Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9209689]

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.


I agree that Darden discussed this with GG as GG did sit in on the evening planning sessions for the next day.

i had read that clarke advised against it initially but maby she eventually went with it. Darden was the one most surprised that the glove did not fit.
The defence knew they would not fit.

[martin II]

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.

ojs money prevented the state from railroading him. That is for sure.

[GreenIce]

In reading the second search warrant, the detectives flat out lied on one crucial issue. They state that Simpson exited his home and entered the waiting limo without comment to Kato.

This is totally false and why would they do this? Because Kato told Simpson about the noise he heard and Simpson and him went back inside the house to find a stronger flashlight.

Also, another omission. Never in this warrant does it say that Kato asked the limo driver if they had an earthquake.

Both warrants never mention MF name and all the evidence was found by "detectives", never a single one. The way it is written, it appears that all four detectives were at the Bronco at the same time and discovered the blood as well as the package with OJ's Production company.

Both warrants flat out lie about the discovery of the glove. It is said that it was found during the securing of the property. That is not true.

[GreenIce]

ojs money prevented the state from railroading him. That is for sure.


Martin,

I don't know if I agree with you on this--it depends on which courtroom you talking about.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

If the style or model of the gloves is not any where on the murder gloves, then how or why did the sales person write down any model number?

How was Aris to know of these gloves were a commerical success and how would Bloomingdales maintain their inventory and restock reports?

Also, any one who has worked in retail knows that size does matter when it comes to certain items, it least when these items are on display for purchase. Does every sales person know how to identifiy the make and model by just looking at the glove?

Isn't it possible that there was more then one label in the gloves and the label with the style or model number was the one that was removed? I have seen more then one tag on items before.

[martin II]

Martin,

If the style or model of the gloves is not any where on the murder gloves, then how or why did the sales person write down any model number?i have no idea.

How was Aris to know of these gloves were a commerical success and how would Bloomingdales maintain their inventory and restock reports?THEY SOLD 65% OF ORIGINAL ORDER AND SENT THE UNSOLD BALANCE BACK TO ARIS. NORMALLY ARIS WOULD THEN RESALKE THESE UNSOLD GLOVES TO DISCOUNTERS AROUND THE COUNTRY SO AS NOT TO TAKR A LOSS ON THE LOT.

Also, any one who has worked in retail knows that size does matter when it comes to certain items, it least when these items are on display for purchase. Does every sales person know how to identifiy the make and model by just looking at the glove?I doubt any person can tell the differance between a l and xl because the differance is only about 1/2 inch all around.

Isn't it possible that there was more then one label in the gloves and the label with the style or model number was the one that was removed? I have seen more then one tag on items before.i don't know

[martin II]

Martin,

I don't know if I agree with you on this--it depends on which courtroom you talking about.

criminal trial

[martin II]

In reading the second search warrant, the detectives flat out lied on one crucial issue. They state that Simpson exited his home and entered the waiting limo without comment to Kato.

This is totally false and why would they do this? Because Kato told Simpson about the noise he heard and Simpson and him went back inside the house to find a stronger flashlight.

Also, another omission. Never in this warrant does it say that Kato asked the limo driver if they had an earthquake.

Both warrants never mention MF name and all the evidence was found by "detectives", never a single one. The way it is written, it appears that all four detectives were at the Bronco at the same time and discovered the blood as well as the package with OJ's Production company.

Both warrants flat out lie about the discovery of the glove. It is said that it was found during the securing of the property. That is not true.


nothing new that vanhatter lied.
you know vanhatter got clarke to help him write the warrant request that was filled with these lies.

[martin II]

gi

once Aris received the unsold gloves returned to them they would sell them to various national discounterrs and the gloves would be for sale all over the country at these discounters store.Aris certainly would not take a loss on 4,800 gloves that Bloomingdales did not sell and they could not eat them for dinner.
my point is this glove was for sale all over the country.

[martin II]

nothing new that vanhatter lied.
you know vanhatter got clarke to help him write the warrant request that was filled with these lies.

Ito told vanhatter that he played fast and loose with the truth on the warrant. a polite way of saying he lied to get the warrant.
ito should have followed the law and tossed al the evidence found at Rockingham but that would have destroyed the prosecutions case.So i guess he was not ready to lose his job if he had done so.
But the system is designed to help the prosecution and the cops.
Many people believe the prosecution and le are always right and deserve all the breaks and support UNTIL IT IS THEM THAT ARE THE DEFENDANTS AND THEY SEE HOW DIRTY AND UNFAIR THE PROSECUTION PLAYS THE GAME.

EXAMPLE: The la da has a coviction rate of 98% How can 98% of people arrested be guilty.

[GreenIce]

criminal trial

Martin,

He was railroaded in the court of public opinon. Look at what people believe that is true when in fact, it is not true.

[GreenIce]

Ito told vanhatter that he played fast and loose with the truth on the warrant. a polite way of saying he lied to get the warrant.
ito should have followed the law and tossed al the evidence found at Rockingham but that would have destroyed the prosecutions case.So i guess he was not ready to lose his job if he had done so.
But the system is designed to help the prosecution and the cops.
Many people believe the prosecution and le are always right and deserve all the breaks and support UNTIL IT IS THEM THAT ARE THE DEFENDANTS AND THEY SEE HOW DIRTY AND UNFAIR THE PROSECUTION PLAYS THE GAME.

EXAMPLE: The la da has a coviction rate of 98% How can 98% of people arrested be guilty.

Martin,

I agree with your post. Nobody cares until it is them or their loved one in the defendant's chair.

[martin II]

GI

I am watching the PGA golf game on tv and noticed something that Rubin said about his tight fitting gloves. I noticed that all golfers took their gloves off finger by finger. Rubin testified his tight fitting gloves would have to be taken off finger by finger. This destroys the idea of some that the left glove found at Bundy just some how fell of or Ron just pulled it off.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with your post. Nobody cares until it is them or their loved one in the defendant's chair.

When it is them or a love one they are surprised that the cops don't always protect and serve.They lie against the defendant.

[martin II]

Martin,

He was railroaded in the court of public opinon. Look at what people believe that is true when in fact, it is not true.

The proof of your statement is that 85% of whites said oj was guilty BEFORE the trial started and before any witness testified.So why is that. They only had media reports of what had been leaked about the crime. I remember Nancy Grace and others like her put out loads of misinformation about the case.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with your post. Nobody cares until it is them or their loved one in the defendant's chair.

Some people consider themselves as law and order types and are pleased to see others arrested and sent to jail. But when a family member is arrested and sent to jail and is not really guilty of the crime they have to make huge adjustments in their thinking about the police.

[fgump2]

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.
I don't think I have written much about how expensive they were, or the craftsmenship. The price on the sales slip was 2 pair of gloves for $77.00, which in 1990 was expensive for light weight dress gloves, but within the price range of a lot of people. I would guess the average buyer was somewhat richer that the average.

The most unusual thing about those gloves is that there were only about 300 of that size (X large) manufactured. I realize there has been some argument on this thread about whether the murder gloves were X large. I thought they were, but I don't feel like researching it. The fact that there are pictures of Simpson wearing glovse that look like the murder gloves is an indication of guilt, but not conclusively.

My understanding is that professional criminals don't like to wear anything that is unusual that might more or less identify them in some way, especially shoes which leave footprints, or gloves which might be dropped. This would mean that the unusual gloves and shoes would indicate it was not a professional killing.

The fact that the killer used a knife and kept hacking away at Nicole's neck shows additional evidence that it wasn't a professional killing. As John Douglas said, it was a rage killing.

The somewhat high price of the shoes and gloves (shoes more than the gloves) would indicate it was probably a fairly wealthy person, at least not a low income person.

Suppose we use an additonal piece of evidence that the prosecution wasn't presented to enter: the fact that Nicole predicted Orenthal would murder her by cutting her. If we do this, I think a reasonable person would say that the gloves, shoes (after the civil trial) and Nicole's prediction show that SImpson is guilty. I would say beyond a reasonable doubt, or very close to it. I have a hard time taking people seriously who aren't impressed by the number of coincidences we have to buy into to think Simpson might be innocent.

[fgump2]

The proof of your statement is that 85% of whites said oj was guilty BEFORE the trial started and before any witness testified.So why is that. They only had media reports of what had been leaked about the crime. I remember Nancy Grace and others like her put out loads of misinformation about the case.

Was part of the misinformation from TV commentators like Johnnie Cochran who stated something like ' it is obvious he is guilty'? Did Nancy Grace go further than Cochran is discussing Simpson's guilt.

Part of it may also be the bronco chase in which he put a gun to his own head.

Part of it for me was that a therapist who talked to her before, Susan Forward, said she thought Nicole was in danger from Orenthal. I don't recall exactly what S. Forward said, but I thought it was incriminating at the time.

I think that many people assume the police are reluctant to arrest a rich celebrity because they know that the whole PD will be put under a magnifying glass.

[martin II]

Was part of the misinformation from TV commentators like Johnnie Cochran who stated something like ' it is obvious he is guilty'? Did Nancy Grace go further than Cochran is discussing Simpson's guilt. You have made this claim about Cochran previously. can you post a direct comment where he said this? or are we to believe it is true without proof? namcy grace always go further than most


Part of it may also be the bronco chase in which he put a gun to his own head. Without trial testimony this means nothing

Part of it for me was that a therapist who talked to her before, Susan Forward, said she thought Nicole was in danger from Orenthal. I don't recall exactly what S. Forward said, but I thought it was incriminating at the time. She thought nicole was in danger without evidence i guess.

I think that many people assume the police are reluctant to arrest a rich celebrity because they know that the whole PD will be put under a magnifying glass.
if the lapd is doing their job fairly they should be able to do so without worrying about what people think. if they make MISTAKES all over the place as you call them then they should be attacked by the public.

[martin II]

I don't think I have written much about how expensive they were, or the craftsmenship. The price on the sales slip was 2 pair of gloves for $77.00, which in 1990 was expensive for light weight dress gloves, but within the price range of a lot of people. I would guess the average buyer was somewhat richer that the average. If the gloves were fine tight fitting special gloves $55 was not expensive. Gloves at Barnets,GD,OR Amani is where expensive gloves can be found. These gloves were a mass produced lot of gloves made for a christmas sale at BLOOMINGDALES not expensive at all. Most anyone could pay that.

The most unusual thing about those gloves is that there were only about 300 of that size (X large) manufactured. I realize there has been some argument on this thread about whether the murder gloves were X large. I thought they were, but I don't feel like researching it. The fact that there are pictures of Simpson wearing glovse that look like the murder gloves is an indication of guilt, but not conclusively.Picture of gloves that LOOK LIKE other gloves means nothing.

My understanding is that professional criminals don't like to wear anything that is unusual that might more or less identify them in some way, especially shoes which leave footprints, or gloves which might be dropped. This would mean that the unusual gloves and shoes would indicate it was not a professional killing.I don't know why you think professional killers don't wear good clothes.

The fact that the killer used a knife and kept hacking away at Nicole's neck shows additional evidence that it wasn't a professional killing. As John Douglas said, it was a rage killing.The fact yjat the victims were cut many times shows that the victims put up a fight and the killers wanted to be sure they were dead. Douglas was wrong.

The somewhat high price of the shoes and gloves (shoes more than the gloves) would indicate it was probably a fairly wealthy person, at least not a low income person. High price items only , mean that the killer could pay for them. What do you say about poor people buying $150.00 sneakers and $300.00 jackets or $ 500 ladies handbags

Suppose we use an additonal piece of evidence that the prosecution wasn't presented to enter: the fact that Nicole predicted Orenthal would murder her by cutting her. If we do this, I think a reasonable person would say that the gloves, shoes (after the civil trial) and Nicole's prediction show that SImpson is guilty. I would say beyond a reasonable doubt, or very close to it. I have a hard time taking people seriously who aren't impressed by the number of coincidences we have to buy into to think Simpson might be innocent. What nicole thought about oj does not mean that he did any of whart she
may have thought. Before her death Nicole said and did a lot of things that her friends thought were unusual for her. She once said her mother would kill her

One other point, GI, you have called enough people liars that you should recall the story about the boy who yelled wolf once too often. I reject completely your theory that a detective or Fung lied because their memory of something differs. As a result I don't take you accusations of other LAPD people lying seriously. Partly this is due to the fact that I don't feel like a ball of fire about researching the trial more.I don't think you are in a position to attack people here about name calling.Right?

[martin II]

I don't think I have written much about how expensive they were, or the craftsmenship. The price on the sales slip was 2 pair of gloves for $77.00, which in 1990 was expensive for light weight dress gloves, but within the price range of a lot of people. I would guess the average buyer was somewhat richer that the average.

The most unusual thing about those gloves is that there were only about 300 of that size (X large) manufactured. I realize there has been some argument on this thread about whether the murder gloves were X large. I thought they were, but I don't feel like researching it. The fact that there are pictures of Simpson wearing glovse that look like the murder gloves is an indication of guilt, but not conclusively.

My understanding is that professional criminals don't like to wear anything that is unusual that might more or less identify them in some way, especially shoes which leave footprints, or gloves which might be dropped. This would mean that the unusual gloves and shoes would indicate it was not a professional killing.

The fact that the killer used a knife and kept hacking away at Nicole's neck shows additional evidence that it wasn't a professional killing. As John Douglas said, it was a rage killing.

The somewhat high price of the shoes and gloves (shoes more than the gloves) would indicate it was probably a fairly wealthy person, at least not a low income person.

Suppose we use an additonal piece of evidence that the prosecution wasn't presented to enter: the fact that Nicole predicted Orenthal would murder her by cutting her. If we do this, I think a reasonable person would say that the gloves, shoes (after the civil trial) and Nicole's prediction show that SImpson is guilty. I would say beyond a reasonable doubt, or very close to it. I have a hard time taking people seriously who aren't impressed by the number of coincidences we have to buy into to think Simpson might be innocent.

One other point, GI, you have called enough people liars that you should recall the story about the boy who yelled wolf once too often. I reject completely your theory that a detective or Fung lied because their memory of something differs. As a result I don't take you accusations of other LAPD people lying seriously. Partly this is due to the fact that I don't feel like a ball of fire about researching the trial more.

According to the CJS the jury is always the best judge in listening an seeing witnesses testify. Many issues that people outside of court think are important are not important when tested in court. No one had a better opportunity to judge the truth of witnesses and evidence than the jury. After 9 months of listening to testimony i believe the jury was able to sort out the truth and to understand if the prosecution had proved their case.
There is just too much evidence of police giving untruthful testimnony not only in LA but in many cases across the country for one to believe they don't
lie against defendants. Anyone that ignores this fact is not being truthful to themselves.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9209736] would say beyond a reasonable doubt, or very close to it. I have a hard time taking people seriously who aren't impressed by the number of coincidences we have to buy into to think Simpson might be innocent.

Fgump2,

Fair enough. But what about the number of coincidences that are loaded within the state's case?

1. Finding the blood on the back gate 3 weeks later?

2. Finding blood on the socks over two months later?

3. Find Ron Goldman's blood in the Bronco over two months later?

4. Find a moist and sticky glove that showed no signs of being dropped but rather placed where it was found?

5. Mark Fuhrman stopping his interview with Kato as soon as he learned what time he heard the thumps, taking Kato into the house through the back door, exiting the front door and finding the glove 15 minutes later?

6. Mark Fuhrman claiming to see blood that he could not have seen unless the Bronco door was open.

7. No pictures taken of the blood drops on the back gate until July 3?

8. No pictures taken of the blood Fuhrman said was outside but on the Bronco?

9. EDTA found in two specific pieces of evidence that the defense asked to be tested for EDTA.

10. MF's statements in the prelim hearing that he knew that OJ and Nicole still had joint custody of their children?

11. MF's statements that when he combined the Blood found in the Bronco, with the thumps on the wall and the time of the thumps, he became concerned.

12. New news report that Nicole's blood was found on the sock before it was even sent out to be tested.

There are many more coincidences on the state's side then Simpson's.

Simpson having a cut on his left hand is more likely a coincidence then not simply because of the blood trail from the Bronco right to the front door.

Simpson could have be telling the absolute truth about that but that does not mean that he is innocent.

[GreenIce]

One other point, GI, you have called enough people liars that you should recall the story about the boy who yelled wolf once too often. I reject completely your theory that a detective or Fung lied because their memory of something differs. As a result I don't take you accusations of other LAPD people lying seriously. Partly this is due to the fact that I don't feel like a ball of fire about researching the trial more.

Fgump2,

The 4 lead detectives in this case did lie and it was proven. If you read the books that the detectives wrote, you can't question that or if you saw any of their book tour interviews. MF himself said that he was not the only one who should have faced perjury charges. So, tell me, who do I believe?

My opinon on Fung is that he was put in a horrible position, he knew their were serious issues and, IMO, if was given a choice to taking a vacation to Hell vs testifying in the Simpson case, he would have chosen Hell. He would have had a better time.

The reasons you completely reject my opinons on lies are very simple. You have a very low bar set for professionals who have job requirements to write copious notes, fill out detailed reports and testify about their performance in a court of a law. You taken what one man has written about cops not liking to take notes and have allowed that taint your judgement. You have also supported subpar professinonal conduct and job performance because of the people involved were tired and lazy.

You refuse to acknowledge that all the checklists that the criminalists are provided and are to be filled out at crime scenes, etc. have been provided to eliminate the blood evidence and other evidence fiascos in the Simpson case.

You also refuse to acknowledge that if a person doesn't like the most important parts of their job, doesn't give the a free pass not to do it.

I believe that the four lead detectives did believe Simpson was guilty and I have always posted they had every reason to believe he was guilty. However, I have always questioned why they obviously lied about going to Siompson's home and how both crime scene's were handled so poorly.

I think MF is an evil man and I would not put anything past him. I also believe he is a racist but I do not believe, if he planted the glove, that it was done because of racism.

I think VA came to conclusions that this was going to be a nighmare case because of MF and he made decisions and took actions that he thought would save the case and convict a man he believed to be guilty.

Ron Phillips has own issues but his most appalling breech of ethics was lying about knowing about MF and the tapes and for allowing himself to be used as a cover for MF's behavior.

Out of all of them, I think Lange is most guilty of turning his eyes and ears off when it was to his benefit. I question Lange on several key points because he testifies that he told certain people to make sure they collect certain evidence and that evidence somehow was lost, not colllected and washed away.

I also question his actions by not ordering a rape kit and I question his presence at the autopsy and how he allowed valuable evidence to be washed away and thrown out.

IMO, you have read a couple of books and you hold tight on those books, however, the two books you hold on to, were people who were not involved in the trial. I have no problem with any one writing books on the case but they really don't explain much because they don't know all the evidence any more then we do.

I believed OJ Simpson was guilty from the moment I heard of the first news report of the murders. I "knew" he was guilty when I found out he left for Chicago before the murders. I that reeked of guilt to me.

In the prelim hearing, I started to have doubts because of the evidence presented wasn't even close to the actual evidence presented in the hearing.
I knew when the 4 lead detectives lied about going to Simpson's home that he would never be convicted because no one would ever believe them and those lies were going sink the DA's case.

When Jeff Toobin's article came out about MF, again affirmed my belief that Simpson was guilty.

It was only during the DA's case and their presentation of the blood evidence is when I had started to have doubts and then it was the timeline that convinced that Simpson was innocent of the killings but I never ruled out that he may have had something to do with it.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9209736]Suppose we use an additonal piece of evidence that the prosecution wasn't presented to enter: the fact that Nicole predicted Orenthal would murder her by cutting her. If we do this, I think a reasonable person would say that the gloves, shoes (after the civil trial) and Nicole's prediction show that SImpson is guilty. I would say beyond a reasonable doubt, or very close to it. I have a hard time taking people seriously who aren't impressed by the number of coincidences we have to buy into to think Simpson might be innocent.

Fgump2,

Okay, lets play the game of suppose, shall we?

The DA's would have to be able to prove that Nicole did in fact tell people she believed that OJ would kill her and use a knife. The DA's would have to also prove that any of these witnesses did not have a motive to lie about this and what the exact context of the conversation was.

The DA's then would also have these same witnesses explain why after hearing about these threats, why they did nothing and why they continued to enjoy the "grace and favor" of the Simpsons' wealth and friendship.

In regards to Susan Forward, she would have to explain why she did not know the laws of her profession on revealing any conversations she had with Nicole. She would also have to explain why she broke the law by not writing a report stating this was in fact true.

She would also have to explain why Nicole was sent to her and why Nicole stopped seeing her and why Nicole reportedly tell some people that she, Dr. Forward, wanted Nicole to write down and make stuff up about DV so she could get a bigger divorce settlement.

In addition to having Dr. Forward testify, then all of Nicole's and OJ's shrinks they were seeing at the time as well as in the recent past, would also have to testify that Dr. Forward was not telling the truth because their findings were completely different.

Also, what about the defense, what if they were allowed to present evidence in regards to critical witnesses? Such as MF having to go on trial for the second time after being accused of planting a knife on an African-American male? Or his comments about the Simpson trial he made to LHM?

What about Ron Shipp, who saw the same shrink Nicole and OJ saw and was said to have a fatal attraction for Nicole?

What about the creep in jail who was in fact following Nicole?

Now, any one of these witnesses, could have also worked against Simpson and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem is when people only have the "let the cards fall where they may" when it only goes against one person.

[GreenIce]

According to the CJS the jury is always the best judge in listening an seeing witnesses testify. Many issues that people outside of court think are important are not important when tested in court. No one had a better opportunity to judge the truth of witnesses and evidence than the jury. After 9 months of listening to testimony i believe the jury was able to sort out the truth and to understand if the prosecution had proved their case.
There is just too much evidence of police giving untruthful testimnony not only in LA but in many cases across the country for one to believe they don't
lie against defendants. Anyone that ignores this fact is not being truthful to themselves.

Martin,

For me, it was the obvious lies that really got to me regarding the police. They had the law on their side every step of the way but they would rather lie and make up stories that, IMO, not only tainted the evidence, but also tainted the DA's and even the judge.

To me, too many times the DA's had to force a story that the facts just did not support.

[GreenIce]

GI

I am watching the PGA golf game on tv and noticed something that Rubin said about his tight fitting gloves. I noticed that all golfers took their gloves off finger by finger. Rubin testified his tight fitting gloves would have to be taken off finger by finger. This destroys the idea of some that the left glove found at Bundy just some how fell of or Ron just pulled it off.imo

Martin,

I am convinced the gloves were left behind on purpose.

