GreenIce]

I didn't read all of his civil trial testimony.

i am sure that lx does come in different sizes depending on the company.ITS just like shoes and most other things.i think he tried to slant his testimony for the prosecution

Martin,

If you read his civil trial testimony, you will just how much of an advocate he was. He sent the DA's notes or memos on where they should look for the gloves, not only in CA but also in NY and he is the one who suggest that it is very likely that a black and brown pair were bought.

Since Rubin did say that there extra-extra large gloves, there is no way to determine the size of the gloves that Simpson had on his hands in the photos.

Since Simpson was known to wear heat pads under his gloves, then the "murder gloves" would not have been any use to him.

Also, if these gloves were bought in NY for Simpson to wear to work, then why were they brought back to CA? I know he said he gave all of his stuff away every year to the doorman but how did the gloves end up in CA?

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9209668]


my question to some is if the chain of custody does not apply why did the prosecution use it so much when trying to show who had what evidence? To say it does not apply makes no sense.

Martin,

This is another prime example of the DA's trying to make their case "fit" with evidence that did not support it.

It makes no sense the DA's were trying to make this fit unless the other gloves they found in Simpson's home were larger then the "murder gloves". In fact, on both search warrants they mention gloves and they wanted to seize all the gloves to compare them to the murder gloves. We know gloves were taken out of Simpson's dressers but were left at Rockingham. There can only be one reason for that. The sizes didn't add up. Thats my best guess any way.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

When Vanatter was chided by the judge regarding his reckless disregard of the truth, was he talking about both search warrants or the first warrant alone or the second warrant alone.

The second warrant is loaded with different information to included that Arnelle did tell the detectives that her father was in Chicago. That Lou Brown did invite Simpson to dinner but Simpson did decline. Which is probably why Lou Brown never took the stand in either trial. Which makes no sense because isn't he the one who felt his wife's time was off regarding the time of the phone call?

Also, in the second warrant, it is written that no one remembered seeing a black sweat suit at Rockingham, but if they do find one, they would like to seize it and search it for blood evidence.

Yet, in their book they talk about the alleged sweats being in the washer. The more testimony you read as well as the documents, the worse it gets for the LAPD and the state, IMO.

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Rubin, does your company--did Aris glove lights make a size of glove called double XL?
MR. RUBIN: Not prior to 1990.
MR. COCHRAN: And since 1990, have they made a double XL?
MR. RUBIN: I understand they have.
MR. COCHRAN: And that's an extra, extra large; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the sizes of gloves, these gloves that were made back between the period `82 to `92 that we talked about, were they made so that each extra large was the same size as the next extra large or is there some variation in sizes?

MR. RUBIN: The intent was for them to be exactly the same. The patterns that were utilized were exactly the same size. But each few square feet of leather does have its own characteristics as far as stretch ability.

MR. COCHRAN: So that some--one extra large might actually be smaller than another extra large. Is that a fair statement?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And there is that variability in the lots as they turned out; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: That is correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And you would expect that an extra, extra large would be larger than an extra large; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, sir.


GI
Thanks for this testimony by Rubin. i had missed this before.Cochran got him to say all extra gloves in the lot would NOt be the same size xl.
Some xl large would be one size and another would be a different size although both would have the xl size stamp.That is why it is not a good idea
to buy gloves for someone if they are not there to try them on.Same is true for shoes.They must be tried by the potential buyer.People return gloves all the times because they don't fit.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9209684]

Martin,

This is another prime example of the DA's trying to make their case "fit" with evidence that did not support it.

It makes no sense the DA's were trying to make this fit unless the other gloves they found in Simpson's home were larger then the "murder gloves". In fact, on both search warrants they mention gloves and they wanted to seize all the gloves to compare them to the murder gloves. We know gloves were taken out of Simpson's dressers but were left at Rockingham. There can only be one reason for that. The sizes didn't add up. Thats my best guess any way.

