Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

The glove demonstration was meaningless becasue the slow motion pictures of OJS putting the gloves on showed he wasn't making an honest effort.

I have never heard of a video showing the integrity of the effort. Please, if you will be so kind, explain how the integrity of Simpson's efforts were shown in the slow motion video?

[martin II]

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

OH

I forgot about that mans jacket that was found on that chair in Nicoles livingroom or kitchen by the first cop to arrive.Riski i believe his name was.The prosecution talked a lot about the ice cream cup they found but not a word again about the jacketimo

[William Anthony]

Exactly. We could have the thumps being made as early as 10:32 or 10:33 and as late as 10:52 to 10:53, neither of which would fit the prosecution's theory, imho.

[William Anthony]

OH

I forgot about that mans jacket that was found on that chair in Nicoles livingroom or kitchen by the first cop to arrive.Riski i believe his name was.The prosecution talked a lot about the ice cream cup they found but not a word again about the jacketimo

Yes, and I forgot the envelopes that Ms. Mazzola testified that she placed her initials on. I know the socks gave LE problems as they disappeared and reappeared. (:))

[martin II]

The glove demonstration was meaningless becasue the slow motion pictures of OJS putting the gloves on showed he wasn't making an honest effort.

I have never heard of a video showing the integrity of the effort. Please, if you will be so kind, explain how the integrity of Simpson's efforts were shown in the slow motion video?

The central problem with the gloves for the prosecution was that ojs hands were larger than the prosecution thought. From memory, Shaperio had hands larger or the size of ojs and he tried on the gloves the night before the demo
and they did not fit him. The prosecution offered the idea that the gloves would shrink from moisture but on cross Cochran asked the expert if his expensive gloves would shrink from a few drops (Forgot how much) of some liquid being applied and he responded NO.
What i think happened for many with the glove demo is that when Darden insisted on doing it. many thought oh, now they got him. This will seal the deal.When the glove did not fit some became angry and made all kinds of accusation against oj, Cochran and even Darden.It was a bitter dissapoint for some. But the facts is that THAT glove did not fit and Darden took a big chance that failed.imo

[William Anthony]

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

bobaugust

As I have said, there may have been a video of the sweat suit in the washing machine, which I did not recall. However, there was no picture of it in the washing machine, were DF or LE allegedly found it, prior to its being photographed. This means that the only thing we can be certain of is that LE placed the sweat suit in the washing machine. I think we agreed that a person should not be convicted on mistakes and human errors. In this case the sweat suit proved nothing but the prosecution claimed it did or should I say would have.

[William Anthony]

Okay.

We may be able to broach the subject if we begin with the idea that the difference in opinion is not a matter of right or wrong and try simply to understand why some feel the way we do. Of course, I realize that this is a touchy subject and will defer to your choice about starting the discsussion.

[martin II]

Yes, and I forgot the envelopes that Ms. Mazzola testified that she placed her initials on. I know the socks gave LE problems as they disappeared and reappeared. (:))

The socks.

Appeared no blood
examined. no blood
examined. no blood
examined. blood.

[GreenIce]

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

TV,

The point about the news report is that the LAPD has to be the only source for that leak. The news also reported blood was found on the socks and they even named who's blood was found on it---yet those socks were not even sent out for testing.

Do you have proof that the sweats weren't collected? Think about all the "evidence" that was totally missed--we have bloody finger print on the back gate at Bundy---no one saw except for Fuhrman and I think Roberts. The bloody fingerprints on the light switch in the laundry room--again, no one saw it except for Fuhrman. The blood drops on Nicole's back that was believed to have come from the killer---washed away. The bloody car keys that the state said they never tested for blood. Does this make any sense to you?

Also, the reality of the situation is that Fung said or the story goes that Fung did not collect the contents of the washing machine because he picked them up, examined them for blood, said there was none so he left them there. Again, that makes no sense. Everybody knows that blood can be present but not able to be seen by the naked eye. How could Fung determine no blood on them by just looking at them at Simpson's house? He gave his reasons why he took the socks but not the clothes? Honestly, does that make sense.

To the best of my knowledge Fung never described the contents of the washing machine that because they were not collected, he could not testify about them in court. Well, what if Fung did pick up the contents and he discovered they were not OJ's because of the size or they were not sweats at all but another material?