[martin II]

Martin,

I am convinced the gloves were left behind on purpose.

Anyone that is truthful to themselves would come to the sama conclusion.RUBIN proved this with his testimony about the gloves comming off finger by finger but some ignore this.

[martin II]

Fgump2,

The 4 lead detectives in this case did lie and it was proven. If you read the books that the detectives wrote, you can't question that or if you saw any of their book tour interviews. MF himself said that he was not the only one who should have faced perjury charges. So, tell me, who do I believe?

My opinon on Fung is that he was put in a horrible position, he knew their were serious issues and, IMO, if was given a choice to taking a vacation to Hell vs testifying in the Simpson case, he would have chosen Hell. He would have had a better time.

The reasons you completely reject my opinons on lies are very simple. You have a very low bar set for professionals who have job requirements to write copious notes, fill out detailed reports and testify about their performance in a court of a law. You taken what one man has written about cops not liking to take notes and have allowed that taint your judgement. You have also supported subpar professinonal conduct and job performance because of the people involved were tired and lazy.

You refuse to acknowledge that all the checklists that the criminalists are provided and are to be filled out at crime scenes, etc. have been provided to eliminate the blood evidence and other evidence fiascos in the Simpson case.

You also refuse to acknowledge that if a person doesn't like the most important parts of their job, doesn't give the a free pass not to do it.

I believe that the four lead detectives did believe Simpson was guilty and I have always posted they had every reason to believe he was guilty. However, I have always questioned why they obviously lied about going to Siompson's home and how both crime scene's were handled so poorly.

I think MF is an evil man and I would not put anything past him. I also believe he is a racist but I do not believe, if he planted the glove, that it was done because of racism.

I think VA came to conclusions that this was going to be a nighmare case because of MF and he made decisions and took actions that he thought would save the case and convict a man he believed to be guilty.

Ron Phillips has own issues but his most appalling breech of ethics was lying about knowing about MF and the tapes and for allowing himself to be used as a cover for MF's behavior.

Out of all of them, I think Lange is most guilty of turning his eyes and ears off when it was to his benefit. I question Lange on several key points because he testifies that he told certain people to make sure they collect certain evidence and that evidence somehow was lost, not colllected and washed away.

I also question his actions by not ordering a rape kit and I question his presence at the autopsy and how he allowed valuable evidence to be washed away and thrown out.

IMO, you have read a couple of books and you hold tight on those books, however, the two books you hold on to, were people who were not involved in the trial. I have no problem with any one writing books on the case but they really don't explain much because they don't know all the evidence any more then we do.

I believed OJ Simpson was guilty from the moment I heard of the first news report of the murders. I "knew" he was guilty when I found out he left for Chicago before the murders. I that reeked of guilt to me.

In the prelim hearing, I started to have doubts because of the evidence presented wasn't even close to the actual evidence presented in the hearing.
I knew when the 4 lead detectives lied about going to Simpson's home that he would never be convicted because no one would ever believe them and those lies were going sink the DA's case.

When Jeff Toobin's article came out about MF, again affirmed my belief that Simpson was guilty.

It was only during the DA's case and their presentation of the blood evidence is when I had started to have doubts and then it was the timeline that convinced that Simpson was innocent of the killings but I never ruled out that he may have had something to do with it.

One more thing, if you think I like believing that police and the DA's aren't always the good guys, you are wrong, very seriously wrong. It was a very painful experience to realize that everything I believed about our country and our legal system was not even close to what I thought it was.

i agree with your post completely.

[martin II]

Martin,

I am convinced the gloves were left behind on purpose.

After all the complications and problems with the gloves , in the end they didn't fit.The Bundy glove was left neatly next to the cap and the rockingham glove was left with absolutely no evidence that the defendant was in that area.

[martin II]

cap

CONCLUSION: I had quite frankly hoped that the result of these experiments would be to show that the cap could not have come under the agapanthus plant (as the investigators found it) as a result of having been lost in a nearby struggle. The experiment does not show that. Since we do not know whether the "Toss" or the "Drop" series approximates the situation that might have existed, I take the average of the two and find that there is a 33% probability that a cap lost in a struggle can fall through the leaves of the plant and end up "under" the plant. Correspondingly, there is a 67% probability that a cap lost in this way will not give the appearance seen. That is, it is twice as likely that a cap lost in a struggle will not give the indication ("cap under the plant") seen as that it will. However, it is virtually certain that if a person deliberately "flings" the cap at the ground beneath the leaves, it will show the indication seen.
Furthermore, we conclude that because the agapanthus plant is as fragile as crystal, the fact that it showed no damage after the crime indicates that it was not touched during the attack on Goldman. Considering the close quarters in the vicinity of the plant, this leads to the further conclusion that the attack did not proceed into the alcove.

Does this "prove" anything? No. But it should make us suspicious that the cap was not under the agapanthus because it fell there during a nearby fight. It is more likely that it was there because it was deliberately planted to frame Simpson.

It is just one more reason to slow down, and think again.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/cap.htm

[martin II]

Anyone that is truthful to themselves would come to the sama conclusion.RUBIN proved this with his testimony about the gloves comming off finger by finger but some ignore this.
Correction

same

[martin II]

http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/mc71111/park_2.jpg


GI

Parks LIMO was at the rockingham gate where the arrow is and he claims he did not see the bronco parked next to the gate.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .Parks LIMO was at the rockingham gate where the arrow is and he claims he did not see the bronco parked next to the gate.

Kato:
Q. Where did Mr. Simpson usually park his Bronco, if you know?
A. Usually on Ashford.
Q. Can you point where on Ashford Mr. Simpson usually parked his Bronco?
A. I think it would be a wider shot. It would be here or on this side of the
street, sometimes there (indicating).

Dale St. John:
Q. Okay. Do you know if he had a white Bronco?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever notice where the Bronco was parked?
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Where did you see the Bronco parked?
A. On Ashford.
Q. On Ashford in front of the property?
A. Yes.
Q. At any time, did you ever see Mr. Simpson's Bronco parked on
Rockingham?
A. No.

Charles Cale, Simpson neighbor:
Cale testified he did not see Simpson's Ford Bronco parked outside the estate between 9:30 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. as he walked his dog. He saw the Bronco the next morning parked at an angle.

[weezer]

After all the complications and problems with the gloves , in the end they didn't fit.The Bundy glove was left neatly next to the cap and the rockingham glove was left with absolutely no evidence that the defendant was in that area.

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]

http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/mc71111/park_2.jpg


GI

Parks LIMO was at the rockingham gate where the arrow is and he claims he did not see the bronco parked next to the gate.

Bronco issues
In this picture it does not appear to be parked irratic and the house address is in plain sight. painted in white. Thr bronco was parked about 2-3 feet from Parks Limo and he says he did not see it when everyone knows it was there.

[martin II]

Cale was standing north of Ashford on several houses on .Rockingham too far to see the rockingham gate or the bronco. He said he was there at 9 30 but did not see the Bently with oj and kato arrive either. He lied to be in the case.

[tv]

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."

The best acting job of OJ Simpson's life and even it was bad! :D

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv194/tvdinner3/ojglove3.jpg http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv194/tvdinner3/ojgloves2.jpg

[weezer]

Charles Cale, Simpson neighbor:
Cale testified he did not see Simpson's Ford Bronco parked outside the estate between 9:30 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. as he walked his dog. He saw the Bronco the next morning parked at an angle.

Mr. Cale's actual testimony was that it was closer to 9:45 p.m.

[weezer]

Cell Phone Calls between Simpson and Lange during Bronco Chase
"DETECTIVE TOM LANGE: OK. How do I kill it? You there?
O.J. SIMPSON: Just let me get to my house.

LANGE: OK, we're going to do that.

SIMPSON: I swear to you I'll give you what -- I'll give you me. I'll give you my whole body.

LANGE: OK.

SIMPSON: I just need to get to my house. I can't live with (unintelligible)."

anyone want to fill in the blanks? I think he said "I can't live with what I've done." ;)

[tv]

Cell Phone Calls between Simpson and Lange during Bronco Chase
"DETECTIVE TOM LANGE: OK. How do I kill it? You there?
O.J. SIMPSON: Just let me get to my house.

LANGE: OK, we're going to do that.

SIMPSON: I swear to you I'll give you what -- I'll give you me. I'll give you my whole body.

LANGE: OK.

SIMPSON: I just need to get to my house. I can't live with (unintelligible)."

anyone want to fill in the blanks? I think he said "I can't live with what I've done." ;)

Good guess. I think it was that or something very much like it.

How about this concern for his kids -- :punch:

COWLINGS: Think of all of them, OJ! Right now they can't handle it, OJ, anymore! They can't handle it, man! Don't do it, OJ!

SIMPSON: They'll be okay.

[weezer]

Good guess. I think it was that or something very much like it.

How about this concern for his kids -- :punch:

COWLINGS: Think of all of them, OJ! Right now they can't handle it, OJ, anymore! They can't handle it, man! Don't do it, OJ!

SIMPSON: They'll be okay.

I think Jason smashing the statute of orenthal, Sydney call 911, and arnelle's smackdown of daddy pretty much sums up his concern for his children. :eek:

[martin II]

correction

cale was on rtockingham several houses north of ashford on the opposite side of the street. it was pitch dark.

[weezer]

correction

cale was on rtockingham several houses north of ashford on the opposite side of the street. it was pitch dark.

LOL -- you mean the light that was good enough for orenthal to 'chip golf balls by' and good enough for him to 'see what he needed to see in the Bronco' is a lie?

[GreenIce]

cap

CONCLUSION: I had quite frankly hoped that the result of these experiments would be to show that the cap could not have come under the agapanthus plant (as the investigators found it) as a result of having been lost in a nearby struggle. The experiment does not show that. Since we do not know whether the "Toss" or the "Drop" series approximates the situation that might have existed, I take the average of the two and find that there is a 33% probability that a cap lost in a struggle can fall through the leaves of the plant and end up "under" the plant. Correspondingly, there is a 67% probability that a cap lost in this way will not give the appearance seen. That is, it is twice as likely that a cap lost in a struggle will not give the indication ("cap under the plant") seen as that it will. However, it is virtually certain that if a person deliberately "flings" the cap at the ground beneath the leaves, it will show the indication seen.
Furthermore, we conclude that because the agapanthus plant is as fragile as crystal, the fact that it showed no damage after the crime indicates that it was not touched during the attack on Goldman. Considering the close quarters in the vicinity of the plant, this leads to the further conclusion that the attack did not proceed into the alcove.

Does this "prove" anything? No. But it should make us suspicious that the cap was not under the agapanthus because it fell there during a nearby fight. It is more likely that it was there because it was deliberately planted to frame Simpson.

It is just one more reason to slow down, and think again.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/cap.htm

Martin,

I don't know why the DA's insisted on saying the cap was part of the gear worn by one of the killers. It was kid's hat and Simpson has a huge head. Did anyone really believe that Simpson would only wear a hat to disguise himself?

[weezer]

Martin,

I don't know why the DA's insisted on saying the cap was part of the gear worn by one of the killers. It was kid's hat and Simpson has a huge head. Did anyone really believe that Simpson would only wear a hat to disguise himself?

there was NO testimony that the hat belonged to the kids.

his friends did call him bobble-head. . .LOL

[martin II]

SHAPIRO: It could have been before 9:30 that you were walking your dog, isn't that correct?
Cales: I don't think it was.
SHAPIRO: You're not sure.
Cales: I am very sure. It was 9:30 to 9:45 time frame. That's the best estimate I can give you, sir.
SHAPIRO: So your, in your definition, your best estimate is being very sure of something?
Cales: When you have a period of time within certain parameters. That's -- I'm very sure of my estimate, it's in that range of time.
SHAPIRO: Could it have been 9:25?
Cales: I don't think it was. Is it possible, I guess it's possible. I don't think so, though.


GI

OJ could chip golf balls from the driveway walkway lights.

[tv]

there was NO testimony that the hat belonged to the kids. you're mistaken -- AGAIN

his friends did call him bobble-head. . .LOL

Wasn't it Paula Barbieri who said she felt sorry for him with his big old head and scrawny body?

[weezer]

SHAPIRO: It could have been before 9:30 that you were walking your dog, isn't that correct?
Cales: I don't think it was.
SHAPIRO: You're not sure.
Cales: I am very sure. It was 9:30 to 9:45 time frame. That's the best estimate I can give you, sir.
SHAPIRO: So your, in your definition, your best estimate is being very sure of something?
Cales: When you have a period of time within certain parameters. That's -- I'm very sure of my estimate, it's in that range of time.
SHAPIRO: Could it have been 9:25?
Cales: I don't think it was. Is it possible, I guess it's possible. I don't think so, though.


GI

OJ could chip golf balls from the driveway walkway lights.

the same ones that kept Park from seeing him? those lights?

[weezer]

Wasn't it Paula Barbieri who said she felt sorry for him with his big old head and scrawny body?

LOL -- I'd forgotten that but you're right -- she did say it.

[tv]

LOL -- I'd forgotten that but you're right -- she did say it.

IIRC, she compared him to ET. :tongue:

[weezer]

IIRC, she compared him to ET. :tongue:

ROFLMAO

Love your avatar! Good reminder of what this was all about.

[tv]

ROFLMAO

Love your avatar! Good reminder of what this was all about.

I thought it was time to remember the victims instead of all this wailing and wringing of hands about how poor old OJ Simpson was treated by LE just trying to do their job.

[weezer]

I thought it was time to remember the victims instead of all this wailing and wringing of hands about how poor old OJ Simpson was treated by LE just trying to do their job.

Great point and I agree with your post completely!

[Hipcheck]

correction

cale was on rtockingham several houses north of ashford on the opposite side of the street. it was pitch dark.

What about all the street lights?

If the hat didn't belong to O.J. then how do you explain the hair found on it that was consistant with hair belonging to O.J. and fibers found on it that were consistant coming from his Ford Bronco?

[martin II]

Martin,

I don't know why the DA's insisted on saying the cap was part of the gear worn by one of the killers. It was kid's hat and Simpson has a huge head. Did anyone really believe that Simpson would only wear a hat to disguise himself?

WAGNER proved the cap was not worn by oj. That cap would not disguise oj.

[tv]

WAGNER proved the cap was not worn by oj. That cap would not disguise oj.

Just because the cap wasn't a good disguise doesn't mean he didn't wear it.

[martin II]

What about all the street lights?

If the hat didn't belong to O.J. then how do you explain the hair found on it that was consistant with hair belonging to O.J. and fibers found on it that were consistant coming from his Ford Bronco?

There was one street light at Ashford that did not illuminate further than ashford. There was testimony that rockingham was pitch black.Thats why park said he had trouble finding the address on the curb.

[martin II]

Just because the cap wasn't a good disguise doesn't mean he didn't wear it. You're seem to think he's smart -- wrong AGAIN.

everyone in nicoles neighborhood knew oj and his car. if someone had seen him in that cap they would have yelled hi oj.

[tv]

everyone in nicoles neighborhood knew oj and his car. if someone had seen him in that cap they would have yelled hi oj.

More likely they would have thought he was stalking Nicole AGAIN and called the police.

[martin II]

What about all the street lights?

If the hat didn't belong to O.J. then how do you explain the hair found on it that was consistant with hair belonging to O.J. and fibers found on it that were consistant coming from his Ford Bronco?

please post testimony to prove your claim in the above post.

[weezer]

There was one street light at Ashford that did not illuminate further than ashford. There was testimony that rockingham was pitch black.Thats why park said he had trouble finding the address on the curb.

A: I would assume so, but there's certainly light from the intersection.

Q: There was a light--The car was parked near the intersection?

A: No. Yeah, I would say so. 20 feet, 30 feet from the intersection.

Q: The intersection of what two streets?

A: Ashford and Rockingham.

Q: And where is there a streetlight there?

A: Right in the middle of the intersection.

Q: And you could see inside the Bronco from that streetlight?

A: I would assume I could have seen inside the Bronco without that street light, but, yes, I could see clearly inside the Bronco for what I was looking for.

[weezer]

everyone in nicoles neighborhood knew oj and his car. if someone had seen him in that cap they would have yelled hi oj.

which is exactly why Jill Shively did recognize him and the neighbor walking knew the car wasn't there. ;)

[tv]

which is exactly why Jill Shively did recognize him and the neighbor walking knew the car wasn't there. ;)

Jill Shiveley said she'd seen Nicole and OJS around Brentwood many times.

[weezer]

very strange post if you ask me

really?

"The papers also contain a statement from a part-time baby-sitter who recounted allegations that Simpson stalked his ex-wife and repeatedly called her - as many as 50 times in one two-hour period.

Gioconda Redfern said Nicole Simpson kept Mace and pepper spray to protect herself from Simpson."

"Simpson quarreled with his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and pushed her against a car with enough force to cause a thud just months before she and Goldman were murdered on June 12, 1994, a witness says in the court papers.

Elizabeth Holmes, a personal trainer for Simpson's neighbors, said she saw the confrontation in January 1994 after Nicole Simpson drove her car into Simpson's driveway.

Simpson started yelling at his ex-wife, saying, "How could you have gone to Aspen?" according to a statement by Holmes, taken on Feb. 22.

"While Simpson was yelling at her, he shoved her against a vehicle that Holmes believed was a Bentley," said an investigator's report. "Holmes said she heard a loud `thud' after Nicole hit the vehicle."

"Carl and Catherine Colby, Nicole's next door neighbors:

Q: If they saw you walking in front of Nicole's house on Gretna Green from time to time looking inside the window, would they be lying?"

[martin II]

There was no light in the intersection of ashford and rockingham. The light was on the north side of ashford on the corner according to the property layout and it did not illuminate down to the rockingham gate.

[weezer]

There was no light in the intersection of ashford and rockingham. The light was on the north side of ashford on the corner according to the property layout and it did not illuminate down to the rockingham gate.

don't tell us -- explain it to orenthal -- he thought there was enough light to chip golf balls, see to find things in his bronco, and watch the dog go to the bathroom. ;)

"Q: And where is there a streetlight there?

A: Right in the middle of the intersection."

[martin II]

Jill Shiveley said she'd seen Nicole and OJS around Brentwood many times.

The prosecution didn't believe any of JS tales so they sent her home.They did not allow her to testify.

[weezer]

The prosecution didn't believe any of JS tales so they sent her home.They did not allow her to testify.

the prosecution that you say had it all wrong? that prosecution?

wagner believed her and you do like to quote wagner!

[Hipcheck]

WAGNER proved the cap was not worn by oj. That cap would not disguise oj.

I looked at Wagner's website and seen where he talked about Juditha Brown's glasses.

He claims the glasses were not lost but taken and planted by someone.

I just got one word to say about that site.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tv]

I looked at Wagner's website and seen where he talked about Juditha Brown's glasses.

He claims the glasses were not lost but taken and planted by someone.

I just got one word to say about that site.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now you see where some of the fantasies that are posted here come from. It's bizarro world!

[weezer]

I looked at Wagner's website and seen where he talked about Juditha Brown's glasses.

He claims the glasses were not lost but taken and planted by someone.

I just got one word to say about that site.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

crazy -- right?

[GreenIce]

Bronco issues
In this picture it does not appear to be parked irratic and the house address is in plain sight. painted in white. Thr bronco was parked about 2-3 feet from Parks Limo and he says he did not see it when everyone knows it was there.

Martin,

I never bought the parking excuse on why it drew attention. What makes no sense is that MF and VA said they saw the drop of the blood and that meant people inside were dead or in danager---how is it they did not look for more blood on the outside of the Bronco and missed the drops leading from the Bronco to front door?

I will have to go back but in Gerry Uelman's book, he says some of the defense members believed the Bronco was moved.

In a book by Stephen Singular, he says the Bronco was broken into twice, once by MF who took the glove and wiped it on the carpet and then place the glove behind the wall.

Also, none of the detectives mentioned seeing blood inside the Bronco, unless you count the blood wisps, which could not be seen unless the Bronco door was open.

In American Tragedy, Simpson does not know if he locked it or not, he told Pat McKenna that he hardly ever locked it. I don't know if Arnelle and/or the maid were asked this question.

Also, MF said he also called in Kato's card because it didn't look like it belonged. What exactly does that mean? Did he also go to this car to check it out?

[GreenIce]

The prosecution didn't believe any of JS tales so they sent her home.They did not allow her to testify.

Martin,

IMO, the DA's did believe Jill S, the problem was that destroyed their timeline as well as she first identified the person she saw as Marcus Allen. Also, I think some of the details she mentioned perhaps was not OJ's Bronco.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the DA's did believe Jill S, the problem was that destroyed their timeline as well as she first identified the person she saw as Marcus Allen. Also, I think some of the details she mentioned perhaps was not OJ's Bronco.
JS timeline was off because at one time she said she left home at 10
;45 so she could not have see oj

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the DA's did believe Jill S, the problem was that destroyed their timeline as well as she first identified the person she saw as Marcus Allen. Also, I think some of the details she mentioned perhaps was not OJ's Bronco.

js was another prosecution nut case just like Martz and Rubin.Witnesses that lied to be in the case.

[Hipcheck]

Martin,

IMO, the DA's did believe Jill S, the problem was that destroyed their timeline as well as she first identified the person she saw as Marcus Allen. Also, I think some of the details she mentioned perhaps was not OJ's Bronco.

Jill Shively is no nut case who never said the person she saw was Marcus Allen. Jill also never said she left her home at 10:45pm.

Jill knew it was 10:45pm when she saw the white Ford Bronco and she was positive of the person driving was O.J. Simpson. The reason she didn't testify was because she sold her story to Hard Copy.

The question I have for the "NG's" is how does Mark Fuhrman get the glove at Bundy? Numerous police offciers were at the Bundy murder scene before Fuhrman got their and not one of them saw two gloves. Everyone only seen one glove.

[GreenIce]

Jill Shively is no nut case who never said the person she saw was Marcus Allen. Jill also never said she left her home at 10:45pm.

Jill knew it was 10:45pm when she saw the white Ford Bronco and she was positive of the person driving was O.J. Simpson. The reason she didn't testify was because she sold her story to Hard Copy.

The question I have for the "NG's" is how does Mark Fuhrman get the glove at Bundy? Numerous police offciers were at the Bundy murder scene before Fuhrman got their and not one of them saw two gloves. Everyone only seen one glove.