GI
You are absolutely correct.le looked at all kinds of gloves at ojs house and realized that those different gloves would not help them so they left them there. My opinion is the gloves did not fit because ojs palms were very wide and thick and this prevented him from pushing his fingers into the finger channels.The latex gloves did not change the size of the gloves so they did not make a differance.

i think that some were so certain that the gloves whould fit oj because they wanted them to fit very badly that they have not paid much attention to the testimony that tells one why they did not fit. I believe Clarke was worried that the gloves would not fit before the demo and that is why she told Darden not to do the demo.

[GreenIce]

GI
Thanks for this testimony by Rubin. i had missed this before.Cochran got him to say all extra gloves in the lot would NOt be the same size xl.
Some xl large would be one size and another would be a different size although both would have the xl size stamp.That is why it is not a good idea
to buy gloves for someone if they are not there to try them on.Same is true for shoes.They must be tried by the potential buyer.People return gloves all the times because they don't fit.

Martin,

I think Cochran would have had an easier time pulling Mr. Rubin's teeth with out novicane then getting a straight answer from him.

It appears to me that the DA's were clever by having Rubin and Vermich do their own research. This way they did not have to provide a report to the defense. Deedrick tried to do the same with carpet fibers. Using independent sources but since he worked the government, that rule did not apply--if I am understanding it correctly.

[martin II]

Martin,

When Vanatter was chided by the judge regarding his reckless disregard of the truth, was he talking about both search warrants or the first warrant alone or the second warrant alone.

The second warrant is loaded with different information to included that Arnelle did tell the detectives that her father was in Chicago. That Lou Brown did invite Simpson to dinner but Simpson did decline. Which is probably why Lou Brown never took the stand in either trial. Which makes no sense because isn't he the one who felt his wife's time was off regarding the time of the phone call?

Also, in the second warrant, it is written that no one remembered seeing a black sweat suit at Rockingham, but if they do find one, they would like to seize it and search it for blood evidence.

Yet, in their book they talk about the alleged sweats being in the washer. The more testimony you read as well as the documents, the worse it gets for the LAPD and the state, IMO.

It was the second request that he told the obvious lies. i think the judge was Kennedy.He lied about knowing where oj was. About a brown spot that he said was blood before it had been tested for blood and he made other mistaments of fact to get the warrant.

All of the that evidence should have tossed but ITO caved to the prosecution.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9209686]

GI
You are absolutely correct.le looked at all kinds of gloves at ojs house and realized that those different gloves would not help them so they left them there. My opinion is the gloves did not fit because ojs palms were very wide and thick and this prevented him from pushing his fingers into the finger channels.The latex gloves did not change the size of the gloves so they did not make a differance.

i think that some were so certain that the gloves whould fit oj because they wanted them to fit very badly that they have not paid much attention to the testimony that tells one why they did not fit. I believe Clarke was worried that the gloves would not fit before the demo and that is why she told Darden not to do the demo.

Martin,

Here is the interesting thing about the glove demo. Several books, including Goldberg's have Darden getting permission from the higher ups to do the glove demo.

In VB's book, he says the court reporter or some other female in the court that day say that it was Clark who made the call and told Darden to do it.

IMO, the only person who was surprised the gloves did not fit was Chris Darden.

[martin II]

Martin,

I think Cochran would have had an easier time pulling Mr. Rubin's teeth with out novicane then getting a straight answer from him.

It appears to me that the DA's were clever by having Rubin and Vermich do their own research. This way they did not have to provide a report to the defense. Deedrick tried to do the same with carpet fibers. Using independent sources but since he worked the government, that rule did not apply--if I am understanding it correctly.

You are reading it correctly.

[GreenIce]

It was the second request that he told the obvious lies. i think the judge was Kennedy.He lied about knowing where oj was. About a brown spot that he said was blood before it had been tested for blood and he made other mistaments of fact to get the warrant.

All of the that evidence should have tossed but ITO caved to the prosecution.

Martin,

I think this is one of the saddest facts about our criminal trial justice systems. Judges and DA's refuse to stand up to LE and call them on their lies. Just because all four detectives told some of the same story, does not mean it is true, only that one will lie and the other 3 will swear to it.

However, IMO, I think the fact the search warrants were not tossed was to the benefit of the defense. Simpson had the money to hire the experts to who took total control of the evidence, even though the state had ownership of it.