It makes no sense that Simpson knew he had to get rid of the shoes and weapon but felt he could just toss the clothes into the washing machine and that would take care of it. Blood is not easy to get out of clothes. I don't remember Kato testify or being asked if he heard a washing machine while in the kitchen with Simpson.

There are reasons why washing machines and laundry rooms are searched, what has been left in the laundry and/or in the laundry room has been the undoing of many who have committed murder.

There have been too many assumptions on the evidence in this case that never should have been made and this is just another one on a very, very long list--IMO.

[GreenIce]

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

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Your post makes no sense about what the detectives knew about what Simpson wore that night. They had already found a hat they believed to worn by the killer. The found dark leather gloves. They found dark dress sockes believed to be worn by the killer---how much common sense did the police need to know that the killer wore dark clothes? Think about, what to most killers wear to their crime?

Even the moron who tried to kill the Marcos wore black---his down fall was that everyone else was wearing white.

Also, Fuhrman asked Kato what he was wearing that night---isn't just as likely that when he was being questioned by the police in Simpson's home if he was asked what Simpson was wearing the last time he saw him?

[GreenIce]

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

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

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

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

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

Martin,

IMO, the reason why Dr. Golden wasn't called to the stand had more to do with his findings that murder more likey happened after 11:00 p.m. On the top of his notes, either he or Claudine Ratcliff wrote that Judy Brown last talked to her daughter about 10:50 that night. Ratcliff asked Mrs. Brown how did she know the time and Mrs. Brown said she looked at the clock.

We have been lead to belive that contents of Nicole's stomach were thrown out, yet the rumor is that they in fact were stolen. Now, I can't think of any reason to steal the contents of someone's stomach as a souviener--granted there are people out there that do collect weird things but I have never heard of a stomach content collector. I know, I live in a sheltered world!

Yet, it is common knowledge that the contents of someone's stomach can help established a timeline. IMO, the stomach contents were either stolen or they were trashed on purpose. The timeline was at stake.

I do think that Dr. Golden's testimony regarding the possibililty of 2 knifes is valid, however the DA's could work around that---they couldn't work around the timeline. IMO.

[GreenIce]

As I have said, there may have been a video of the sweat suit in the washing machine, which I did not recall. However, there was no picture of it in the washing machine, were DF or LE allegedly found it, prior to its being photographed. This means that the only thing we can be certain of is that LE placed the sweat suit in the washing machine. I think we agreed that a person should not be convicted on mistakes and human errors. In this case the sweat suit proved nothing but the prosecution claimed it did or should I say would have.

William,

The picture I saw was in MF's book. However, wouldn't it be interesting if the only picture of this was in MF's book? If Clark's book does not have a picture of this, what does that tell you?

[GreenIce]

The central problem with the gloves for the prosecution was that ojs hands were larger than the prosecution thought. From memory, Shaperio had hands larger or the size of ojs and he tried on the gloves the night before the demo
and they did not fit him. The prosecution offered the idea that the gloves would shrink from moisture but on cross Cochran asked the expert if his expensive gloves would shrink from a few drops (Forgot how much) of some liquid being applied and he responded NO.
What i think happened for many with the glove demo is that when Darden insisted on doing it. many thought oh, now they got him. This will seal the deal.When the glove did not fit some became angry and made all kinds of accusation against oj, Cochran and even Darden.It was a bitter dissapoint for some. But the facts is that THAT glove did not fit and Darden took a big chance that failed.imo

Martin,

As you know, I totally blame Marcia Clark for that glove demonstration. I have no doubts at all that she knew those gloves were not going to fit and she knew why they weren't going to fit. She should have ordered Darden not to do it and warned him if he did do it, he was fired. Marcia was first chair and Darden was second.

All the DA's knew that there was no significant shirnkage in the glove. How long have the been freezing-unfreezing evidence and they just figured it out in the Simpson case this is a bad idea?

What most people don't know about the gloves is that the true size has never been revealed, the model number of the gloves was on the sales receipt but it was the wrong one. Jerry Rubin, the glove man, corrected this, yet he left the company a few years earlier but he still could recall the model numbers of the gloves?

I also have hard time with because Bloomingdales is a high profile shopping destination--are to believe at in 1990, one of the busies shopping places in the City of New York, their clerks were still hand writing all the receipts? I may wrong but I am pretty sure that barcode system and scanning had been around since the mid 80's.