Hipcheck,

In Jeff Toobin's book, he says that JS did identify the driver as Marcus Allen but it was not until she heard the driver yelling that she changed it to being OJ Simpson.

If you read her testimony, she gave details regarding the Bronco, something about the wheels, perhaps her description of the actual Bronco did not fit Simpson's Bronco.

Marcia Clark used three witnesses that she knew already had or planned to profit from the case, one of them being Kato. Selling her story had nothing to do with why she was not used because she had at least two other people to back up her story.

MF and Ron Phillips were the first two detectives to arrive at the scene. The police officers who were there before were there only to secure the area and wait until the detectives got there.

You are making the assumption that if the second glove was there it had to be in the same area where the bodies were found. That is not true. Mark Fuhrman had access to bodies and the surrounding area and he already knew what was seen and was not seen when he got to the crime scene.

You are also making an assumption that if MF did pick up the glove, that he would have had to have done it with a witness present--which is just plain foolish, IMO.

You are also making an assumption that if someone did see him pick up the glove and stash it, that they would have reported what they had seen and would have reported it right then and there. Again, this is foolish.

Why did the DA's try so hard to discredit the photographer who said he took the picture of MF pointing at the glove before the detectives went to Rockingham? Why try to prove that a member on their own team was not credible when it came to just taking pictures?

Also, how many police officers were asked if they looked for a second glove? And if they did look for a second glove, when and where did they look for it?

[GreenIce]

JS timeline was off because at one time she said she left home at 10
;45 so she could not have see oj

Martin,

Maybe the only thing JS got wrong was who the driver was. In Killing Time, it says that neighbors reported seeing more then one white Bronco/SUV around Bundy that night.

It would be interesting to know what the other driver's statement was.

[martin II]

Martin,

Maybe the only thing JS got wrong was who the driver was. In Killing Time, it says that neighbors reported seeing more then one white Bronco/SUV around Bundy that night.

It would be interesting to know what the other driver's statement was.

During the time of the trial and before white Ford bromco was a very popular SUV in Brentwood and la. I think Furhman had one but it had a green strip on the side.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

In Jeff Toobin's book, he says that JS did identify the driver as Marcus Allen but it was not until she heard the driver yelling that she changed it to being OJ Simpson.

If you read her testimony, she gave details regarding the Bronco, something about the wheels, perhaps her description of the actual Bronco did not fit Simpson's Bronco.

Marcia Clark used three witnesses that she knew already had or planned to profit from the case, one of them being Kato. Selling her story had nothing to do with why she was not used because she had at least two other people to back up her story.

MF and Ron Phillips were the first two detectives to arrive at the scene. The police officers who were there before were there only to secure the area and wait until the detectives got there.

You are making the assumption that if the second glove was there it had to be in the same area where the bodies were found. That is not true. Mark Fuhrman had access to bodies and the surrounding area and he already knew what was seen and was not seen when he got to the crime scene.

You are also making an assumption that if MF did pick up the glove, that he would have had to have done it with a witness present--which is just plain foolish, IMO.

You are also making an assumption that if someone did see him pick up the glove and stash it, that they would have reported what they had seen and would have reported it right then and there. Again, this is foolish.

Why did the DA's try so hard to discredit the photographer who said he took the picture of MF pointing at the glove before the detectives went to Rockingham? Why try to prove that a member on their own team was not credible when it came to just taking pictures?

Also, how many police officers were asked if they looked for a second glove? And if they did look for a second glove, when and where did they look for it?

There were onloy 1-2 officers allowed INTO THE CRIME SCENE before the lead detectives arrived. All the others were in the street keeping the media at bay and knocking on doors looking for witnesses.

[martin II]

Jill Shively is no nut case who never said the person she saw was Marcus Allen. Jill also never said she left her home at 10:45pm.

Jill knew it was 10:45pm when she saw the white Ford Bronco and she was positive of the person driving was O.J. Simpson. The reason she didn't testify was because she sold her story to Hard Copy.

The question I have for the "NG's" is how does Mark Fuhrman get the glove at Bundy? Numerous police offciers were at the Bundy murder scene before Fuhrman got their and not one of them saw two gloves. Everyone only seen one glove.

Many people came to Clarke and told her JS was a nut case that had a history of filling silly civil cases for money and attention.One was her ex husband or boyfriend. Le tried very hard to find the NISSAN driver that she said was involved but could not find such a car.imo

[martin II]

Jill Shively is no nut case who never said the person she saw was Marcus Allen. Jill also never said she left her home at 10:45pm.

Jill knew it was 10:45pm when she saw the white Ford Bronco and she was positive of the person driving was O.J. Simpson. The reason she didn't testify was because she sold her story to Hard Copy.

The question I have for the "NG's" is how does Mark Fuhrman get the glove at Bundy? Numerous police offciers were at the Bundy murder scene before Fuhrman got their and not one of them saw two gloves. Everyone only seen one glove.

SHIVELY'S GRAND JURY ACCOUNT: The incident that Shively describes occurred at the intersection of San Vicente and Bundy in Brentwood at ABOUT 10:45 p.m. on June 12, 1994. The intersection is on the most direct route from the Bundy crime scene to Simpson's residence, and is 1/4 mile (2-1/2 blocks) north of Nicole's condo. A map of the intersection is shown below:

js could not have seen oj at 10:45.
It was after this testimony that clarke dismissed her


"Shively testified on the morning of June 21, 1994 to Marcia Clark's questioning. She said that she had lived in the neighborhood for 8 years, and that her home is 3 miles from the intersection (by the map, it is 3-1/2). She left home to go to the market and was conscious that the time was 10:45 because she had to hurry to get to the market before it closed at 11:00. Traffic was light and she traveled at 40 or 45 mph to Bundy. She estimated the time from her home to the intersection to be "three to five minutes" (Using 3.5 miles and 45 mph, it would take about 4-1/2 minutes.)"

[martin II]

JS LEFT HOME AT 10:45 so she could not have seen oj at the intersection at 10:45



"One of our group objected that the car clock was not the main reference, Shively "left home at 10:45." according to the VCR, and got to the market just before it closed. The time seemed to be nailed down in three places. But, we went back and re-read the testimony carefully. She left home at 10:45 "because I wanted to get to the market before it closed."


"But, other considerations (the Heidstra sighting, and time for other activities at Rockingham) make it more likely that the Shively sighting was as much as ten minutes earlier. We asked Shively about this, and she said that the clock in her car was fast by "8 to 10 minutes." She knew when she was in the Grand Jury that this was true, and she had explained the fact to Marcia Clark, ."

JS SAID SHE LEFT HOME AT 10;45
Her car clock was 8-10 minutes fast.

[martin II]

Martin,

I never bought the parking excuse on why it drew attention. What makes no sense is that MF and VA said they saw the drop of the blood and that meant people inside were dead or in danager---how is it they did not look for more blood on the outside of the Bronco and missed the drops leading from the Bronco to front door?

I will have to go back but in Gerry Uelman's book, he says some of the defense members believed the Bronco was moved.

In a book by Stephen Singular, he says the Bronco was broken into twice, once by MF who took the glove and wiped it on the carpet and then place the glove behind the wall.

Also, none of the detectives mentioned seeing blood inside the Bronco, unless you count the blood wisps, which could not be seen unless the Bronco door was open.

In American Tragedy, Simpson does not know if he locked it or not, he told Pat McKenna that he hardly ever locked it. I don't know if Arnelle and/or the maid were asked this question.

Also, MF said he also called in Kato's card because it didn't look like it belonged. What exactly does that mean? Did he also go to this car to check it out?

i agree with Stephen Singular

[martin II]

We know that before her death Nicole was receiving crank phone calls that she told Cora and OJ about and that she asked oj to look out after her or keep a eye on her house for this guy.Le caught the guy and questioned him.He was eventually let go and the calls continued.

It has been posted on the oj thread that the serial killer that was in and around Brentwood just before Nicoles death had worked for some construction company in Brentwood and had done some wall painting at Nicoles condo. He also produced some pictures of himself niciole and i think Faye partying at a local bar and these pictures were turned over to le.He is now on death row in Florida and a old poster that posted on the oj thread was in contact with him about this in letters.

[weezer]

We know that before her death Nicole was receiving crank phone calls that she told Cora and OJ about and that she asked oj to look out after her or keep a eye on her house for this guy.Le caught the guy and questioned him.He was eventually let go and the calls continued.

It has been posted on the oj thread that the serial killer that was in and around Brentwood just before Nicoles death had worked for some construction company in Brentwood and had done some wall painting at Nicoles condo. He also produced some pictures of himself niciole and i think Faye partying at a local bar and these pictures were turned over to le.He is now on death row in Florida and a old poster that posted on the oj thread was in contact with him about this in letters.

Nicole probably was receiving crank calls along with orenthal's threatening phone calls just to torment her. Surely you are not buying the 'she wanted me to keep an eye on her' from the person who murdered her? :cuss:

[martin II]

In reading the second search warrant, the detectives flat out lied on one crucial issue. They state that Simpson exited his home and entered the waiting limo without comment to Kato.

This is totally false and why would they do this? Because Kato told Simpson about the noise he heard and Simpson and him went back inside the house to find a stronger flashlight.

Also, another omission. Never in this warrant does it say that Kato asked the limo driver if they had an earthquake.

Both warrants never mention MF name and all the evidence was found by "detectives", never a single one. The way it is written, it appears that all four detectives were at the Bronco at the same time and discovered the blood as well as the package with OJ's Production company.

Both warrants flat out lie about the discovery of the glove. It is said that it was found during the securing of the property. That is not true.


I think most people would be outraged to know that a detective lied to a judge to get a search warrant to search their house and then see the judge allow the evidence recovered allowed in court as evidence. Some believe it was ok because it happened to oj but if it had happened to them they would be yelling unfair to the heavens.imo

[weezer]

I think most people would be outraged to know that a detective lied to a judge to get a search warrant to search their house and then see the judge allow the evidence recovered allowed in court as evidence. Some believe it was ok because it happened to oj but if it had happened to them they would be yelling unfair to the heavens.imo

hmmm -- let me think about this -- who exactly was reprimanded for lying/hiding evidence from the court? oh that's right -- the criminal defense. I think most people ARE outraged that the victim has no rights but the rights of this POS orenthal james simpson are. :cuss:

[martin II]

Coleman, Lucienne—Deputy DA, former friend of Marcia Clark. She believed that O.J.’s defense team was making false charges of racism and evidence planting against Mark Fuhrman until she checked it out. She, and two other deputy DA’s, found that he openly admired the ideas and symbols of Nazi Germany. Coleman and the other deputy DA’s investigating Fuhrman learned from several officers that his statements to them a few years before the murders suggested that he’d had an intimate relationship with Nicole. At the very least, his knowledge of her breast implant surgery showed a special interest in her that predated her death, and, by implication, a special interest in O.J. Simpson. When she reported her findings to Marcia Clark and her boss Bill Hodgman, Clark screamed at her and kicked her out of the office. Hodgman "did not recall" the incident

[martin II]

Purdy, Andy—LAPD officer intimidated by Mark Fuhrman (see Coleman, Lucien). Mark Fuhrman openly harassed him for marrying a Jew. When someone broke into his locker and painted swastikas inside, the incident was investigated by Internal Affairs. The investigators found Fuhrman’s fingerprints inside. Purdy was a good friend of Deputy DA Lucien Coleman when he told her that Mark Fuhrman was capable of doing everything the defense accused him of, including planting evidence. He kept a log of Fuhrman’s racist activities until Coleman asked him to repeat his story to Bill Hodgman and Marcia Clark. He destroyed the log and told her that he would perjure himself rather than tell anyone in authority what he knew about Fuhrman.

[martin II]

GI

i found this Dr Lee testimony in my memory.
It is important to show how EXACT Lee is and the testimony refutes the idea of some that oj had a big gash on his finger 0n 6/12 that was bleeding big time all over the place.

------------
DR. LEE: I did that chemical presumptive test, generally refer o-tolidine test, which will react with heme or any peroxidase, a colorless reagent will turn to a blue color. If that turn to blue, indicates certain result. If no reaction, did not turn blue, means absence of blood.

MR. SCHECK: What were the results of your test--did you test anything on the doorknobs here?

DR. LEE: I test both outside, inside doorknob, door hinge, other area, the light switches and all this area, metal surface, the door side (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Were the results negative?

DR. LEE: The result--

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection, your Honor, to presumptive blood testing.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: All my test result were negative.

MR. SCHECK: Did you perform--did you examine the staircase going upstairs?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. SCHECK: And what did you do and what did you find?

DR. LEE: I use a magnify glass, look through every steps. Any step have a discoloration or brownish color or any other indication, I will perform a test.

MR. SCHECK: What results?

DR. LEE: All negative.

MR. SCHECK: Would that be an indication that there was no blood of any kind that you could detect in your examination of the stairs leading up to Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

DR. LEE: The area I tested, I did not find any blood.

MR. SCHECK: Did you do something--did you perform a--the same examination of the hallway that leads into Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection as to date, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: This is all on June 25th I take it?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what were the results there?

DR. LEE: Negative.

MR. SCHECK: Now, call your attention to the foyer floor photograph. Could you tell us what that is?

DR. LEE: Foyer floor photograph is depict a center portion of the front enter foyer--foyer. I have to point it out. This is not an imperfection of the floorboard. It's a photograph provide to me by Mr. Shapiro. That's a original photograph was taken by LAPD. I use that photograph to locate the floorboard. Floorboard have different number of some type of--like nail-type of object so I can identify this area (Indicating). So I was subsequently able to locate the area LAPD tested.

MR. SCHECK: Now, this is--if one gets close to this photograph, one can detect that this is an evidence card indicating item no. 12, and it shows three blood drops in that area; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And so this photograph then I guess you're saying is your effort to locate exactly where that was on the floor as you saw it on June 25th?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is that right?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Please proceed.

DR. LEE: Upon checking the area, I was able to identify the

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

DR. LEE: They're all consistent with droplets. It's not a regular blood drop. It's a droplet, smaller drops.

MR. SCHECK: So some are bigger, some are smaller?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Would the smaller stains--would any of these be consistent with what is known as a cast-off pattern?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And so if one had a superficial cut on the side of a finger and shook it in the fashion that I'm doing--

MR. SCHECK: Let the record reflect that I'm shaking my hand down.

MR. SCHECK: --does that create cast-off pattern?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And would that be consistent with what you found here?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could the pattern that you found here be consistent with a superficial cut on the side of the finger?

DR. LEE: It consistent with a small volume of blood.

MR. SCHECK: Is the pattern that you see here consistent with a major cut?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Your Honor, we're finished with this board.

THE COURT: All right.

[weezer]

SNIPPED* * *". . .i found this Dr Lee testimony in my memory. It is important to show how EXACT Lee is and the testimony refutes the idea of some that oj had a big gash on his finger 0n 6/12 that was bleeding big time all over the place. . ."

HMMM -- wonder if he founds any fingernails? :eek:;)

[martin II]

hmmm -- let me think about this -- who exactly was reprimanded for lying/hiding evidence from the court? oh that's right -- the criminal defense. I think most people ARE outraged that the victim has no rights but the rights of this POS orenthal james simpson are. :cuss:

How would you feel if the cops lied to get a search warrant to search your house and was allowed to use what they found to try to convict you?

Telling a judge a lie for a warrant is illegal. i am sure you know that.

[weezer]

How would you feel if the cops lied to get a search warrant to search your house and was allowed to use what they found to try to convict you?

Telling a judge a lie for a warrant is illegal. i am sure you know that.

there were no lies and no one in this case was prosecuted for telling lies about the case.

[weezer]

there were no lies and no one in this case was prosecuted for telling lies about the case.

oh gosh -- I just re-read my post and realized it was wrong! no one from LE was prosecuted for telling lies about the case. ;)

[martin II]

there were no lies and no one in this case was prosecuted for telling lies about the case.

Sorry

big mistake. i had no intention to post that question to you. please ignore it.

[tv]

HMMM -- wonder if he founds any fingernails? :eek:;)

We'll never know because he tends to hide fingernails he finds at crime scenes. We do know he found an imprint in the walk and tried to pass it off as a footprint when it wasn't even relevant to the case...

[martin II]

TV

How would you feel if the cops lied to get a search warrant to search your house and was allowed to use what they found to try to convict you?

Telling a judge a lie for a warrant is illegal. i am sure you know that.

[tv]

TV

How would you feel if the cops lied to get a search warrant to search your house and was allowed to use what they found to try to convict you?

Telling a judge a lie for a warrant is illegal. i am sure you know that.

I wasn't even in this line of discussion. If you responded to weezer by mistake it's not my problem. Besides, I don't think the cops lied. I'm sure you know that.

[weezer]

Sorry

big mistake. i had no intention to post that question to you. please ignore it.

awww -- now I'm hurt -- I was just sure you'd taken me off of 'ignore'. . . .;)

[martin II]

I wasn't even in this line of discussion. If you responded to weezer by mistake it's not my problem. Besides, I don't think the cops lied. I'm sure you know that.

My intended discussion was derailed by another posting something else.

Ito told Clarke that Vanhatter had played fast and loose with the truth then he lied to get the search warrant. Normally evidence obtained by lies is tossed but ito allowed it.

My question was how would you feel if le had lied to get a warrant to search your house and was allowed to use that evidence in court to try to convict you?

[weezer]

My intended discussion was derailed by another posting something else.

Ito told Clarke that Vanhatter had played fast and loose with the truth then he lied to get the search warrant. Normally evidence obtained by lies is tossed but ito allowed it.

My question was how would you feel if le had lied to get a warrant to search your house and was allowed to use that evidence in court to try to convict you?

ah but it did turn out to be blood didn't it? orenthal's, Nicole's, and Ron's.

if it was my blood, I'd feel real bad. orenthal felt real bad! :eek:

[fgump2]

We know that before her death Nicole was receiving crank phone calls that she told Cora and OJ about and that she asked oj to look out after her or keep a eye on her house for this guy.Le caught the guy and questioned him.He was eventually let go and the calls continued.

It has been posted on the oj thread that the serial killer that was in and around Brentwood just before Nicoles death had worked for some construction company in Brentwood and had done some wall painting at Nicoles condo. He also produced some pictures of himself niciole and i think Faye partying at a local bar and these pictures were turned over to le.He is now on death row in Florida and a old poster that posted on the oj thread was in contact with him about this in letters.
It seems quite unlikely that Nicole would have asked Orenthal to keep an eye on her house. She was telling people that she thought he would kill her.

Is there any proof that the serial killer owned gloves like the murder gloves, or Bruno Magli shoes? If he claimed the gloves don't fit would that make him innocent?
I think Henry Lee should be discredited by now. I didn't completely understand the blood testimony about the car you posted, I read it quickly. The tests involved seem more complicated than telling the difference between footprints in the blood and trowel marks in cement, so it is possible he blew it.

[fgump2]

Martin,

I don't know why the DA's insisted on saying the cap was part of the gear worn by one of the killers. It was kid's hat and Simpson has a huge head. Did anyone really believe that Simpson would only wear a hat to disguise himself?

A person has to be pretty angry to kill, especially with a knife. Most people don't think clearly when angry.

[GreenIce]

I think most people would be outraged to know that a detective lied to a judge to get a search warrant to search their house and then see the judge allow the evidence recovered allowed in court as evidence. Some believe it was ok because it happened to oj but if it had happened to them they would be yelling unfair to the heavens.imo

Martin,

I have to disagree, in part, with your post. IMO, it appears to me that many people believe that if cops lie and judge's allow it, it is all done in the interest of justice. In other words, the guy is guilty, who cares about his rights.

I do agree with you that when if and when it happens to them, they would not have the same attitude.

[martin II]

A person has to be pretty angry to kill, especially with a knife. Most people don't think clearly when angry.

What differance does the weapon make.Stab someone with a knife,shoot with a gun.Beat with a bat or pipe. most killings are done on purpose.I would think killers use the weapon they know how to handle.I see no differance in the motive of a person killing with a bat than a knife.

[GreenIce]

A person has to be pretty angry to kill, especially with a knife. Most people don't think clearly when angry.

fgump2,

I believe everybody, under the right conditions can commit murder. However, there are people who can kill just as easily they pick what they are going to wear that day.

In regards to the Simpson case, there is no evidence of any trigger that would have put Simpson into a homicidal rage that night.

As I have posted before, I believe there was more then one killer and I believe at least one was more skilled then the other or the other was taken by surprise by Ron's ability to fight as hard and as long as he did.

[martin II]

Martin,

I have to disagree, in part, with your post. IMO, it appears to me that many people believe that if cops lie and judge's allow it, it is all done in the interest of justice. In other words, the guy is guilty, who cares about his rights.

I do agree with you that when if and when it happens to them, they would not have the same attitude.

i think we are in agreement. I do agree with your first line and that is very sad
and that many people that believe oj was guilty do allow themselves to feel that way. Not only oj, many that are accused.

i think this may be behind the attitudes of some in this case. who gives a damm if he goes to jail. That may also account for the 85% of people that thought oj was guilty before the trial.

It is ok for the other guy but not for them.

[martin II]

It seems quite unlikely that Nicole would have asked Orenthal to keep an eye on her house. She was telling people that she thought he would kill her.

Is there any proof that the serial killer owned gloves like the murder gloves, or Bruno Magli shoes? If he claimed the gloves don't fit would that make him innocent?
I think Henry Lee should be discredited by now. I didn't completely understand the blood testimony about the car you posted, I read it quickly. The tests involved seem more complicated than telling the difference between footprints in the blood and trowel marks in cement, so it is possible he blew it.

It may seem unlikely to you but testimony proves that she was worried and asked oj to look out for her. Nicole asked oj to do many things for her even though they were not togeather

[GreenIce]

It seems quite unlikely that Nicole would have asked Orenthal to keep an eye on her house. She was telling people that she thought he would kill her.

Is there any proof that the serial killer owned gloves like the murder gloves, or Bruno Magli shoes? If he claimed the gloves don't fit would that make him innocent?
I think Henry Lee should be discredited by now. I didn't completely understand the blood testimony about the car you posted, I read it quickly. The tests involved seem more complicated than telling the difference between footprints in the blood and trowel marks in cement, so it is possible he blew it.

fgump2,

Nicole did ask Simpson to keep on her house and that was covered in the criminal trial. Remember the two neighbors who testified they called the cops when they saw a person who didn't look like he belonged--in other words, a black man in a white neighborhood? Nicole told the neighbors it was okay that she asked him to keep an eye on the place.

In regards to Dr. Lee, he was not discredited in any way shape for form. He knew about the trowels and was not taken off guard. However, he saw this same pattern on several other items. He clearly stated that it could be a shoe print and if was a shoe print, it did not come from a Bruno Magli shoe.

However, that was not all of his testimony. He gave testimony regarding the crime scene, blood spatter, etc.

[GreenIce]

It may seem unlikely to you but testimony proves that she was worried and asked oj to look out for her. Nicole asked oj to do many things for her even though they were not togeather

Martin,

IMO, at the time of Nicole's death, OJ and Nicole were mad at one another, which does not appear to be out of the norm. However, there is evidence to support that they did respect one another and they knew when it counted, they could turn to the other.

Do you remember the PI of Robert Shapiro's, Bill Pavlic? Go to his website and says some very interesting things about those phone calls. Apparently he believes Simpson is guilty but the LAPD framed a guilty man.

While I believe they knew they could not live together and make it work as a couple, I don't believe they ever stopped loving one another. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

i think we are in agreement. I do agree with your first line and that is very sad
and that many people that believe oj was guilty do allow themselves to feel that way. Not only oj, many that are accused.

i think this may be behind the attitudes of some in this case. who gives a damm if he goes to jail. That may also account for the 85% of people that thought oj was guilty before the trial.

It is ok for the other guy but not for them.

Martin,

In Uelman's book, he says basically a high percentage of white people believed he was guilty and after the 911 tapes were played, that number plummeted and stayed there. Which is why the defense believes (as do I) those tapes were released on purpose trying to combat these numbers.

[GreenIce]

i think we are in agreement. I do agree with your first line and that is very sad
and that many people that believe oj was guilty do allow themselves to feel that way. Not only oj, many that are accused.

i think this may be behind the attitudes of some in this case. who gives a damm if he goes to jail. That may also account for the 85% of people that thought oj was guilty before the trial.

It is ok for the other guy but not for them.

Martin,

Mark Fuhrman said something on the tapes that, believe it or not, I think a lot of people may feel this way. Bascially, if wasn't guilty this time, then he did something before and got away with it or would do something in the future and get away with so he bascially decided to play "middle man".

IMO, once the 911 tapes were released, I believe a majority of people who may have expressed the doubts about his guilt, felt they would have been seen as supporting a wife beater.

I remember a couple of former DA's tried to "blame" the murders on the judge from the 1989 incident. Had he done something, then Nicole would be alive. The judge took offense and said that he sentenced Simpson to what the DA's proposed he be sentenced and that Simpson did everything that was asked of him and that the reports he got, Simpson learned his lesson and the shrink comfirmed this.

[martin II]

A person has to be pretty angry to kill, especially with a knife. Most people don't think clearly when angry.

After the murders Kato,Park, the three sky caps and all the people on the plane and the people at the Chicago hotel ALL testified that oj simpson did not seem angry, upset or any way other than completely normal when they saw him. So the idea that he was acting or looking in any way other than normal is nosence and not supported by testimony.

[GreenIce]

After the murders Kato,Park, the three sky caps and all the people on the plane and the people at the Chicago hotel ALL testified that oj simpson did not seem angry, upset or any way other than completely normal when they saw him. So the idea that he was acting or looking in any way other than normal is nosence and not supported by testimony.

Martin,

I agree. I think the demeanor witnesses were very important. I think these witnesses did a lot of damage to the DA's case. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

Mark Fuhrman said something on the tapes that, believe it or not, I think a lot of people may feel this way. Bascially, if wasn't guilty this time, then he did something before and got away with it or would do something in the future and get away with so he bascially decided to play "middle man".

IMO, once the 911 tapes were released, I believe a majority of people who may have expressed the doubts about his guilt, felt they would have been seen as supporting a wife beater.

I remember a couple of former DA's tried to "blame" the murders on the judge from the 1989 incident. Had he done something, then Nicole would be alive. The judge took offense and said that he sentenced Simpson to what the DA's proposed he be sentenced and that Simpson did everything that was asked of him and that the reports he got, Simpson learned his lesson and the shrink comfirmed this.


i think for some there are many hidden reason why some people wanted oj to be found guilty and some had nothing to do with the evidence.Some became angry when oj didn't just roll over and 'TAKE HIS PUNISHMENT as they thought he should. It seems that oj was kinda going against the game. 'If we say you are guilty you are suppose to agree" Many of less financial ability were pissed that he was able to throw down all that money to assemble such to team of experienced first class lawyers to defend him. Then others felt that two white people had been murdered,damm the evidence, someone had to pay.imo

[GreenIce]

i think for some there are many hidden reason why some people wanted oj to be found guilty and some had nothing to do with the evidence.Some became angry when oj didn't just roll over and 'TAKE HIS PUNISHMENT as they thought he should. It seems that oj was kinda going against the game. 'If we say you are guilty you are suppose to agree" Many of less financial ability were pissed that he was able to throw down all that money to assemble such to team of experienced first class lawyers to defend him. Then others felt that two white people had been murdered,damm the evidence, someone had to pay.imo

Martin,

I agree, I think many people, especially the media, were just plain pissed that Simpson could afford to challenged the DA's every step of the way. They were angry because the defense was always in control of the case.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, at the time of Nicole's death, OJ and Nicole were mad at one another, which does not appear to be out of the norm. However, there is evidence to support that they did respect one another and they knew when it counted, they could turn to the other.

Do you remember the PI of Robert Shapiro's, Bill Pavlic? Go to his website and says some very interesting things about those phone calls. Apparently he believes Simpson is guilty but the LAPD framed a guilty man.

While I believe they knew they could not live together and make it work as a couple, I don't believe they ever stopped loving one another. Again, IMO.

I agree completely. i never believed that at any time oj or nicole hated each other.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree, I think many people, especially the media, were just plain pissed that Simpson could afford to challenged the DA's every step of the way. They were angry because the defense was always in control of the case.

Most lawyers and law professors agree that the defence did a great job in the courtroom defending their client. Those not informed in the law attacked the defence and the jury.

[GreenIce]

Most lawyers and law professors agree that the defence did a great job in the courtroom defending their client. Those not informed in the law attacked the defence and the jury.

Martin,

IMO, the defense did win the case by using the state's own witnesses. I think what many people forget is that the defense did not put on their whole case. I think the jury was a major concern and again, IMO, why open a door that has already been nailed shut?

[GreenIce]

Many people came to Clarke and told her JS was a nut case that had a history of filling silly civil cases for money and attention.One was her ex husband or boyfriend. Le tried very hard to find the NISSAN driver that she said was involved but could not find such a car.imo

Martin,

Remember, many people went to Clark about MF and she stuck her head in the sand. JS may have been a nut case, however, I have a hard time believing that Clark would have burned an "eye witness" so quickly, bases on one person's account of JS. IMO, I think there is much more to this then her selling her story or being a nut case.

[GreenIce]

everyone in nicoles neighborhood knew oj and his car. if someone had seen him in that cap they would have yelled hi oj.

Martin,

While many made fun of JC when he put the cap on his head, including some of the jurors, he made his point. A cap was not going to disguise him. Any more then dark clothing would.

Clark even made reference to this in her closing arguements, explaining why Simpson didn't dump the stuff in a dumpster, he was just too famous. He would have been recognized.

[martin II]

Martin,

While many made fun of JC when he put the cap on his head, including some of the jurors, he made his point. A cap was not going to disguise him. Any more then dark clothing would.

Clark even made reference to this in her closing arguements, explaining why Simpson didn't dump the stuff in a dumpster, he was just too famous. He would have been recognized.

Thats very interesting. I guess Clarke was agreeing that in the Bronco ride OJ was not running away to any place."He would have been recognized." hahaha

i bet that upsets some people that claim they know he was.

[GreenIce]

Thats very interesting. I guess Clarke was agreeing that in the Bronco ride OJ was not running away to any place."He would have been recognized." hahaha

i bet that upsets some people that claim they know he was.

Martin,

How many of your friends have the name "Orenthal James"? The name alone would have been a give away.:)

[martin II]

Martin,

While many made fun of JC when he put the cap on his head, including some of the jurors, he made his point. A cap was not going to disguise him. Any more then dark clothing would.

Clark even made reference to this in her closing arguements, explaining why Simpson didn't dump the stuff in a dumpster, he was just too famous. He would have been recognized.

When Cochran put the cap on i asked myself what is he doing. But it did not take me long to understand. A magnificant move by him. The media thought so too.He always controlled the court room.

[martin II]

Martin,

How many of your friends have the name "Orenthal James"? The name alone would have been a give away.:)

hahaha:cool:

[martin II]

Martin,

Remember, many people went to Clark about MF and she stuck her head in the sand. JS may have been a nut case, however, I have a hard time believing that Clark would have burned an "eye witness" so quickly, bases on one person's account of JS. IMO, I think there is much more to this then her selling her story or being a nut case.

Clarke used Rubin and Matrz both nut cases imo

[weezer]

Martin,

How many of your friends have the name "Orenthal James"? The name alone would have been a give away.:)

I'm not sure how many people thought he was running away -- he said he was going to kill himself because he couldn't live with what he'd done. ;)

[GreenIce]

When Cochran put the cap on i asked myself what is he doing. But it did not take me long to understand. A magnificant move by him. The media thought so too.He always controlled the court room.

Martin,

IMO, when Shapiro, Scheck and Nuefeld had witnesses, they also controlled the coutroom. The only lawyer who I thought hurt the defense was F.Lee Baily. I think he just tried to get too fancy then just get up and ask the questions and sit down. In many ways, because he dragged it out, it was easy to lose the points he did make.

IMO, it was always the DA's who were back on their heels trying to defend their case.

[weezer]

Martin,

IMO, when Shapiro, Scheck and Nuefeld had witnesses, they also controlled the coutroom. The only lawyer who I thought hurt the defense was F.Lee Baily. I think he just tried to get too fancy then just get up and ask the questions and sit down. In many ways, because he dragged it out, it was easy to lose the points he did make.

IMO, it was always the DA's who were back on their heels trying to defend their case.

you do realize that the majority of America believed then and believe now that orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, right?

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, when Shapiro, Scheck and Nuefeld had witnesses, they also controlled the coutroom. The only lawyer who I thought hurt the defense was F.Lee Baily. I think he just tried to get too fancy then just get up and ask the questions and sit down. In many ways, because he dragged it out, it was easy to lose the points he did make.

IMO, it was always the DA's who were back on their heels trying to defend their case.

Well Bailey was known for the skillful way he ask questions.Some times rambeling around but he had a reputation of always getting his man.
He set Furhman up very well and furhman never saw it comming. When he sprung the trap on furhman furhman was confused and didn't konw how to answer so he just did what he always did LIE.

[GreenIce]

The fact that Furhman got away with no jail time proves your point. The court found a way to protect him from jail.Some in the public have embrased him for what he is.

Martin,

The LAPD and the City of LA knew that MF was their "product". As I posted before, MF told the LAPD what he was years ago, it is not his fault they did not believed him.

[martin II]

Why do you think the jury was able to come to a decision so quickly?

When you watch the case, the doubts about the case emerged as the evidence was presented. So the jury could have deliberated for days, but what were they deliberating about? They had Mark Fuhrman, which raised reasonable doubt. They had Dr. Henry Lee, which raised a reasonable doubt. They had the glove that didn't fit, which raised a reasonable doubt. They had witnesses who were contradicting themselves, which raised a reasonable doubt. And the point was, who in this room is convinced right now that he's guilty?

They can't make up evidence; they can't assume evidence. They have to evaluate the evidence that was presented to them, and having done that, having seen the examination by [defense attorney] Barry Scheck of the DNA evidence, having seen the cross-examination by Johnnie Cochran of police witnesses, having seen the cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman by F. Lee Bailey, they had plenty of doubt about what happened, and all they had to do was to go in and take a poll. And I think it wasn't a hard job to do.



Charles ogletree jr.

[martin II]

You find it offensive what someone posted but you don't find it offensive in calling several people NUT CASES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk about calling the kettle black.

Whenever you decide to read testimony we can have a discussion on the case.I am not interested in your personal attacks. Witnesses that i feel lie on the stand and give false testimony are nut cases.

If you dissagree with my post you can follow DW instructions and ignore them.As a matter of fact i sugges you do just that,

[GreenIce]

Martin,

In reading Stephen Singular's book, I came across something interesting. In Feb 1995, Rockne Harmon, trying to counter the defense's position that blood was planted, asked Judge Ito to make a ruling on having two or three samples tested for EDTA using the "gas chromatography". Judge Ito granted that request and said that is should be done by the FBI.

So how come Martz did not do this test? Why did he make it up as he went along?

Also, in his book, he explains why the defense focused on a couple of stains and claims that someone in lab was asked to do something they did not feel was quite right and this person talked to someone else about it. This same person was said to be afraid that they were afraid for their job and their career if they came forward.

The same was said in Bosco's book. That Pat McKenna talked to someone in the lab who would not come forward because they were afraid.

Singular does go on to say that he told the defense very early on what his source was telling him about running their own tests for EDTA. He said that the defense wouldn't committ to this because they at first did not have any samples to test and later when they did, they opted not to do it.

I have never been able to confirm that the defense was given any test samples or if they were given, was it enough to conduct this test. However, it is clear to me that Roger Martz was smart enough to know what test not to do and this is highly suspicious IMO.

[martin II]

Who's M.E.D.?

I posted his name earlier.
Michael Eric Dyson a well known Prinston University Historian.

[martin II]

I found this interesting.

What were the mistakes the prosecution made?

There are a lot of mistakes that the government made in this prosecution. I think -- and everyone is Monday morning quarterbacking -- but one of the interesting parts was just the way the case was presented. I'm not sure it made sense to put on the evidence of spousal abuse at the beginning when they had cold and calculated evidence of a crime. When that didn't work, everything was viewed with skepticism, to the extent that you had some evidence about the crime -- present that -- and then evidence about the criminal -- present that to follow up. That was one mistake.

The second mistake, I think they were paying too much attention to the press as well, giving interviews, worried about their dress, worried about hairstyle, makeup, things like that, worried about images. And they were talking as much to the people in middle America when they had the microphone as they were to the 12 jurors who they needed to be convinced.

A [third] was that the scrutiny of their evidence -- all these flaws were known. How can you put on this DNA evidence when you know it's going to be seriously challenged by experts? How can you put on this forensic evidence when Dr. Henry Lee, the most noteworthy criminologist [sic] of his time, had grave doubts about it? How could you put on Mark Fuhrman as a credible, central eyewitness to critical details in the case, critical details, when you knew that he had many flaws in the way that he thought, his views about African Americans and his conduct in many years in law enforcement?

So it was a case where the government knew that they had flaws, but they had no choice. To the extent I'm critiquing them, I can't blame them. They had to try the case that they were given. They lost evidence because of the media. Witnesses were tainted; witnesses were compromised because they paid to do interviews. Family members were compromised because they gave interviews before the case went to trial. So the government was literally handcuffed in what they were not able to present and what they lost, and that's unfortunate. I don't know if it would have changed the outcome, but it would have let them put on a much more thorough case if things outside the courtroom had not compromised what went on inside the courtroom.

What are your thoughts on Christopher Darden and his
Charles J ogletree is a noted Harvard law professor

[martin II]

What do you think actually happened inside the jury deliberation?

In terms of the actual jury verdict, you have a case in which the jurors couldn't trust the messenger, and therefore they had a great deal of trouble believing in the message. Police lied from the beginning of this case to the end, and I'm not talking just about Detective [Mark] Fuhrman lying on the stand about making racist remarks. This case started with a preliminary hearing in which the lead detective made an obvious lie about why they entered Mr. Simpson's property -- pretending he wasn't a suspect -- when the average citizen probably appreciates that in a domestic murder case, the surviving spouse has to be a suspect [and] has to be eliminated.

And yet the police lied about their motivation for a warrantless entry on to Mr. Simpson's property, and they stuck with that lie throughout the trial. So when you have police officers who are lying on the stand, thinking they need to [invoke] Fourth Amendment purposes, and then their stories have to conform with their initial lies, you have a credibility problem. And the jurors correctly saw that some of the police were not testifying honestly. That meant, unfortunately, that when police officers and criminalists and others were presenting perhaps quite reliable evidence, physical evidence of guilt, it was easy for jurors to dismiss the probative significance of some of that evidence because they didn't trust the messenger.



Peter Arenella

[martin II]

Hopefully this will answer some questions some have about the jury.

Is that what you think the jury came to believe?

Well, there really were three elements to this case. One was the timeline; one was the story of motive -- why Mr. Simpson would kill his wife; and finally, there was the matter of physical evidence linking him to the murders. The prosecution's most compelling case concerned the physical evidence. Unfortunately, the DNA evidence was extremely hard to follow. Indeed, most of the media slept through the dog days of the trial dealing with DNA testimony.

The jurors themselves did a terrific job trying to pay attention, but the prosecution's best evidence was the evidence that was most hard to understand [and] the most easily attacked by the defense. And the defense, especially Barry Scheck, did a terrific job of giving the jury little lifeboats to understand some of the evidence, metaphors like "garbage in, garbage out." And that allowed the jury, if it couldn't follow the technical aspects of the challenges to the evidence, to think about the problem very simplistically: If the police screwed up in gathering the evidence, if there were problems in collection, perhaps that meant that the evidentiary results were corrupted. Only a real expert in DNA evidence could discriminate between legitimate challenges to DNA evidence in that case and challenges that were based on speculation or exaggerated hypotheses. I don't think the jury could follow that, but neither could the media, so the jury focused more on the evidence they could understand: the timeline and motive evidence.

The domestic violence evidence was totally unpersuasive. It was a badly told story, and once the jury lost credibility with the story of how it happened, [it] became easier for them to dismiss [it]. ...

Do you blame the jury?

No, I don't blame the jury at all. I think that the average juror wants to know why someone would take a human life, especially in a case like this, where you have a well-known celebrity defendant that was if not respected, certainly looked at with some sense of affection by many segments of the community prior to this trial.

So you have the question of why would someone who seemed to have it all do such a terrible thing, and that's where the domestic violence evidence came in. And the evidence presented at the trial was incredibly weak, nothing like the domestic violence evidence presented by the media to the general public. The story of domestic violence at the trial only involved one incidence of violence five years before this incident. And the story of Simpson trying to control Nicole [Brown Simpson] was not very persuasive at all. Indeed, it came out that the last attempted reconciliation was initiated by Nicole.

So the prosecution told a really bad story about domestic violence that simply wasn't believable. And to the extent that you had jurors who had witnessed domestic violence in their own lives, if not been the victims of it, they might not have reacted with such incredible strength as perhaps some of the public might have reacted to the 911 calls and to the other evidence that was actually presented.


Peter Arenella

[tv]

Mark Fuhrman lied about one thing on the stand and was prosecuted and convicted for his lie. OJ Simpson slaughtered the mother of his children and her friend and walked free for 14 years and will never pay the price for his crimes. Those are the facts.

[martin II]

And that's where the issue first came up of Fuhrman scaling the wall at O.J. Simpson's house?

Yes. A motion to suppress evidence is based on the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule that if evidence is acquired in violation of the protection of privacy in the Fourth Amendment, then the court has to throw it out, can't use it. We actually filed our motion at the preliminary hearing, which is quite unusual. Usually you wait until later.

But this was a case where there were no reports; there were no written accounts of how they found the glove. So we wanted to pin them down. We wanted to get those officers on the stand and hear their explanation of how they found this evidence at a very early stage in the proceedings, before there was any opportunity to kind of get their stories together.

The theory of the motion to suppress was that they went into O.J.'s premises and conducted a search before they had any probable cause. Before they had a search warrant, they were already in there looking for evidence. As it turned out, their explanation was "We didn't go in there to look for evidence; we went in there to rescue any people who might be in danger, because we thought, well, there was a murder at his former wife's house; maybe the murderer came here and hurt some people," or whatever.

And so they go in, and they find Kato Kaelin living in the cabana by the swimming pool, and he says: "You know, O.J. left last night, but I heard this pounding on my wall. It felt like an earthquake." So they immediately went out and searched the area behind that wall, and that's when Fuhrman claims that he found the glove.

The amazing thing is, they arrived at O.J.'s house at 4:30 in the morning, and then, according to Fuhrman's testimony, he found the glove at about 7:30 in the morning. So our argument was, if your purpose really was not to look for evidence, but it was to rescue people who might be in danger, that would take about 10 minutes, and you were there for three hours, which suggests to us that your purpose in being there was to search for evidence.

Gerald Uelman

[tv]

And that's where the issue first came up of Fuhrman scaling the wall at O.J. Simpson's house?

*snipped*

The amazing thing is, they arrived at O.J.'s house at 4:30 in the morning, and then, according to Fuhrman's testimony, he found the glove at about 7:30 in the morning. So our argument was, if your purpose really was not to look for evidence, but it was to rescue people who might be in danger, that would take about 10 minutes, and you were there for three hours, which suggests to us that your purpose in being there was to search for evidence.

Gerald Uelman

Speaking of amazing things, why is Uelman saying Fuhrman testified he found the glove at 7:30? Doesn't he know the facts of the case?

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YOU THEN HAD A POSSIBLE TIME PIN OF THE EVENT ITSELF? IF THE NOISE AND THE DEPOSIT OF THE GLOVE OCCURRED TOGETHER, THEN THIS HAD BEEN THERE SINCE QUARTER OF 11:00, HADN'T IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU WERE THERE AT 6:15, WEREN'T YOU?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9210173]Mark Fuhrman lied about one thing on the stand and was prosecuted and convicted for his lie. OJ Simpson slaughtered the mother of his children and her friend and walked free for 14 years and will never pay the price for his crimes. Those are the facts.[

What some don't seem to understand is that no one is responsible for how Furhman was viewed by the jury and most of America that followed the trial.
Furhman is responsible for what he said and did.
It only take one big lie on the stand for most to understand that he is a cop that lies on the stand. His other words told people that their initial idea of him were true. That he was at best a dishonest cop that lies.
His court testimony was his fault. He only had to tell the truth and say yes i have used that word. Case closed. But his arrogance and feelings of self importance caused him to believe he could lie and get away with it.He didn't
You can support him as much as you like but that will never change who he is.imo

[martin II]

Speaking of amazing things, why is Uelman saying Fuhrman testified he found the glove at 7:30? Doesn't he know the facts of the case?

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YOU THEN HAD A POSSIBLE TIME PIN OF THE EVENT ITSELF? IF THE NOISE AND THE DEPOSIT OF THE GLOVE OCCURRED TOGETHER, THEN THIS HAD BEEN THERE SINCE QUARTER OF 11:00, HADN'T IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU WERE THERE AT 6:15, WEREN'T YOU?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.


I don't understand your post at all

1. no one knows what time the glove was placed at rockingham No testimony or proof of that.

2. If fuhrman was there at 6:15 he did other things before he said he 'Found"
the glove at what ever time he said he found it.
In testimony the prosecution did n ot mention m uch about the time he 'FOUND" it and did not say much about which detective found it by name.
I think they were trying to keep furhman as far away as possible.

[martin II]

What was your feeling during the trial? Did you think you would win or lose?

I was concerned right up until the end that we were going to have a hung jury. But when we got word that the jury had come back so quickly, I think we all felt quite confident that we were going to get a good result, that it would have taken them longer to find him guilty than to find him not guilty, just in terms of all of the questions they would have to answer and the forms they'd have to fill out.

Were you surprised?

Not actually. I thought we presented a very compelling case of reasonable doubt, and we had a great jury. And a lot of things went our way during that trial to give us confidence.

How do you rate the prosecution, its mistakes?

Hindsight is 20/20 vision, and it's easy to look back now and say, "Maybe if the prosecution hadn't tried the glove on in the courtroom --" I think the biggest mistake is maybe if they'd just gotten Fuhrman completely out of the case, we might have seen a different outcome. This was a close case. There was a lot of things that could have pushed it one way or the other.

Gerald Uelman

[tv]

I don't understand your post at all

1. no one knows what time the glove was placed at rockingham No testimony or proof of that.

2. If fuhrman was there at 6:15 he did other things before he said he 'Found"
the glove at what ever time he said he found it.
In testimony the prosecution did n ot mention m uch about the time he 'FOUND" it and did not say much about which detective found it by name.
I think they were trying to keep furhman as far away as possible.

I'll try to keep it simple. In what you posted, Uelman said that Fuhrman testified he found the glove at 7:30. That's a false claim.

We know the glove was dropped on OJ Simpson's trip back onto his property after his killing spree. No mystery there.

[martin II]

I'll try to keep it simple. In what you posted, Uelman said that Fuhrman testified he found the glove at 7:30. That's a false claim.

We know the glove was dropped on OJ Simpson's trip back onto his property after his killing spree. No mystery there.

Since you know, what time did furhman say he 'FOUND' the glove?

All we know for a fact is that a glove was found in the walkway, there is no proof of who placed it there. there are suggestions that furhman or some other le placed it there but no one saw this.

[tv]

Since you know, what time did furhman say he 'FOUND' the glove?

All we know for a fact is that a glove was found in the walkway, there is no proof of who placed it there. there are suggestions that furhman or some other le placed it there but no one saw this.

I've already posted his testimony. The only suggestion that Det. Fuhrman planted the glove was put there by a defense that had to find a way to get OJ Simpson acquitted without addressing the evidence against him. It was Simpson's DNA on the glove -- not Det. Fuhrman's.

[martin II]

For those that are interested in facts this is important.


It is obvious from reading your books that you are very familiar with the way the police work. What are your thoughts on how the LAPD performed in this investigation?

Again, it's Monday morning quarterbacking, but since I said it while it was going on, I'll say it again a decade later.

Los Angeles for many years had operated with a police department that was far smaller than other police departments had in areas of comparable or larger size, New York and Chicago being the most obvious examples. Now, when you have a police department that's only a portion of the size of other major cities, anybody in law enforcement will tell you that the reason they're able to quell crime is pretty simple, and that's because they break the rules all the time, and they really operate in areas where crime occurs frequently with disregard to the law. They break heads; they break rules. They break into houses. They rule by terror. And again, after the fact, we now know that all of the horrible events that were part of the Rampart scandal in Los Angeles were going on at this time.

So it's not very hard to understand that the suspicion of the L.A. police department in the minority community was enormous, and I think that the only way to have won that case once decisions were made that led to having an almost exclusively minority jury was to be able to stand in front of that jury and say: "I know what you've heard about the L.A. police; I've heard it, too. But I'm going to show you that's not the case here; that's not how we're prosecuting this case. Everything's on the up-and-up."

Instead they went in the complete opposite direction. They did it the way they've always done it. [Detectives Philip] Vannatter and [Mark] Fuhrman climbed over the wall of the Simpson home or compound in Brentwood and went in there. And again, it's obvious why they went in there: They wanted to question O.J. Simpson before he got a lawyer. Then they get on the witness stand when [defense attorney] Robert Shapiro moved to suppress the evidence they gained by entering the house and testified that they'd gone in there, because with Nicole Simpson dead several blocks away, they feared for the safety of somebody else inside the house. Now, there's no causal connection between those two things; that's rank speculation, not to mention the fact that it's obvious horse hockey.

And yet the prosecutors put them on the stand to say that, and the municipal court judge who heard that testimony acted as if she believed it. And I am one who said at that point, "They've lost, they've lost." Now, did I know that Fuhrman was ultimately going to get convicted of perjury? No, I didn't expect that, but it was obvious to me that they were on the road to hell.

Scott Turow

[martin II]

I'll be plain -- I'm not upset, I'm laughing at her. It's hard to take her seriously when she speaks like that. She sounds ridiculous. You're the one that keeps referring to it and playing twenty questions.

So a person that did not use grammar on a word should be laughed at and not taken seriously? Maby she is stupid and should not be considered in conversation with SMART well spoken people like yourself? I hope you are not saying that some how she has less value than yourself. Are you?

[martin II]

I've already posted his testimony. The only suggestion that Det. Fuhrman planted the glove was put there by a defense that had to find a way to get OJ Simpson acquitted without addressing the evidence against him. It was Simpson's DNA on the glove -- not Det. Fuhrman's.

How can you say that uelman was wrong for saying furhman 'FOUND" the glove at 7:30 if you don't know what time he found the glove.?

What time did furhman find the glove?

[Hipcheck]

Douglas Deddrick said that fibers found on the knit cap at Bundy and the glove found at Rockingham were consistant with the fibers of the carpeting of O.J.'s Ford Bronco.

Douglas Deedrick also said that a hair found on Ron Goldman's bloody shirt was consistant with the hair belonging to one O.J. Simpson.

That is a fact.
:beer:

[tv]

How can you say that uelman was wrong for saying furhman 'FOUND" the glove at 7:30 if you don't know what time he found the glove.?

What time did furhman find the glove?

If you look you'll see I posted his testimony regarding when he was behind Kato's room. I'm not going to keep posting it.

[Hipcheck]

www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.simpson7/index.html

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[Deepwater]

The race discussion is outta hand and there is too much sniping -- from both sides -- let's try again tomorrow.

--D

I opened a Sleuths for Good Grammar thread in the Club Lounge (someone had to!) and a Race in the Case thread here in the O.J. forum. This thread is now reopened.

[GreenIce]

Douglas Deddrick said that fibers found on the knit cap at Bundy and the glove found at Rockingham were consistant with the fibers of the carpeting of O.J.'s Ford Bronco.

Douglas Deedrick also said that a hair found on Ron Goldman's bloody shirt was consistant with the hair belonging to one O.J. Simpson.

That is a fact.
:beer:

Hipcheck,

It is a fact that you can not identify a person from hair unless there is enough of the root to test for DNA. We have been told that off all of the hair found inside the cap, they were not able to conduct this test.

It is a fact that you may be able to identify the race of the person but that is as close at it gets.

Where was this hair found on Goldman's shirt, the front of it or the back of it?

[GreenIce]

Martin,

I have no doubt that probably everyone who reported to that scene thought Simpson had something to do with the murders. However, I do believe that at least Vanatter, knew right away there was something wrong at Rockingham.

IMO, Vanatter had to question the blood trail leading from the Bronco to the front door--yet the glove was found behind Kato's wall--with out a single trace of evidence of how it got back there, only the word of MF.

I also believe that Vanatter is not telling the truth about MF telling him about the thumps only because I think MF would not want to share the "glory" of the find as well as realizing that it took MF too long to find the glove.

MF brings Kato in back door, but exits the front door and 15 minutes later, he finds the glove?

I also believe that VA and the LAPD truly believed that they would find the weapon, clothes and shoes and these items would have taken the focus off of the glove, IMO.

[martin II]

This is nonsense
Doug Deedrick works for the FBI not LAPD lab.
He didn't collect any evidence. He cannot vouch for what was on the
cap when the murders happened. I assume he was at home in D.C.
There is no testimony that he collected any evidence.
-----
MR. DEEDRICK: There is a great deal of significance to certain fiber associations. Some are more common than others. That when you take, for instance, a manmade fiber of a particular type and you color it, you add color to it, it takes on a--sort of a uniqueness. Now, it is a fact that the manufacturer is not going to make--

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me. Excuse me, your Honor. I object to "Sort of uniqueness." There are no degrees of unique and unique would be improper.

THE COURT: Speaking objection, counsel.





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

MR. BAILEY: If it please the Court, I think this witness is obviously much too intelligent to misuse the word "Unique" accidentally. There is no such thing as sort of unique, pretty unique or more unique. You're either unique or you're not. And if you're unique, you're in the match category, and I think that we ought to have some pretty firm rules about that. And I see everybody walking right up to the line, automotive carpet fibers, years they were made. I thought these were the things that were not going to be mentioned. There were mere examples.

THE COURT: Yes. Mere examples. All right. Miss Clark, as to the--you know, he can testify to how differentiation is made between fibers which includes colors, dies, other examples of how one goes about talking to manufacturers and finding out from databases, that sort of thing. That goes to the technique. I don't know if you really want to do that since you're not going to be able to offer that.



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

MR. BAILEY: You use the word "Similar" in some cases, do you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, right.

MR. BAILEY: You use the word "Like," correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: You use the word "Unlike"?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: You do not at any time in your notes use the word "Same," do you, Mr. Deedrick?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe I did.

-------

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, Mr. Deedrick, is it not fair to say that the integrity of the work that you do in cases of this sort is in many ways limited by the integrity of what has been done prior to the time you received the samples?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: For instance, if someone were to mix up different kind of hairs so that you were informed that a hair came from one place when in fact it came from another, that would interfere substantially with the conclusions that you are able to draw as to probable source, would it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think the comparison would still be valid and the associations or exclusions would be valid, but the significance of the finding would be questionable.

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



MR. BAILEY: --you have to know whether or not a fiber or hair that you find to be significant actually came from where it says in the papers that it came from?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. We are at the mercy of those that check and send the evidence to us.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. Did you ever go to this crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

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

MR. BAILEY: You haven't been to the crime scene, Mr. Deedrick, but you were able to recognize earlier the hat and gloves, for the benefit of the Court and jury. Was that done because you had seen photos even though you hadn't seen the actual items?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, I saw some photographs.

MR. BAILEY: Is this a photo that you have seen before with the number "100" in the background?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't think I have ever seen that photograph.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. If the body of Mr. Goldman were dragged over the soil and there were hairs in the soil, similar to that of Mr. Simpson, might there not have been a transference there of the one hair that you found?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure.

MR. BAILEY: You have no way of knowing from what part of the shirt that hair came; is that correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And it was almost too short to use for comparison, was it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was extremely small, yes.



MR. BAILEY: Okay. Next question. You were asked on direct examination about the two gloves. You testified that the Bundy glove had a coarse hair compatible with the Akita, Kato, on the surface of the glove, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe I testified to that effect, yes.

MR. BAILEY: You testified that the Rockingham glove had fur hairs consistent with the belly of that animal on it when you examined it, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it could have been from the belly or from the under fur off the back. There is--I don't even know if I would know where the known samples came from, but it could have been from either source.

MR. BAILEY: But you prepared a chart?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Purporting to show that the Rockingham glove had fur type hairs on it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, it had fur hairs.

MR. BAILEY: And that you have previously described those as being common to the under part of a dog, as opposed to the tuft or coat?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say under part, under fur, under the outer coat which could be on the belly, and it could be on the back, but it is just the soft fine hairs that are closer to the body.

MR. BAILEY: If that dog used this shaded place to sleep or lie down on a regular basis when it was at the Bundy residence, might you expect some fur hairs to be left behind in the soil?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would expect that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And if the Rockingham

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, I want to ask you, with respect to certain items that have been referred to in your testimony, whether these assertions are acceptable, from your point of view, in other words, whether or not you find them to be true. First of all, as to hair found in the Bronco, would you agree that no hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that no hair consistent with Ronald Goldman was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. With respect to fiber in the Bronco, would you agree that no fiber consistent with either glove was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Would you agree that no fiber consistent with Goldman's clothes was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

[martin II]

MR. BAILEY: As to both gloves--I'm sorry--and that no fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: With respect to both gloves, would you agree that no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson, as you have used that term "Consistent," was on the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And quite apart from the unidentified hairs, one limb, one fragment I think that you thought were from an African American, is it not also true that no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to the socks that you examined, would you agree that no hair consistent with Ronald Goldman was found on the sock?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would.

MR. BAILEY: And that no hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson was found on the sock?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to fiber with respect to your examination of the sock, would you agree that there is no fiber consistent with either glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would, yes.

MR. BAILEY: No fiber consistent with Goldman's clothes?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And no fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that the fact that 35 hairs with roots were found on Ronald Goldman's shirt area--I believe, that is where the bulk of them were located?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: --strongly suggest to you that those hairs were pulled out by an attacker before he attacked Goldman and that the directionality goes from Nicole Brown Simpson to Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: It appears from that evidence, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that you found in the hairs in the hat what appeared to be an indication of dandruff on the cuticle?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. There was dandruff in the known hairs.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. DEEDRICK: In the known sample.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry, in the known sample?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.


MR. BAILEY: Okay. Next question. You were asked on direct examination about the two gloves. You testified that the Bundy glove had a coarse hair compatible with the Akita, Kato, on the surface of the glove, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe I testified to that effect, yes.

MR. BAILEY: You testified that the Rockingham glove had fur hairs consistent with the belly of that animal on it when you examined it, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it could have been from the belly or from the under fur off the back. There is--I don't even know if I would know where the known samples came from, but it could have been from either source.

MR. BAILEY: But you prepared a chart?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Purporting to show that the Rockingham glove had fur type hairs on it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, it had fur hairs.

MR. BAILEY: And that you have previously described those as being common to the under part of a dog, as opposed to the tuft or coat?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say under part, under fur, under the outer coat which could be on the belly, and it could be on the back, but it is just the soft fine hairs that are closer to the body.

MR. BAILEY: If that dog used this shaded place to sleep or lie down on a regular basis when it was at the Bundy residence, might you expect some fur hairs to be left behind in the soil?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would expect that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And if the Rockingham

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



important

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, I want to ask you, with respect to certain items that have been referred to in your testimony, whether these assertions are acceptable, from your point of view, in other words, whether or not you find them to be true. First of all, as to hair found in the Bronco, would you agree that no hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that no hair consistent with Ronald Goldman was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. With respect to fiber in the Bronco, would you agree that no fiber consistent with either glove was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Would you agree that no fiber consistent with Goldman's clothes was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to both gloves--I'm sorry--and that no fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: With respect to both gloves, would you agree that no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson, as you have used that term "Consistent," was on the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And quite apart from the unidentified hairs, one limb, one fragment I think that you thought were from an African American, is it not also true that no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to the socks that you examined, would you agree that no hair consistent with Ronald Goldman was found on the sock?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would.

MR. BAILEY: And that no hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson was found on the sock?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to fiber with respect to your examination of the sock, would you agree that there is no fiber consistent with either glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would, yes.

MR. BAILEY: No fiber consistent with Goldman's clothes?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And no fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that the fact that 35 hairs with roots were found on Ronald Goldman's shirt area--I believe, that is where the bulk of them were located?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: --strongly suggest to you that those hairs were pulled out by an attacker before he attacked Goldman and that the directionality goes from Nicole Brown Simpson to Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: It appears from that evidence, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that you found in the hairs in the hat what appeared to be an indication of dandruff on the cuticle?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. There was dandruff in the known hairs.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. DEEDRICK: In the known sample.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry, in the known sample?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Is it not true that you found no indication of dandruff in the knit hat?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Or on any of the hairs that you have said could have come from O.J. Simpson?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. That's correct.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: You have said that fibers tend to come and go as they cling to clothing and then fall off and so forth.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.













.

[martin II]

MR. BAILEY: What about hairs? Do they sometimes hang around for a long time once attached to a given object?

MR. DEEDRICK: They may, depending on the garment and what happens to the garment.

MR. BAILEY: Did you find some cat hairs in your examinations of the materials in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: Could you tell the Court where you found them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Give me a second, please.

MR. BAILEY: Sure.

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

MR. BAILEY: There is no way that you can tell how long the K7 similar hairs inside and outside the Bundy cap had been there?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Prior to June 12th?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there is no way.

MR. BAILEY: There is no way to tell how the non-K7, that is, unlike hairs and hair fragments of African American origin found inside and outside the Bundy cap, some of which were treated, no way to tell how long they had been there, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And there is no way to tell, Mr. Deedrick, which came first, is there?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there is no way to know.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

[martin II]

gi
contrary to judges order Deedrick did not turn over certain pieces of evidence to the defence. he played fast and loose with some pictures that he had. The pictures were all mislabeled which caused the judge to spend hours trying to sort out which picture was which. Deedrick made statements that he had given certain pictures to the defence which the judge found he had not.

This caused the judge to issue the below order to Clarke about Deedricks report.


The Court:

The objection to the content of the report prepared by Mr. Deedrick regarding the source and rarity of the carpet fiber, that objection will be sustained. The Prosecution will be precluded from presenting any evidence that is contained in the report. All right. Let's have the jury.


PS
No testimony about rare fibers were ever allowed or anything else in Deedricks report.

[martin II]

Martin,

I have no doubt that probably everyone who reported to that scene thought Simpson had something to do with the murders. However, I do believe that at least Vanatter, knew right away there was something wrong at Rockingham.

IMO, Vanatter had to question the blood trail leading from the Bronco to the front door--yet the glove was found behind Kato's wall--with out a single trace of evidence of how it got back there, only the word of MF.

I also believe that Vanatter is not telling the truth about MF telling him about the thumps only because I think MF would not want to share the "glory" of the find as well as realizing that it took MF too long to find the glove.

MF brings Kato in back door, but exits the front door and 15 minutes later, he finds the glove?

I also believe that VA and the LAPD truly believed that they would find the weapon, clothes and shoes and these items would have taken the focus off of the glove, IMO.


GI

Vanhatter found some blood drops in the driveway to the front door. Furhman
said he found the glove in the back walkway.
Vanhatter investigated the salingers property, the hedges at the fence and the back walkway and decided that there was no evidence that oj or anyone
else jumped that fence. So i guess he was concerned about how the glove that Furhman said he 'Found' got there.
.

[martin II]

The race discussion is outta hand and there is too much sniping -- from both sides -- let's try again tomorrow.

--D

I opened a Sleuths for Good Grammar thread in the Club Lounge (someone had to!) and a Race in the Case thread here in the O.J. forum. This thread is now reopened.

Thanks DW

[martin II]

Martin,

I have no doubt that probably everyone who reported to that scene thought Simpson had something to do with the murders. However, I do believe that at least Vanatter, knew right away there was something wrong at Rockingham.

IMO, Vanatter had to question the blood trail leading from the Bronco to the front door--yet the glove was found behind Kato's wall--with out a single trace of evidence of how it got back there, only the word of MF.

I also believe that Vanatter is not telling the truth about MF telling him about the thumps only because I think MF would not want to share the "glory" of the find as well as realizing that it took MF too long to find the glove.

MF brings Kato in back door, but exits the front door and 15 minutes later, he finds the glove?

I also believe that VA and the LAPD truly believed that they would find the weapon, clothes and shoes and these items would have taken the focus off of the glove, IMO.


GI

If you know
what time did furhman and vanhatter arrive at rockingham and what time did he find the glove.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

It is a fact that you can not identify a person from hair unless there is enough of the root to test for DNA. We have been told that off all of the hair found inside the cap, they were not able to conduct this test.

It is a fact that you may be able to identify the race of the person but that is as close at it gets.

Where was this hair found on Goldman's shirt, the front of it or the back of it?

There was no PROOF that this hair belonged to oj. i have not found that testimony yet.

[weezer]

"He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," she cried, according to the report. "You never do anything about him. You talk to him and then leave." Her eye was black. Her lip was split. His handprint was still on her neck.

[tv]

"He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," she cried, according to the report. "You never do anything about him. You talk to him and then leave." Her eye was black. Her lip was split. His handprint was still on her neck.

EVIDENCE DISMISSED by Lange and Vannatter -- page 29

"I'm terribly sorry to inform you about this, Mr. Brown, but your daughter has been killed at her home."

To Lange's complete surprise, Denise immediately starts screaming, "I knew he'd do it! I knew that m*****f***** would kill her! I knew it! I knew it! OJ did it! OJ killed her! I knew that son of a b*itch was going to do it!"

[martin II]

EVIDENCE DISMISSED by Lange and Vannatter -- page 29

"I'm terribly sorry to inform you about this, Mr. Brown, but your daughter has been killed at her home."

To Lange's complete surprise, Denise immediately starts screaming, "I knew he'd do it! I knew that m*****f***** would kill her! I knew it! I knew it! OJ did it! OJ killed her! I knew that son of a b*itch was going to do it!"

Very emotional response by Denise but the prosecution tried to prove that what she thought was true and they could not. So what Denise thought means very little. imo

[tv]

Very emotional response by Denise but the prosecution tried to prove that what she thought was true and they could not. So what Denise thought means very little. imo

I'm not suprised you think what the victim's sister thought means very little. The victims were always ignored by the defense in the civil trial. It was all about poor OJ Simpson -- liar, womanizer, wife beater, and killer of two human beings.

[tv]

Testimony of India Allen at civil trial --


You can tell us what you heard Mr. Simpson state at this time.

A. He said, I didn't buy this fur coat for you to go **** somebody else, is what he said. And then he said -- then he said, I want the coat back, and he grabbed her by the back of the coat and started trying to pull the coat off of her.

And she said she was -- at the time they were kind of going around and around about the coat, she was saying she wasn't going to give the coat back, it was her g*d d*mn coat; and so, anyway, she jerked away from him, and that's when I saw him strike her. He hit her across the face, and her glasses and her head band flew off and her hair kind of flew to the side when she came back up.

It was the only time I ever saw her without her sunglasses.

She had sort of a fading bruise under her eye.

Q. And in addition to that fading bruise under her eye, did you see any other marks on her face at this time?

A. Just her face was red where he hit her.

Q. Okay.

[martin II]

I'm not suprised you think what the victim's sister thought means very little. The victims were always ignored by the defense in the civil trial. It was all about poor OJ Simpson -- liar, womanizer, wife beater, and killer of two human beings.

When a murder takes place it is natural that people have all kinds of opinions
about what happened. usually the ex gets blamed before anyone knows what happened or who did it. Nothing wrong with people feeling sorry for the victims.Thats natural.

I don't know what you mean by the victims were ignored by the defence in the civil trial. What is it that you think the defence should have done concerning the victims in the civil trial?

Peoples opinions means little. Only the jury verdict is important. The criminal jury said oj was not guilty of the charges the prosecution claimed. The civil jury said oj was liable and should pay some money.

So outsiders opinions are just that. Everyone has one.

[martin II]

Testimony of India Allen at civil trial --


You can tell us what you heard Mr. Simpson state at this time.

A. He said, I didn't buy this fur coat for you to go **** somebody else, is what he said. And then he said -- then he said, I want the coat back, and he grabbed her by the back of the coat and started trying to pull the coat off of her.

And she said she was -- at the time they were kind of going around and around about the coat, she was saying she wasn't going to give the coat back, it was her g*d d*mn coat; and so, anyway, she jerked away from him, and that's when I saw him strike her. He hit her across the face, and her glasses and her head band flew off and her hair kind of flew to the side when she came back up.

It was the only time I ever saw her without her sunglasses.

She had sort of a fading bruise under her eye.

Q. And in addition to that fading bruise under her eye, did you see any other marks on her face at this time?

A. Just her face was red where he hit her.

Q. Okay.

What does a argument over a coat have to do with who killed Nicole.Was he on trial for trying to take a coat. I don't think he was charged with that.

[martin II]

I'm not suprised you think what the victim's sister thought means very little. The victims were always ignored by the defense in the civil trial. It was all about poor OJ Simpson -- liar, womanizer, wife beater, and killer of two human beings.

Denise can sometimes be a loose cannon. When the detective told Lou that nicole was dead, Denise did not know if they had a killer that was not oj or not. She just yelled out that oj did it without any information on what happened.

[tv]

What does a argument over a coat have to do with who killed Nicole.Was he on trial for trying to take a coat. I don't think he was charged with that.An argument? How about hitting her across the face? If he'd do that in public it's hard to tell what he's done to her in private that we don't even know about.

This is what Brenda Moran, juror #7, said --

"This was a murder trial, not domestic abuse," Moran said. "If you want to get tried for domestic abuse, go in another courtroom and get tried for that."

She implies that OJ Simpson wanted to get tried for domestic abuse. Hmm...never thought about that possibility. Do you think she meant if you want to try someone for domestic abuse, go in another courtroom and try them for that?

[Hipcheck]

[url]
One fiber consistent coming from the Ford Bronco found on glove at Rockingham.

Two fiber consistent coming from the Ford Bronco found on the hat at Bundy.
.

Martin

You claimed the above information was absolutely false and that there was no testimony given about this.

I proved to you that fibers were found on the cap found at Bundy and the glove found at Rocingham and that testimony from Deedrick supports what I posted.

Looks like your wrong here.

[martin II]

I don't think trashing the victim's familiy members is allowed on this forum.

Giving my opinion about comments attributed to Denise in testimony is not trashing any one. You made a negative comment about what Jason was trying to do to protect oj as if he had done something wrong.
This does not include the rude comments about Arnell as if she is not a Simpson family member.

[tv]

There is absolutely no need for anyone to be trashing the victim's family and I don't believe it's allowed either.

Denise's response was her gut reaction to hearing her sister had been killed. IMO, her reaction was perfectly appropriate and calling her a loose cannon was unnecessary.

[tv]

Giving my opinion about comments attributed to Denise in testimony is not trashing any one. You made a negative comment about what Jason was trying to do to protect oj as if he had done something wrong.
This does not include the rude comments about Arnell as if she is not a Simpson family member.

I've never said anything negative about Jason Simpson. I consider him one of the living victims of his father's murderous rage. Arnelle is a possible accomplice after the fact.

[martin II]

Martin

You claimed the above information was absolutely false and that there was no testimony given about this.

I proved to you that fibers were found on the cap found at Bundy and the glove found at Rocingham and that testimony from Deedrick supports what I posted.

Looks like your wrong here.

Many times media reports like CNN don't tell the complete story of detailed testimony. This is why i have posted the details of Deedricks sp testimony
for all to see. including the judges order about Deedricks report about exclusive fibers and hairs. Because of Deedricks behavior it was not allowed.

[martin II]

Denise's response was her gut reaction to hearing her sister had been killed. IMO, her reaction was perfectly appropriate and calling her a loose cannon was unnecessary.

Denise is entitled to her opinion. Others are entitled to give their opinions on the validity of her comments.The trial proved that she was wrong in her accusation. imo

[tv]

Denise is entitled to her opinion. Others are entitled to give their opinions on the validity of her comments.The trial proved that she was wrong in her accusation. imo

You're entitled to give your opinion of her response but not to call her a loose cannon. If the negative comments about the family continues I'll ask DW to delete the remarks.

[martin II]

I've never said anything negative about Jason Simpson. I consider him one of the living victims of his father's murderous rage. Arnelle is a possible accomplice after the fact.

You said Jason was trying to help his father by the answers he gave.I took this to mean that you did not think Jason was being completely truthful. There was no proof that Arnell was a accomplice
to anything. Just your opinion. She was never charged with any wrong doing so how could she be a accomplice to anything.

[tv]

You said Jason was trying to help his father by the answers he gave.I took this to mean that you did not think Jason was being completely truthful.

Take it to mean what you want but that's not what I meant. It's only natural for a son to feel protective of his father. Jason is one of my favorite people in this whole sordid mess.

[martin II]

Take it to mean what you want but that's not what I meant. It's only natural for a son to feel protective of his father. Jason is one of my favorite people in this whole sordid mess.

BY the same token i have supported Denise in many of her actions. I supported her fully in her efforts to get a piece of the oj book when fred tried to cut NBS out completely. I thought NBS estate was entitled to a fair 50% share when fred wanted to take all of the money for himself. i thought Nicoles death was just as important as rons.

[tv]

BY the same token i have supported Denise in many of her actions. I supported her fully in her efforts to get a piece of the oj book when fred tried to cut NBS out completely. I thought NBS estate was entitled to a fair 50% share when fred wanted to take all of the money for himself. i thought Nicoles death was just as important as rons.

That's all very nice. I take this post to mean you won't be calling Denise a loose cannon again.

[martin II]

Take it to mean what you want but that's not what I meant. It's only natural for a son to feel protective of his father. Jason is one of my favorite people in this whole sordid mess.

All Jason said is that he looked at ojs hands and saw nothing. when asked why did he look at them he simply said because he was curious.
i see no protection of oj in that statement. It seems like straight forward answers to questions to me.

[martin II]

That's all very nice. I take this post to mean you won't be calling Denise a loose cannon again.

If she speaks liks one i may.

[martin II]

You're entitled to give your opinion of her response but not to call her a loose cannon. If the negative comments about the family continues I'll ask DW to delete the remarks.

That may be where we differ as any post that upsets me i ignore it as suggested by DW. Maby i will do the same if you continue to post untruths about Arnell.

But for now since i get the feeling that you may want to argue i am leaving this discussion and moving to another thread.

Have a nice day.

[fgump2]

I have posted a fair number of slams against Henry Lee. Here is another one. A lot of people have written or said that Henry Lee thought old marks in the cement (including one actual footprint) were recent footprints in the blood.

GI and probably others have posted that Henry Lee didn't get years old marks in the cement confused with footprints in the blood.

I think he did make this mistake. The criminal trial testimony of Sept 15, 1995 shows Bodziak making this charge. Bodziak said that some of these marks were so faint that un ordinary lighting these confusing marks in the cement would be invisible. It was necessary to shine light on the cement in an oblique angle.

This isn't conclusive, because it doesn't prove who was correct, Bodziak or Lee. I know that I read that Henry Lee refused to comment on Bodziak's damaging testimony (damaged both the defense and Henry Lee).
I recall that Henry Lee once ignored a question about marks in the cement. When the interviewer asked the questiona second time, Henry Lee made some angry remarks about how he felt bad that his reputation had been damaged, and he was sorry he became involved in the case.
I thought this was his way of admitting he was wrong. It would take me some time to find Henry Lee's response to Bodziak's charges. If Bodziak's comments were untrue, then Henry Lee should have sued for slander, or at least replied with proof that Bodziak was wrong.

I consider it ironic many pro Simpson people think the press was biased against Simpson. The fact of the matter is that Dennis Fung and other people got far more criticism in the press for making mistakes less important than Henry Lee's mistakes about confusing marks in the cement with footprints in the blood.

Some of the prosecution mistakes which the press seemed to think were more important than the confusion about marks in the cement: Fung saying he did work that was done by Mazzoli. Mazzoli putting her hand to her nose when collecting blood evidence at Bundy. The prosecution's confusion about the lack of initials on some envelope. The confusion about who recieived Simpson's vial of blood, Mazzoli or Fung.

[tv]

All Jason said is that he looked at ojs hands and saw nothing. when asked why did he look at them he simply said because he was curious.
i see no protection of oj in that statement. It seems like straight forward answers to questions to me.

He made many statements. You've cherry picked one. Jason was telling the truth when he said he saw cuts on his father's hands. That's why no one saw any cuts on him in the dimly lit airplane. They weren't that obvious.

[tv]

That may be where we differ as any post that upsets me i ignore it as suggested by DW. Maby i will do the same if you continue to post untruths about Arnell.

But for now since i get the feeling that you may want to argue i am leaving this discussion and moving to another thread.

Have a nice day.

There's a difference between saying someone is untruthful and calling them names. If I call Arnelle a name then please feel free to have the comment deleted and I'll do the same if you call the victim's family members names. Very simple.

[fgump2]

What does a argument over a coat have to do with who killed Nicole.Was he on trial for trying to take a coat. I don't think he was charged with that.
The main point I see here is that Simpson lost his temper with Nicole, and physically attacked her.

In one of Cochran's attempts to muddy the waters about domestic abuse, he said something like:" xx number of men physically abuse their wives, only a small fraction of these kill their wives. Do the math". I may try to find the original quote.

Cochran was using misleading statistics. A more accurate comparison would be this: Suppose a man repeatidly beats his wife. And then she is murdered. What are the chances that the abuser was also the killer? I think the statistics are a little over 50%, not enough to convict even if this evidence is allowed, but different than the statistics Cochran came up with.

Cochran was getting paid for coming up with stuff like this. This attempt to mislead the public is OK if we consider Cochran as a hired gun trying to get Simpson of the hook. However if we are to consider Cochran a hero, and worthy of writing a book titled Journey to Justice then higher standards apply.

Domestic abuse is an important subject. People who try to mislead the public about it should be rebuked. They do not deserve to be called magnificent.

[tv]

The main point I see here is that Simpson lost his temper with Nicole, and physically attacked her.

In one of Cochran's attempts to muddy the waters about domestic abuse, he said something like:" xx number of men physically abuse their wives, only a small fraction of these kill their wives. Do the math". I may try to find the original quote.

Cochran was using misleading statistics. A more accurate comparison would be this: Suppose a man repeatidly beats his wife. And then she is murdered. What are the chances that the abuser was also the killer? I think the statistics are a little over 50%, not enough to convict even if this evidence is allowed, but different than the statistics Cochran came up with.

Cochran was getting paid for coming up with stuff like this. This attempt to mislead the public is OK if we consider Cochran as a hired gun trying to get Simpson of the hook. However if we are to consider Cochran a hero, and worthy of writing a book titled Journey to Justice then higher standards apply.

Domestic abuse is an important subject. People who try to mislead the public about it should be rebuked. They do not deserve to be called magnificent.

:beer:

[tv]

If she speaks liks one i may.

Then I'll ask DW to delete it.

[fgump2]

He made many statements. You've cherry picked one. Jason was telling the truth when he said he saw cuts on his father's hands. That's why no one saw any cuts on him in the dimly lit airplane. They weren't that obvious.

If the cuts and bandages were on the back of the hand, it might have been easy to miss them.

I think it helps Simpson's case that nobody on the plane saw signs of the cuts; but it doesn't help him very much. The fact of the matter is that experiments by memory experts and criminologists have shown repeatidly that people aren't good at noticing and remembering details. Eye witnesses are very accurate.

Introductory criminology classes often show a short video in which the class is asked to watch and remember what happened. Most people can't remember accurately right after seeing the video. After each hour the accuracy goes down more. It is very common for people to get get confused about details which seemed important at the time. It is even more common for people to get confused about details which didn't seem important at the time. The point of the criminology class example of the video is that investigators should take eye witness reports with a grain of salt or two.

It might be interesting to find out how many of these LA to Chicago witnesses would have been sleepy and therefor less alert because they were in an airplane at a time when the would normallybe in bed.

[tv]

If the cuts and bandages were on the back of the hand, it might have been easy to miss them.

I think it helps Simpson's case that nobody on the plane saw signs of the cuts; but it doesn't help him very much. The fact of the matter is that experiments by memory experts and criminologists have shown repeatidly that people aren't good at noticing and remembering details. Eye witnesses are very accurate.

Introductory criminology classes often show a short video in which the class is asked to watch and remember what happened. Most people can't remember accurately right after seeing the video. After each hour the accuracy goes down more. It is very common for people to get get confused about details which seemed important at the time. It is even more common for people to get confused about details which didn't seem important at the time. The point of the criminology class example of the video is that investigators should take eye witness reports with a grain of salt or two.

It might be interesting to find out how many of these LA to Chicago witnesses would have been sleepy and therefor less alert because they were in an airplane at a time when the would normallybe in bed.

Correction: When he said he saw NO cuts on his father's hands. I agree about your about eye witnesses accuracy and how observant the passengers on the plane would have been. I don't think it helps him at all that no one saw the cuts. Jason didn't see the cuts and he was looking for them.

[martin II]

There's a difference between saying someone is untruthful and calling them names. If I call Arnelle a name then please feel free to have the comment deleted and I'll do the same if you call the victim's family members names. Very simple.

tv
i don't feel like going through this with you again so i will just leave your post alone.

[martin II]

If the cuts and bandages were on the back of the hand, it might have been easy to miss them.

I think it helps Simpson's case that nobody on the plane saw signs of the cuts; but it doesn't help him very much. The fact of the matter is that experiments by memory experts and criminologists have shown repeatidly that people aren't good at noticing and remembering details. Eye witnesses are very accurate.

Introductory criminology classes often show a short video in which the class is asked to watch and remember what happened. Most people can't remember accurately right after seeing the video. After each hour the accuracy goes down more. It is very common for people to get get confused about details which seemed important at the time. It is even more common for people to get confused about details which didn't seem important at the time. The point of the criminology class example of the video is that investigators should take eye witness reports with a grain of salt or two.

It might be interesting to find out how many of these LA to Chicago witnesses would have been sleepy and therefor less alert because they were in an airplane at a time when the would normallybe in bed.

No one in the whole case ever said oj had cuts on the back of his hand and
this includes the three skycaps that talked to him in front of lax as his bags were loaded, the photographer and the plane pilot on the plane. .None of these people ever said they were sleep or would normally been in bed when they talked to him.This included Kato and Park.

[martin II]

He made many statements. You've cherry picked one. Jason was telling the truth when he said he saw cuts on his father's hands. That's why no one saw any cuts on him in the dimly lit airplane. They weren't that obvious.

Exactly who testified that when the pilot sat next to oj and talked to him the plane was dinly lit.I have sat next to many people on planes when the lights were turned down and never remember not seeing the person sitting next to me. There are overhead lights on ALL planes also and oj did give autohgraphs
to various people from his seat.
Dim lights is a excuse that fails to fly.just something made up.

[weezer]

Exactly who testified that when the pilot sat next to oj and talked to him the plane was dinly lit.I have sat next to many people on planes when the lights were turned down and never remember not seeing the person sitting next to me. There are overhead lights on ALL planes also and oj did give autohgraphs
to various people from his seat.
Dim lights is a excuse that fails to fly.just something made up.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Well, sir, you were no -- you were at least five or six feet away from him, if not more, at all times, while he was sitting in his seat and you were sitting in your seat, correct?

A. I would say about seven feet, yes.

Q. Seven feet. Right.

And you never saw his hands -- you testified previously that you didn't get a look at his hands going on the plane or off the plane, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So the only time that you made observations of his hands, is when you and he were seven feet apart at a somewhat diagonal position relative to each other, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And the lights, sir, the main cabin lights are out, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you really don't know whether he had any cuts on his hand or not, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

And at no time did he, for example, did you ever see between his fingers, right?

A. I did not have a detailed study of his fingers.

Q. I didn't ask you about a detailed study.

I just said, at no time did you ever see the area in between his fingers, correct?

A. Again, Mr. Petrocelli --

Q. Can you answer that yes or no, please?

A. I looked at his fingers. I saw his fingers. I didn't see any cuts.

Q. Okay.

A. And I saw it from seven feet away, if we can agree to that distance, and --

Q. In a diagonal line, right?

A. Somewhat diagonal line.

Q. No foot rest.

If Mr. Simpson had a cut inside his fourth finger, cut facing the middle finger, you were never in a position to see the inside of that fourth finger, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And if Mr. Simpson had a fresh cut on the middle finger that had been washed and was cleaned and not bleeding, you wouldn't have really been able to see that either, correct.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: Fact not in evidence.

Q. Correct?

A. Correct.

[weezer]

Exactly who testified that when the pilot sat next to oj and talked to him the plane was dinly lit.I have sat next to many people on planes when the lights were turned down and never remember not seeing the person sitting next to me. There are overhead lights on ALL planes also and oj did give autohgraphs
to various people from his seat.
Dim lights is a excuse that fails to fly.just something made up.

criminal trial testimony of Wayne Stanfield from the criminal trial:

MR. DARDEN: Now, when you fly at night, do you turn the cabin lights down?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you do that particularly when you're flying a red-eye flight, right?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And is that so that the passengers on the plane can sleep?

MR. STANFIELD: Absolutely.

MR. DARDEN: In fact, you expect that the passengers to sleep, don't you?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Simpson wasn't asleep?

MR. STANFIELD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And so were the cabin lights down during the time that you were speaking to Mr. Simpson?

MR. STANFIELD: They were dimmed, yes.

[GreenIce]

GI

If you know
what time did furhman and vanhatter arrive at rockingham and what time did he find the glove.

Martin,

I think they got to Rockingham about 5:30 a.m. I think it was around 6:00 a.m. when they woke up Kato and then Arnelle. When Fuhrman brought Kato into the house to speak to Vanatter, I think Phillips was on the phone with Simpson and Arnelle was talking to Lange. IIRC, from the testimony it was at least 15 minutes from the time Fuhrman left Kato to when he said he found the glove. I think the claim is that the picture taken of MF pointing at the glove was said to be around 7:15 a.m.

Of course we know that is not true, but that is what they are claiming.

IMO, their claims that the picture was taken at 7:15 a.m. is to me another nail in their coffin of credibility. It was another time they forced a lie down the throats of the jury when they did not have to. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Exactly who testified that when the pilot sat next to oj and talked to him the plane was dinly lit.I have sat next to many people on planes when the lights were turned down and never remember not seeing the person sitting next to me. There are overhead lights on ALL planes also and oj did give autohgraphs
to various people from his seat.
Dim lights is a excuse that fails to fly.just something made up.

Martin,

It was Steven Valerie who sat across from Simpson, I think and he was the one who was looking for the ring. OJ Simpson shook hands and signed several autographs on the way to Chicago, to include the hotel when he checked in. They did not see the deep gash---it would have been impossible to mix had he had that gash before he got on the plane.

Also, Bingham also talked to Simpson in the airport while they were getting their luggage, the lights weren't dim in the airport. And the lights were not dim when OJ was helping Kato trying to find a flash light before he left for the airport.

The gash simply was not there.

[GreenIce]

GI

Vanhatter found some blood drops in the driveway to the front door. Furhman
said he found the glove in the back walkway.
Vanhatter investigated the salingers property, the hedges at the fence and the back walkway and decided that there was no evidence that oj or anyone
else jumped that fence. So i guess he was concerned about how the glove that Furhman said he 'Found' got there.
.

Martin,

I hope one day you break down and read MF's book. I really is a gold mine when it comes to Vanatter. I find it very telling that MF ordered the Bronco impounded and VA stopped that order. I also find it very telling that Brad Roberts was helping Fung put up markers by the blood drops leading from the Bronco to the front door and Vanatter was taking some of them down.

IMO, reading his book, it is obvious that after that glove was found, VA was in a panic. I never knew that VA also walked along the neighbor's yard. Do you know what time he did it? We know that MF knocked on the door and spoke to Rosa and asked permission to walk along the fence. I wonder who Vanatter asked?

It appears to me that most people who believe that Simpson jumped the fence are relying on early media reports. No where in the trial does the DA's or any of their witnesses ever go near this subject. As we both have posted before, both MF and MC have Simpson walking into the alley, not jumping the fence.

[GreenIce]

gi
contrary to judges order Deedrick did not turn over certain pieces of evidence to the defence. he played fast and loose with some pictures that he had. The pictures were all mislabeled which caused the judge to spend hours trying to sort out which picture was which. Deedrick made statements that he had given certain pictures to the defence which the judge found he had not.

This caused the judge to issue the below order to Clarke about Deedricks report.


The Court:

The objection to the content of the report prepared by Mr. Deedrick regarding the source and rarity of the carpet fiber, that objection will be sustained. The Prosecution will be precluded from presenting any evidence that is contained in the report. All right. Let's have the jury.


PS
No testimony about rare fibers were ever allowed or anything else in Deedricks report.

Martin,

IMO, this is another witness who tanked for the DA's. IMO, I think the jurors were looking for link to the murder clothes and he never came close to that. All he could said is that he believed they came from the same cloth.

Also, IMO, he seemed like another FBI witness who was anything but neutral to the jury and they had no clue about his independent sources.

Again, if a juror believed the glove was planted, they would not be surprised to find out that fibers were found on it that were consistent with a car carpet. Again, instead of making a wide brush with the evidence, the DA's tried to hit a home run with evidence that was not going to do it. How rare were the fibers? Was the Bronco the only SUV in the world that had this carpeting?

[GreenIce]

I have posted a fair number of slams against Henry Lee. Here is another one. A lot of people have written or said that Henry Lee thought old marks in the cement (including one actual footprint) were recent footprints in the blood.

GI and probably others have posted that Henry Lee didn't get years old marks in the cement confused with footprints in the blood.

I think he did make this mistake. The criminal trial testimony of Sept 15, 1995 shows Bodziak making this charge. Bodziak said that some of these marks were so faint that un ordinary lighting these confusing marks in the cement would be invisible. It was necessary to shine light on the cement in an oblique angle.

This isn't conclusive, because it doesn't prove who was correct, Bodziak or Lee. I know that I read that Henry Lee refused to comment on Bodziak's damaging testimony (damaged both the defense and Henry Lee).
I recall that Henry Lee once ignored a question about marks in the cement. When the interviewer asked the questiona second time, Henry Lee made some angry remarks about how he felt bad that his reputation had been damaged, and he was sorry he became involved in the case.
I thought this was his way of admitting he was wrong. It would take me some time to find Henry Lee's response to Bodziak's charges. If Bodziak's comments were untrue, then Henry Lee should have sued for slander, or at least replied with proof that Bodziak was wrong.

I consider it ironic many pro Simpson people think the press was biased against Simpson. The fact of the matter is that Dennis Fung and other people got far more criticism in the press for making mistakes less important than Henry Lee's mistakes about confusing marks in the cement with footprints in the blood.

Some of the prosecution mistakes which the press seemed to think were more important than the confusion about marks in the cement: Fung saying he did work that was done by Mazzoli. Mazzoli putting her hand to her nose when collecting blood evidence at Bundy. The prosecution's confusion about the lack of initials on some envelope. The confusion about who recieived Simpson's vial of blood, Mazzoli or Fung.

fgump2,

You have posted your doubts about Dr. Lee. However, when you were mistaken about one of your doubts, you have not repeated it, example, the one hair confusion.

However, you have made a mistake regarding Dr. Lee and the parallel pattern he saw on several items, to include the one in the cement. He never said that it was a shoe print. He did say it could be and if it was, then it did not come from a Bruno Magli.

Dr. Lee is not advocate, he gives his findings, nothing more, nothing less. He will not trash any of his collegues regardless if he disagrees with them or not.
Dr. Lee has stated several times that he stands by his testimony in the Simpson trial.

In regards to Dennis Fung, IMO, he knew what he had to do, he knew his job very well, to the best of my knowledge he earned all the promotions he ever received before the Simpson case. I think the question needs to asked how did his performance in the Simpson case compare to his past cases?

Please remember, Dennis Fung wasn't even sure if the right gloves were in the civil trial. His testimony in both trials clearly fell on the side of the defense. He has never defended himself after either trial. Why do you think that is?

You must also remember, at that time, DNA testing was still in the very early stages of being accepted by the courts. Collecting and storing of the evidence is extremely important to these types of tests. AM's mistakes were very much "rookie" mistakes in some areas. Which makes me wonder why the LAPD allowed a trainee anywhere this case. Why the most experienced SID people weren't called to the scenes. Why at least another team wasn't dispatched to Bundy while the other was at Rockingham.

Don't forget, some of AM's answers to questions did not help her either. Not knowing there was a back gate at Bundy did not endear her to the jury. Responding that she only picked up evidence she was told to pick up didn't help her either. Remember, there was a signficant amount of evidence that was not collected and I think it is a fair question to ask why wasn't it.

I don't think you can sue someone for slander because they have a different opinon on the evidence in a case.

[martin II]

Martin,

It was Steven Valerie who sat across from Simpson, I think and he was the one who was looking for the ring. OJ Simpson shook hands and signed several autographs on the way to Chicago, to include the hotel when he checked in. They did not see the deep gash---it would have been impossible to mix had he had that gash before he got on the plane.

Also, Bingham also talked to Simpson in the airport while they were getting their luggage, the lights weren't dim in the airport. And the lights were not dim when OJ was helping Kato trying to find a flash light before he left for the airport.

The gash simply was not there.


GI

Thanks

The problem for the prosecution and the plaintiffs lawyers is of all the people that saw oj in front of the airport and on the plane NO ONE SAW A CUT ON HIS FINGER.

oj was sitting directly under the overhead light so he was not in the DARK.

I did notice that a sky cap and the captain did notice one big thing.OJS HANDS WERE MUCH LARGER THAN THEY HAD EXPECTED.OR LARGER THAN POST PEOPLES

That is why the gloves did not fit.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, this is another witness who tanked for the DA's. IMO, I think the jurors were looking for link to the murder clothes and he never came close to that. All he could said is that he believed they came from the same cloth.

Also, IMO, he seemed like another FBI witness who was anything but neutral to the jury and they had no clue about his independent sources.

Again, if a juror believed the glove was planted, they would not be surprised to find out that fibers were found on it that were consistent with a car carpet. Again, instead of making a wide brush with the evidence, the DA's tried to hit a home run with evidence that was not going to do it. How rare were the fibers? Was the Bronco the only SUV in the world that had this carpeting?


There was never any source of the fibers so Deedrick could not say where the fibers came from unless he wanted to lie.AGAIN

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, this is another witness who tanked for the DA's. IMO, I think the jurors were looking for link to the murder clothes and he never came close to that. All he could said is that he believed they came from the same cloth.

Also, IMO, he seemed like another FBI witness who was anything but neutral to the jury and they had no clue about his independent sources.

Again, if a juror believed the glove was planted, they would not be surprised to find out that fibers were found on it that were consistent with a car carpet. Again, instead of making a wide brush with the evidence, the DA's tried to hit a home run with evidence that was not going to do it. How rare were the fibers? Was the Bronco the only SUV in the world that had this carpeting?


Ito tossed Deedricks complete report where he talked about special carpet fibers.
Deedrick was a complete BUST for the prosecution.

[martin II]

The pilot was sitting next to oj and the overhead light at ojs seat was on and shinning bright.So it makes no differance if the plane light were dimmed.He saw no bandages, no finger or hand cuts and no blood.As a matter of fact no one saw any cuts and oj was just acting normal as he always had.
End of story.

[martin II]

fgump2,

You have posted your doubts about Dr. Lee. However, when you were mistaken about one of your doubts, you have not repeated it, example, the one hair confusion.

However, you have made a mistake regarding Dr. Lee and the parallel pattern he saw on several items, to include the one in the cement. He never said that it was a shoe print. He did say it could be and if it was, then it did not come from a Bruno Magli.

Dr. Lee is not advocate, he gives his findings, nothing more, nothing less. He will not trash any of his collegues regardless if he disagrees with them or not.
Dr. Lee has stated several times that he stands by his testimony in the Simpson trial.

In regards to Dennis Fung, IMO, he knew what he had to do, he knew his job very well, to the best of my knowledge he earned all the promotions he ever received before the Simpson case. I think the question needs to asked how did his performance in the Simpson case compare to his past cases?

Please remember, Dennis Fung wasn't even sure if the right gloves were in the civil trial. His testimony in both trials clearly fell on the side of the defense. He has never defended himself after either trial. Why do you think that is?

You must also remember, at that time, DNA testing was still in the very early stages of being accepted by the courts. Collecting and storing of the evidence is extremely important to these types of tests. AM's mistakes were very much "rookie" mistakes in some areas. Which makes me wonder why the LAPD allowed a trainee anywhere this case. Why the most experienced SID people weren't called to the scenes. Why at least another team wasn't dispatched to Bundy while the other was at Rockingham.

Don't forget, some of AM's answers to questions did not help her either. Not knowing there was a back gate at Bundy did not endear her to the jury. Responding that she only picked up evidence she was told to pick up didn't help her either. Remember, there was a signficant amount of evidence that was not collected and I think it is a fair question to ask why wasn't it.

I don't think you can sue someone for slander because they have a different opinon on the evidence in a case.


i am sure people cannot be sued for court testimony.

[GreenIce]

There was never any source of the fibers so Deedrick could not say where the fibers came from unless he wanted to lie.AGAIN

Martin,

I never could figure out why the DA's went with a sweat suit and why they did not just go with how un-rare the fibers were. But, I think Bosco's book, it says that Simpson's home was searched and all his clothes were looked at and compared (the dark ones) and they could find nothing that was consistent with the fibers.

Also, the first time I heard Kato describe the clothing, he always said he thought it was "like a sweat suit type outfit". IMO, it Kato knew what it was, he have just said a sweat suit. How many grown men would say, "it was like a sweat type outfit"?

I wonder when he was first asked and pressed to describe what Simpson was wearing.

[GreenIce]

Ito tossed Deedricks complete report where he talked about special carpet fibers.
Deedrick was a complete BUST for the prosecution.

Martin,

I was very disappointed in all the FBI witnesses. It was shocking to see how they had become advocates of the state rather then remain neutral witnesses.

What also is very said that when a member of the FBI came forward with his concerns about Martz and the proof that he had of this, Judge Ito would not allow him to testify in front of the jury. Since when is witness bias not relevant?

[tv]

gi

thanks

the problem for the prosecution and the plaintiffs lawyers is of all the people that saw oj in front of the airport and on the plane no one saw a cut on his finger.

oj was sitting directly under the overhead light so he was not in the dark.

I did notice that a sky cap and the captain did notice one big thing.ojs hands were much larger than they had expected.or larger than post peoples

that is why the gloves did not fit.

Jason also did not see the injuries on his father's hands EVEN THOUGH HE MADE IT A POINT TO LOOK. We know the injuries were there when Jason saw him after he returned from chicago. How do you expect anyone on a dimly lit plane to see injuries that Jason did not see in normal lighting when he was specifically looking at his father's hands for injuries??

[martin II]

Martin,

I never could figure out why the DA's went with a sweat suit and why they did not just go with how un-rare the fibers were. But, I think Bosco's book, it says that Simpson's home was searched and all his clothes were looked at and compared (the dark ones) and they could find nothing that was consistent with the fibers.

Also, the first time I heard Kato describe the clothing, he always said he thought it was "like a sweat suit type outfit". IMO, it Kato knew what it was, he have just said a sweat suit. How many grown men would say, "it was like a sweat type outfit"?

I wonder when he was first asked and pressed to describe what Simpson was wearing.

If you remember fgump2 has posted many of his opinions that human mamory is not reliable. This has been used to attack defence positions.

If true i guess we can offer the idea that Katos memory of the color of ojs clothes is not reilable either. I don't think Kato was paying attention to ojs clothes and was prompted by Clarke to say sweat suite.

But in the end no sweat suite was ever presented in court so NO ONE can testify to the source of those fibers.Including Deedrick.

Remember Park said oj had on a black overcoat when he came out to the limo.
and Kato said he had on a sweat suite. when in fact oj had on white shirt and jeans.

[martin II]

Jason also did not see the injuries on his father's hands EVEN THOUGH HE MADE IT A POINT TO LOOK. We know the injuries were there when Jason saw him after he returned from chicago. How do you expect anyone on a dimly lit plane to see injuries that Jason did not see in normal lighting when he was specifically looking at his father's hands for injuries??

OJ was sitting directly under a bright light.I have posted testimony to prove this. Dim plane had nothing to do with it.

no one saw any cuts because there were none.

[martin II]

Martin,

I was very disappointed in all the FBI witnesses. It was shocking to see how they had become advocates of the state rather then remain neutral witnesses.

What also is very said that when a member of the FBI came forward with his concerns about Martz and the proof that he had of this, Judge Ito would not allow him to testify in front of the jury. Since when is witness bias not relevant?

The DOT and the FBI were investigating Martz and that Agent had negative info on Martz performance.

[martin II]

Jason also did not see the injuries on his father's hands EVEN THOUGH HE MADE IT A POINT TO LOOK. We know the injuries were there when Jason saw him after he returned from chicago. How do you expect anyone on a dimly lit plane to see injuries that Jason did not see in normal lighting when he was specifically looking at his father's hands for injuries??
Jason did not see any cuts in plain daylight so there were none. No one else did either.

[tv]

OJ was sitting directly under a bright light.I have posted testimony to prove this. Dim plane had nothing to do with it.

no one saw any cuts because there were none.

Why didn't Jason see any cuts?

[tv]

Jason did not see any cuts in plain daylight so there were none. No one else did either.

Why didn't Jason see any cuts? Are you trying to say that OJ Simpson had no cuts on his hand when he returned from Chicago? Even he said that he'd reopened a cut in Chicago that was already there. :eek:

[martin II]

Martin,

I hope one day you break down and read MF's book. I really is a gold mine when it comes to Vanatter. I find it very telling that MF ordered the Bronco impounded and VA stopped that order. I also find it very telling that Brad Roberts was helping Fung put up markers by the blood drops leading from the Bronco to the front door and Vanatter was taking some of them down.

IMO, reading his book, it is obvious that after that glove was found, VA was in a panic. I never knew that VA also walked along the neighbor's yard. Do you know what time he did it? We know that MF knocked on the door and spoke to Rosa and asked permission to walk along the fence. I wonder who Vanatter asked?

It appears to me that most people who believe that Simpson jumped the fence are relying on early media reports. No where in the trial does the DA's or any of their witnesses ever go near this subject. As we both have posted before, both MF and MC have Simpson walking into the alley, not jumping the fence.

MF and mc needed to explain how the glove got there. their claimes made no sence because they could not find any evidence that oj did what they claimed.

[martin II]

Why didn't Jason see any cuts? Are you trying to say that OJ Simpson had no cuts on his hand when he returned from Chicago? Even he said that he'd reopened a cut in Chicago that was already there. :eek:


The issue is did oj have a gash on his fingers when he went to chaicgo.
OJ had a zigzag cut on a finger that the cut on a glass in Chicago.His doctor testified to the cut and described that it did not come from a kmife.

If Jason did not see a cut he did not see one.Did Jason just glance at ojs hands or did he hold them and examine them closely.I think he just glanced.

The issue is Kato,Park, the three skycaps, the severral people on the plane, the Herts driver.the hotel front desk people never saw a cut or bandage on his hands or fingers. So the idea that he had a big gash on his fingers is not proven by any testimony. It is just opinions of some trying to CREATE evidence where there is none.The idea that the lights were dim does not work because the pilot testified that oj was sitting directly under the overhead light and that light was ON when he sat in the seat directly next to oj.imo

[martin II]

Why didn't Jason see any cuts?

What do you mean when you say Jason looked at his hands. Did he just glance at them. Or did he do a examination of them.
I assume he just glanced at them casually and did not see the cut.

Did you notice the comments by two people of how they were surprised at the size of ojs hands.Both said they were very large or much larger than they expected.I think that when oj stood in front of the jury before he tried the gloves on they also could see how large his hands were.

I don't understand why Darden didn't see those very big hands before his failed demo.

[martin II]

Martin,

I think they got to Rockingham about 5:30 a.m. I think it was around 6:00 a.m. when they woke up Kato and then Arnelle. When Fuhrman brought Kato into the house to speak to Vanatter, I think Phillips was on the phone with Simpson and Arnelle was talking to Lange. IIRC, from the testimony it was at least 15 minutes from the time Fuhrman left Kato to when he said he found the glove. I think the claim is that the picture taken of MF pointing at the glove was said to be around 7:15 a.m.

Of course we know that is not true, but that is what they are claiming.

IMO, their claims that the picture was taken at 7:15 a.m. is to me another nail in their coffin of credibility. It was another time they forced a lie down the throats of the jury when they did not have to. Again, IMO.

Furhman may have had the glove stashed in his car when he left kato in the house.

[martin II]

This is side bar on Deedrick refusing to yturn over evidence as ordered by the judge

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: The Court will recall that yesterday you recessed early because of what was a serious discovery violation in which the Court in your own words indicated that the arguments of the Prosecutor were specious with regard to whether certain evidence was evidence or exhibits. And you indicated, quite frankly, they could do without that. And so after having done that in an effort to move this case along--and I think the Court is aware that certainly from our standpoint we have indicated we would like to get this case to the jury as soon as possible--we made an effort or at least started to make an effort. Your Honor made it clear to all of us that Mr. Deedrick was to remain, we would have access to look at the boards and to talk to Mr. Deedrick. The Prosecutors didn't apparently understand that. You had to come back out and ask them to leave. We were delayed by that. Finally you asked them to leave, Cheri Lewis and Miss Clark and the others, and they did finally leave. We then started to talk with Mr. Deedrick. Messers. Blasier and Bailey--I had a brief encounter with him--and after a few questions from Mr. Blasier, this agent, this FBI agent, handed us a one-page report which is supposedly a summary of what he had. He wrote this out and handed this to us. And this becomes really important, because this was part of the disguise, part of the guile, if you will, of this agent in trying to throw us off. This was handed to me actually, and I then handed it to Blasier, and Blasier, however, being the lawyer that he is, continued to ask reports that this man may have written and this booklet that he was carrying. I walked over at some point and we talked about the booklet and I then felt the need to call your Honor out a second time, if you recall, because there was a question, he wanted to talk with you and I said we don't do that in court, you don't just talk to the Judge, the Judge talks to us. And I asked you to come out and then you made an order, and as I said before, Miss Clark concurred in that, that he turn that book over to us.

THE COURT: Well, we summoned Miss Clark at that point.

MR. COCHRAN: We summoned Miss Clark down and then at some point when she sat and talked with him, your Honor made the order and I believe she did concur in that order at that point. The book--

THE COURT: That was to make available to you the contents of the notebook that the agent had--

MR. COCHRAN: That's correct.

THE COURT: --here in court. All right.

MR. COCHRAN: We have been trying to get that and we had to have your intercession. We then got the notebook. And at that point it became clear exactly why he had been so reluctant to provide that notebook to us. Now, you have now been provided a copy of this five-page single-spaced report entitled "The search for the source--carpet fibers found on the leather glove and the knit hat in the O.J. Simpson case." Now, your Honor, yesterday you talked about sanctions and appropriate sanctions, and yesterday my learned colleagues argued to you that preclusion of certain of the photographs was certainly appropriate, and I will address that more than as we talk about it. However, this more egregious discovery violation that has now surfaced we think requires even harsher sanctions. This Prosecution's expert, FBI agent Deedrick, prepared a written report from this case and this report basically summarizes his so-called rareness of the alleged beige fiber found in Bronco vehicles. And I would like to quote from a wise Judge on this very issue, page 29129: "If it comes to pass that there are reports or that conclusions were reached and there was a deliberate manipulation of the process and an instruction to the witness not to prepare a report to avoid discovery, then those witnesses will not testify and that is going to be the sanction. That was an order that I made early this year." Now, your Honor, that might sound familiar because those words came from your Honor's mouth, from your Honor's lips, and you said on it a number of occasions.

THE COURT: Standing right there.

.

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: And you have said it more than once and you said it in response to Mr. Rock Harmon's ranting about our supposed experts and whether they should be entitled to reports. You made it very, very clear that preclusion was the appropriate sanction that anyone should expect. Now, the Prosecutors heard that, we heard it and in Cheri Lewis' latest brief she quotes your remarks also. So your Honor, they knew what the rules were. It became very, very clear. And for Miss Clark to stand here yesterday and to say to you I didn't know, it must have been in my office or some other place, Miss Clark has not had a witness for two months, it seems, and she has had plenty of time. This is a fine lawyer who knows what she is doing. She is running this case. She is the leader, make no mistake, the leader on their side. She knows what's going on. They are planning, they are ending this case with this evidence. And for them to come up with this, I think you can agree with this, is absolutely outrageous and totally egregious. So I wanted to start off with letting your Honor hear those words which I think are very wise words and are very appropriate and I think they probably lead us to the solution to this problem right off. So now in this case, not only was a report prepared by this witness, and then he attempted to avoid disclosure and to conceal its existence. We learned of the report only when you interceded and we interceded and we were allowed to photocopy the entire loose-leaf binder material. What does this discovery consist of? I won't bore you in detail, but it consists of a five-page single-spaced report which I have given you the title of. This report contains extensive figures about numbers. And you may say, well, Mr. Cochran, you come have done this, you could have gotten this, and we are not sleeping at the switch, your Honor. We tried. Let me direct you to the bottom of the page 2 of this report to these words, the last paragraph: "On January 31, 1995, Julie Shaw, legal representative for Dupont, advised that all production information of type 1405 fiber is proprietary." And I can tell you further--and if you want to take testimony regarding this, we have an investigator who was given disinformation by the Masland company, disinformation. They didn't give us the information, even though we tried to seek it just in a general sense. The FBI could get information; we couldn't. They knew they had this and I wouldn't be surprised if Masland didn't go along with what the FBI had already told them to do, not to give us anything, so we couldn't have gotten it. So I want to make that clear right at the outset, your Honor. So this report goes into a number of things, total number of cars, carpets, square yardage and that sort of thing. And in addition, your Honor, there are 50 additional pages of supporting documents on his research into this area. We have not given you, I don't think, a copy of the entire notebook, and perhaps we should do that before you are asked to rule on this matter. This includes information from many, many different sources. And just again to briefly summarize that the conversation that Deedrick had had with Blasier, so you get an idea of the concealment and the guile that was involved here, Blasier first asked him where he had obtained the information about the carpet. He mentioned Ford and Masland. He asked him if he had any written information. And he said he did, although he did not go into detail. He asked him if we could have what we had obtained. And he said possibly. A few minutes later he gave us then the one-page report which I'm going to ask to have marked as an exhibit and give you a copy of it, whatever our next exhibit is, this one-page handwritten outline providing the rough figures, et cetera. Blasier then asked him if this was all he had and he wouldn't answer the question directly, your Honor. He kept saying this was the information. Blasier kept pressing him. He finally admitted there were source documents and that the one page he had given me was not the source material. Blasier then asked him what he had. He reluctantly showed Blasier some letters that were in this binder; however, he never showed this report. Talked about it being his report or his research. Talked about starting this research last year, your Honor, and that it was completed several months ago. Clearly discoverable, your Honor. We should have had this. And he goes on and on and he did not turn this over, your Honor, until you ordered him to do so. "Preclusion then it seems to me," citing this learned Judge, "Is the only reasonable remedy. Preclusion of the witness entirely or preclusion of at least any testimony concerning commonness or rareness of the Bronco fiber." You talk about prejudice, your Honor. Consider this. You saw the cross-examination of Bob Blasier. Thoughtful, to the point, concise. He asked questions at the end, your Honor. The questions he asked dealt with, if you recall, the commonness or rarity of carpet fiber and whether or not police cars had been checked. If this report had been discovered as it had been, he wouldn't have asked those kind of questions, we would have had this fiber. But that is the prejudice. You can't unring that bell. He asked those questions because they hid this. And when you talked about prejudice, you can't unring that bell, if the Court pleases, so we think that we have been severely prejudiced, and "We" meaning O.J. Simpson who is here trying to get a fair trial if they are then allowed to present testimony concerning this issue. We will not ask any questions on this topic during our part of the examination, if and when this man testifies, if you don't preclude him totally, and we think they must also be precluded from doing the same. The elimination photographs, the elimination subject photographs, your Honor, we are asking also they be precluded from using the exemplar hair boards and their two blue black fiber boards. Prejudice--it is clear from the photos that the reference hairs of Mr. Simpson, within their reference hairs there is considerable variation, your Honor, within each person. Hair comparisons are never done on the basis of photographs and never on the basis of a small portion of a single hair. Had we known that they had intended to do this, had they complied with your Honor's rules, had they complied with the rules of the laws of the State of California, we would have handled this much differently. We would have had or made additional photographs, your Honor, of the elimination subjects to show the great variation in hair and point out that some of the hairs of the so-called eliminated subjects, at least photographically, appear to be similar. Re the photographs of the blue black fibers. Had we known the Prosecution prepared photos, we would have compared them to the slides of the fibers to make sure they were being presented in a way that was not misleading, since your Honor is aware that photographs can be manipulated easily to make things which are dissimilar appear similar. We would have done things far, far differently at a time when they have announced to the world that they have this wonderful compelling case and they are about to rest. At the very end of their case, they do this, your Honor. And so we come back to the law, your Honor.

Miss Clark said something very interesting, it seemed to me, in our little brief discussion of this motion. She said, well, it was just his report, as though that didn't make it discoverable

------------------
This action by Deedrick caused the judge to toss his entire report

[martin II]

GI

Deedrick had very little formal training in the area that he worked in.

He had a regular college degree. He started at he FBI as a clerk. He received one year trainining before they put him in the lab. No books and no
professional writings. I think he is maby the least trained of all the experts in the case. This may be why he used 'MABY" 'could be" "like" "Almost like" etc in describing the results of his work and NEVER EVER "the same"

This must have concerned the jury as they waited for him to say or give something that was proof or say samples were the same. HE NEVER DID IT.

So i don't think we have reason to know what hair came from who because he could not tell us with proof.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
This may be why he used 'MABY" 'could be" "like" "Almost like" etc in describing the results of his work and NEVER EVER "the same"


Experts do not ever say "the same", they ALWAYS describe it as "consistent with" :no:

[martin II]

Martin,

I think they got to Rockingham about 5:30 a.m. I think it was around 6:00 a.m. when they woke up Kato and then Arnelle. When Fuhrman brought Kato into the house to speak to Vanatter, I think Phillips was on the phone with Simpson and Arnelle was talking to Lange. IIRC, from the testimony it was at least 15 minutes from the time Fuhrman left Kato to when he said he found the glove. I think the claim is that the picture taken of MF pointing at the glove was said to be around 7:15 a.m.

Of course we know that is not true, but that is what they are claiming.

IMO, their claims that the picture was taken at 7:15 a.m. is to me another nail in their coffin of credibility. It was another time they forced a lie down the throats of the jury when they did not have to. Again, IMO.

kATO talked to furhman and told him about the noise. furhman didn't notify
either one of the other detectives. He didn't tell phillips or vanhatter to come with me to investigate what Kato is talking about. HE left everyone in the house and went to the walkway by himself. Just suppose that there were 1-2 robbers in that walkway. Armed.Wouldn't his training tell him to never go into a dark alley alone. Go with your partner.? 15 minutes later he goes to the house and says He found a glove.

[martin II]

Experts do not ever say "the same", they ALWAYS describe it as "consistent with" :no:

When experts have real proof they say "to a medical certainty" or they are the "same" when they do not have real proof they say "consistant with" or "like" or "simular" imo Deedrick could never say 'Same' because he didn't
have real proof.

[GreenIce]

The issue is did oj have a gash on his fingers when he went to chaicgo.
OJ had a zigzag cut on a finger that the cut on a glass in Chicago.His doctor testified to the cut and described that it did not come from a kmife.

If Jason did not see a cut he did not see one.Did Jason just glance at ojs hands or did he hold them and examine them closely.I think he just glanced.

The issue is Kato,Park, the three skycaps, the severral people on the plane, the Herts driver.the hotel front desk people never saw a cut or bandage on his hands or fingers. So the idea that he had a big gash on his fingers is not proven by any testimony. It is just opinions of some trying to CREATE evidence where there is none.The idea that the lights were dim does not work because the pilot testified that oj was sitting directly under the overhead light and that light was ON when he sat in the seat directly next to oj.imo

Martin,

The nurse washed and dressed the gash on his finger after the picture was taken. By the time Jason show his father, many hours later, it probably did not even warrant having a bandage on it any more. In fact, I don't remember seeing a bandage on it when OJ left Parker Center.

[martin II]

Martin,

The nurse washed and dressed the gash on his finger after the picture was taken. By the time Jason show his father, many hours later, it probably did not even warrant having a bandage on it any more. In fact, I don't remember seeing a bandage on it when OJ left Parker Center.

Thanks

i don't remember seeing a bandage when they handcuffed oj at rockingham.

[martin II]

I though i had posted this previously.
The captain was sitting next to oj and the overhead light was ON.
so oj was not sitting in the dark.

MR. BAILEY: Is that the signature that was inscribed that night by Mr. Simpson in your presence?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes, sir, it is.

MR. BAILEY: And the word, "Peace to you," is that in his handwriting?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes, it is.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, Captain, you said that you have seen Mr. Simpson from time to time through the media?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Could you compare the demeanor you observed that night in your conversation with Mr. Simpson, the way he acted, the way he reacted to you to the way you've seen him in other circumstances?

MR. STANFIELD: It was the same.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did he appear to be relaxed?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes, he did.

MR. BAILEY: Did he appear to respond to your questions in an alert fashion?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes, he did.

MR. BAILEY: Did you see anything at all unusual about him that night?

MR. STANFIELD: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Simpson wasn't asleep?

MR. STANFIELD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And so were the cabin lights down during the time that you were speaking to Mr. Simpson?

MR. STANFIELD: They were dimmed, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And there's an overhead light; is that correct?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Was that light on or off?

MR. STANFIELD: it was on

MR. DARDEN: Okay. It was on for Mr. Simpson?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes, it was.

MR. DARDEN: And when you saw him, was he holding something in his hand?

MR. STANFIELD: No.

MR. DARDEN: He was just seated there with a light on?

MR. STANFIELD: yes

MR. BAILEY: Okay. When you were SEATED NEXT to Mr. Simpson that night, Captain, and he was writing in your book, did you see both of his hands?

MR. STANFIELD: YES

MR. BAILEY: Did you see any bandages or injuries that caught your attention?

MR. STANFIELD: No, sir. I didn't register on that at all.

MR. BAILEY: Was there anything about the hands you saw that night or Mr. Simpson's appearance otherwise?

MR. STANFIELD: My only observation is that he has a MUCH LARGER HANDS THAN I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED, but nothing as far as cuts or anything.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you. Your witness.

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

MR. BAILEY: What, if anything, did you observe that he was doing?

MR. STANFIELD: Just looking out the window. If anything, I would characterize it as being pensive. Just lost in thought.

MR. BAILEY: And did you introduce yourself?

MR. STANFIELD: Well, I asked initially if it wouldn't be an imposition to talk to him and then I introduced myself and we shook hands.

MR. BAILEY: What was his response when you asked if that would be an imposition?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. STANFIELD: He came out of his seat in sort of a half crouched and extended his hand, and we shook hands and I thanked him.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you sit down in the aisle seat?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes, I did. I SAT NEXT TO HIM

MR. BAILEY: And did a conversation ensue?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes, sir, it did.

MR. BAILEY: Without telling us what was said, did you at some point make a request of Mr. Simpson?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes, I did.

[tv]

What do you mean when you say Jason looked at his hands. Did he just glance at them. Or did he do a examination of them.
I assume he just glanced at them casually and did not see the cut.

Did you notice the comments by two people of how they were surprised at the size of ojs hands.Both said they were very large or much larger than they expected.I think that when oj stood in front of the jury before he tried the gloves on they also could see how large his hands were.

I don't understand why Darden didn't see those very big hands before his failed demo.

I've posted the testimony. Jason was looking at Simpson's hands to see if there were any injuries on them. That's not a casual glance. Continue to ignore the obvious -- that the cuts were not easily seen and were missed the people that he saw after he killed Ron and Nicole and left Rockingham.

[martin II]

I've posted the testimony. Jason was looking at Simpson's hands to see if there were any injuries on them. That's not a casual glance. Continue to ignore the obvious -- that the cuts were not easily seen and were missed the people that he saw after he killed Ron and Nicole and left Rockingham.

I am sure Jason did not examine ojs hands so i think he made a casual look
and did not see any cuts.The testimony just said Jason looked at his hands. i cannot get more than that it was casual as i don't believe Jason told oj let me examine your hands.

[martin II]

Bottom line for Pilots testimony.

He sat in the seat Next to oj
He saw no cuts or bandages on his hands
The plane lights were dimed BUT THE OVERHEAD LIGHTS OVER OJS SEAT WERE ON
Oj was not sitting in the dark.
Oj was actingNORMAL NOTHING UNUSUAL
OJS HANDS WERE LARGER THAN HE HAD EXPECTED THEM TO BE.

[martin II]

Martin,

In reading Stephen Singular's book, I came across something interesting. In Feb 1995, Rockne Harmon, trying to counter the defense's position that blood was planted, asked Judge Ito to make a ruling on having two or three samples tested for EDTA using the "gas chromatography". Judge Ito granted that request and said that is should be done by the FBI.

So how come Martz did not do this test? Why did he make it up as he went along?

Also, in his book, he explains why the defense focused on a couple of stains and claims that someone in lab was asked to do something they did not feel was quite right and this person talked to someone else about it. This same person was said to be afraid that they were afraid for their job and their career if they came forward.

The same was said in Bosco's book. That Pat McKenna talked to someone in the lab who would not come forward because they were afraid.

Singular does go on to say that he told the defense very early on what his source was telling him about running their own tests for EDTA. He said that the defense wouldn't committ to this because they at first did not have any samples to test and later when they did, they opted not to do it.

I have never been able to confirm that the defense was given any test samples or if they were given, was it enough to conduct this test. However, it is clear to me that Roger Martz was smart enough to know what test not to do and this is highly suspicious IMO.


Instead of usimg the test method/machine that was commonly used for this type investigation he used a method that told him he was dead. go figure.

[tv]

I am sure Jason did not examine ojs hands so i think he made a casual look
and did not see any cuts.The testimony just said Jason looked at his hands. i cannot get more than that it was casual as i don't believe Jason told oj let me examine your hands.

You can't change Jason's testimony or decide what you THINK he meant. He said he looked at his father's hands to see if there were any injuries. That is the testimony and you can't change it or put your own spin on it no matter how hard you try. You're coming very close to saying that Jason wasn't being honest. Surely, you don't believe that.

[tv]

Bottom line for Pilots testimony.

He sat in the seat Next to oj
He saw no cuts or bandages on his hands
The plane lights were dimed BUT THE OVERHEAD LIGHTS OVER OJS SEAT WERE ON
Oj was not sitting in the dark.
Oj was actingNORMAL NOTHING UNUSUAL
OJS HANDS WERE LARGER THAN HE HAD EXPECTED THEM TO BE.

You don't have to look closely to see that a person has big hands. That can be seen at a distance. Proves nothing.

[socaldiva]

When experts have real proof they say "to a medical certainty" or they are the "same" when they do not have real proof they say "consistant with" or "like" or "simular" imo Deedrick could never say 'Same' because he didn't
have real proof.

You expected Deedrick to testify to a "medical certainty" on fibers?

[fgump2]

fgump2,

You have posted your doubts about Dr. Lee. However, when you were mistaken about one of your doubts, you have not repeated it, example, the one hair confusion. I continue to believe that Henry Lee tried to confuse the issue on hairs by saying that the defense would provide only 1 - 3 hairs for the prosecution. I don't know all the details on this. I don't think this got into the transcrips. I think I read this in a book a lawyer wrote The Run of His Life., I don't recall the author's name. I didn't really understand this,because when Simpson was in jail, I don't understand how the defense could control what hairs he gave to the police.

However, you have made a mistake regarding Dr. Lee and the parallel pattern he saw on several items, to include the one in the cement. He never said that it was a shoe print. He did say it could be and if it was, then it did not come from a Bruno Magli. Any time a criminologist claims something is an important piece of evidence, and it turns out not to be, then it makes the criminologists look bad. Members of the press asked Henry Lee about the phamtom footprints (which Bodziak said were marks in the cement) and Lee became angry and said that was another part of the cement. Bodziak had some other criticism of Henry Lee also, I think it was about a footprint or mark on Ron Goldman's shirt. Bodziak criticized Lee for not examining the shirt fabric.
Dr. Lee is not advocate, he gives his findings, nothing more, nothing less. He will not trash any of his collegues regardless if he disagrees with them or not.
Dr. Lee has stated several times that he stands by his testimony in the Simpson trial. That is what Lee claimed. I think the facts indicate otherwise. For one thing, Scheck misquoted Lee at least twice both times to the advantage of the defense. Lee never objected to that, and in fact hired Scheck to give him legal advice as the plaintiff's lawyers asked Lee questions for the civil trial. Lee at this time made his usual claim about being an independent expert At the time Scheck was advising Lee, Scheck was working for SImpson.
Do you really think he would hire Scheck as a lawyer for this purpose if he was trying to be an independent expert? Suppose that the plaintiff lawyers asked about Scheck's statements in the criminal trial, do you think that Scheck might have a bias in the advice he gave Lee about this? Remember Scheck worked for Simpson in both trials. I think the testimony about 'something wrong' an attempt to deceive. He implied that the evidence was untrustworthy without actually saying that. He had plenty of opportunity to explain why the evidence was untrustworthy in both the civil and criminal trial. He did a lot of talking without laying many cards on the table.

Lee did harshly criticize the LAPD crime lab (maybe they deserved some of the criticism). So don't write that 'he will not trash any of his collegues'.

In regards to Dennis Fung, IMO, he knew what he had to do, he knew his job very well, to the best of my knowledge he earned all the promotions he ever received before the Simpson case. I think the question needs to asked how did his performance in the Simpson case compare to his past cases? I think the more important question is what he did on the SImpson case.

Please remember, Dennis Fung wasn't even sure if the right gloves were in the civil trial. His testimony in both trials clearly fell on the side of the defense. He has never defended himself after either trial. Why do you think that is? It may be the man's personality. I didn't attempt to keep track of his statements after the trial.
You must also remember, at that time, DNA testing was still in the very early stages of being accepted by the courts. Collecting and storing of the evidence is extremely important to these types of tests. AM's mistakes were very much "rookie" mistakes in some areas. Which makes me wonder why the LAPD allowed a trainee anywhere this case. Why the most experienced SID people weren't called to the scenes. Why at least another team wasn't dispatched to Bundy while the other was at Rockingham. That is a question other people have asked, but the LAPD has no official procedures for working with crimes involving celebrities. I think Cochran implied they should.

Don't forget, some of AM's answers to questions did not help her either. Not knowing there was a back gate at Bundy did not endear her to the jury. Responding that she only picked up evidence she was told to pick up didn't help her either. Remember, there was a signficant amount of evidence that was not collected and I think it is a fair question to ask why wasn't it.

I don't think you can sue someone for slander because they have a different opinon on the evidence in a case.
Henry Lee came in with big credentials. The FBI guy - Bodziak harshly criticized him. Bodziak said that Lee made some serious mistakes. Lee claiming that marks in the cement were marks in blood that the prosecution overlooked isn't a matter of opinion. Lee phototgrahed a footprint which he thought was a crime footprint that the police overlooked, Bodziak said it was a footprint in the cement. I don't call this disagreement a matter of opinion. That the jury continued to think Lee was a reliable witness after this is another reason to have a low opinion of the jury.

[GreenIce]

kATO talked to furhman and told him about the noise. furhman didn't notify
either one of the other detectives. He didn't tell phillips or vanhatter to come with me to investigate what Kato is talking about. HE left everyone in the house and went to the walkway by himself. Just suppose that there were 1-2 robbers in that walkway. Armed.Wouldn't his training tell him to never go into a dark alley alone. Go with your partner.? 15 minutes later he goes to the house and says He found a glove.

Martin,

That is just it, VA said that MF did tell him about the noise and that was one of the reasons he used for saying that the glove was found during the securing of the property.

As I posted before, I don't believe VA on this because MF was not about to share the glory of the "big find". What I have always found interesting is that MF claims that his biggest find was the bloody fingerprint at Bundy, yet he never brags about this on the tape with LHM. His only focus is on the glove and him knowing that MC has to use him in her case.

Again, IMO, MF and Phillips being sent back to Rockingham to get a picture of the glove is very telling. IMO, it was another example of VA trying to protect the case.

[GreenIce]

Henry Lee came in with big credentials. The FBI guy - Bodziak harshly criticized him. Bodziak said that Lee made some serious mistakes. Lee claiming that marks in the cement were marks in blood that the prosecution overlooked isn't a matter of opinion. Lee phototgrahed a footprint which he thought was a crime footprint that the police overlooked, Bodziak said it was a footprint in the cement. I don't call this disagreement a matter of opinion. That the jury continued to think Lee was a reliable witness after this is another reason to have a low opinion of the jury.

Fgump2,

Michelle Kestler was using a book co-authored by Dr. Lee. 4 hairs were found with roots on it and these four hairs may have been able to produce DNA results. The defense asked to have these samples split and that is when the issue came out about them only needing one hair. Dr. Lee is correct. However, Michelle Kestler said that they could not share any of these samples because she did not know how "strong" the samples were and if they could even get a DNA result because of the age of the hair.

Dr. Lee's book also contained, which Michelle Kestler did use on how many hairs were needed for compairsons and that these samples should be taken from different sections of the head--apparently there are 5 sections.

In regards to the pattern Dr. Lee saw, he said they could be and if they were, it was not from a Bruno Magli shoe. The cement was not the only place this patterns was.

Dr. Lee gave his opinons about how he was treated, how the evidence was collected and stored. He did not trash Bodizak.

[martin II]

Fgump2,

Michelle Kestler was using a book co-authored by Dr. Lee. 4 hairs were found with roots on it and these four hairs may have been able to produce DNA results. The defense asked to have these samples split and that is when the issue came out about them only needing one hair. Dr. Lee is correct. However, Michelle Kestler said that they could not share any of these samples because she did not know how "strong" the samples were and if they could even get a DNA result because of the age of the hair.

Dr. Lee's book also contained, which Michelle Kestler did use on how many hairs were needed for compairsons and that these samples should be taken from different sections of the head--apparently there are 5 sections.

In regards to the pattern Dr. Lee saw, he said they could be and if they were, it was not from a Bruno Magli shoe. The cement was not the only place this patterns was.

Dr. Lee gave his opinons about how he was treated, how the evidence was collected and stored. He did not trash Bodizak.


I think Lee had only saw pictures when he talked about the prints. HE did say thery could be but the prosecution went to the media and got them to report he definately made a mistake. Many have followed this wrong reporting by saying lee definately identified the prints as recent.
Bodizak. He was just another hired gun FBI type with slight oh hand tricks because he did not have the shoe that made the print.

[martin II]

Henry Lee came in with big credentials. The FBI guy - Bodziak harshly criticized him. Bodziak said that Lee made some serious mistakes. Lee claiming that marks in the cement were marks in blood that the prosecution overlooked isn't a matter of opinion. Lee phototgrahed a footprint which he thought was a crime footprint that the police overlooked, Bodziak said it was a footprint in the cement. I don't call this disagreement a matter of opinion. That the jury continued to think Lee was a reliable witness after this is another reason to have a low opinion of the jury.

"Something wrong" told the jury that it was possible that someone was manipulating blood samples in the lab.That was very big.

[martin II]

Henry Lee came in with big credentials. The FBI guy - Bodziak harshly criticized him. Bodziak said that Lee made some serious mistakes. Lee claiming that marks in the cement were marks in blood that the prosecution overlooked isn't a matter of opinion. Lee phototgrahed a footprint which he thought was a crime footprint that the police overlooked, Bodziak said it was a footprint in the cement. I don't call this disagreement a matter of opinion. That the jury continued to think Lee was a reliable witness after this is another reason to have a low opinion of the jury.

Dr Lees credentials grew during the trial as more people were introduced to him.

[martin II]

You don't have to look closely to see that a person has big hands. That can be seen at a distance. Proves nothing.

These two witnesses said they were surprised after being close to him how big his hands were. I assume they had both been next to other people and just saw regular size hands.

According to them OJS hands were much larger than they would expect a person to have.

These very large MITTS is why Rubins little very fine thin ex large gloves for regular size hands did not fit ojs hands.

[tv]

Dr Lees credentials grew during the trial as more people were introduced to him.

Could you clarify what this means? :confused:

[tv]

These two witnesses said they were surprised after being close to him how big his hands were. I assume they had both been next to other people and just saw regular size hands.

According to them OJS hands were much larger than they would expect a person to have.

These very large MITTS is why Rubins little very fine thin ex large gloves for regular size hands did not fit ojs hands.

The size of his hands doesn't have anything to do with whether or not cuts on them were seen by the people he encounter before and after his trip to Chicago.

[tv]

"Something wrong" told the jury that it was possible that someone was manipulating blood samples in the lab.That was very big.

Do you have a link to that testimony?