Another point on the "wrong" model numbers, well what model of gloves matched up with it? What are the chances that if this was a mistake that the mistake would be another set of gloves? And why did Rubin testify when they had the actual sales clerk cooling her heels in the witness room?

[GreenIce]

TV,

The point of what Nicole was wearing was sending a message to OJ Simpson. Remember when Kato was testify about what Simpson's comments were about that? She was sending a message to Simpson that she was dressed to go out that night and not with her kids or her family. Did that mean she was actually going out, no but it does mean she was making it clear that in terms of her social life, she was moving on. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

As you know, I totally blame Marcia Clark for that glove demonstration. I have no doubts at all that she knew those gloves were not going to fit and she knew why they weren't going to fit. She should have ordered Darden not to do it and warned him if he did do it, he was fired. Marcia was first chair and Darden was second.

All the DA's knew that there was no significant shirnkage in the glove. How long have the been freezing-unfreezing evidence and they just figured it out in the Simpson case this is a bad idea?

What most people don't know about the gloves is that the true size has never been revealed, the model number of the gloves was on the sales receipt but it was the wrong one. Jerry Rubin, the glove man, corrected this, yet he left the company a few years earlier but he still could recall the model numbers of the gloves?

I also have hard time with because Bloomingdales is a high profile shopping destination--are to believe at in 1990, one of the busies shopping places in the City of New York, their clerks were still hand writing all the receipts? I may wrong but I am pretty sure that barcode system and scanning had been around since the mid 80's.

Another point on the "wrong" model numbers, well what model of gloves matched up with it? What are the chances that if this was a mistake that the mistake would be another set of gloves? And why did Rubin testify when they had the actual sales clerk cooling her heels in the witness room?


Some time ago i did read a report that Clarke knew the glove would not fit but Darden was hot to trot she allowed it knowing that the case was in trouble and if they lost, Darden could be blamed.
Which is exactly what happened.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the reason why Dr. Golden wasn't called to the stand had more to do with his findings that murder more likey happened after 11:00 p.m. On the top of his notes, either he or Claudine Ratcliff wrote that Judy Brown last talked to her daughter about 10:50 that night. Ratcliff asked Mrs. Brown how did she know the time and Mrs. Brown said she looked at the clock.

We have been lead to belive that contents of Nicole's stomach were thrown out, yet the rumor is that they in fact were stolen. Now, I can't think of any reason to steal the contents of someone's stomach as a souviener--granted there are people out there that do collect weird things but I have never heard of a stomach content collector. I know, I live in a sheltered world!

Yet, it is common knowledge that the contents of someone's stomach can help established a timeline. IMO, the stomach contents were either stolen or they were trashed on purpose. The timeline was at stake.

I do think that Dr. Golden's testimony regarding the possibililty of 2 knifes is valid, however the DA's could work around that---they couldn't work around the timeline. IMO.


How can a autopsy be performed in the presence of le Detectives, i think Vanhatter was present,and others and the stomach contents of Nicole just got lost.These contents would be a good clue as to what time she died and digestion stopped.I wonder what the jury thought about this issue.

[martin II]

Considering how le handeled the sweats and since the DA was not able to present them in court, i doubt they meant anything important in the case.

[William Anthony]

TV,

The point about the news report is that the LAPD has to be the only source for that leak. The news also reported blood was found on the socks and they even named who's blood was found on it---yet those socks were not even sent out for testing.

Do you have proof that the sweats weren't collected? Think about all the "evidence" that was totally missed--we have bloody finger print on the back gate at Bundy---no one saw except for Fuhrman and I think Roberts. The bloody fingerprints on the light switch in the laundry room--again, no one saw it except for Fuhrman. The blood drops on Nicole's back that was believed to have come from the killer---washed away. The bloody car keys that the state said they never tested for blood. Does this make any sense to you?

Also, the reality of the situation is that Fung said or the story goes that Fung did not collect the contents of the washing machine because he picked them up, examined them for blood, said there was none so he left them there. Again, that makes no sense. Everybody knows that blood can be present but not able to be seen by the naked eye. How could Fung determine no blood on them by just looking at them at Simpson's house? He gave his reasons why he took the socks but not the clothes? Honestly, does that make sense.

To the best of my knowledge Fung never described the contents of the washing machine that because they were not collected, he could not testify about them in court. Well, what if Fung did pick up the contents and he discovered they were not OJ's because of the size or they were not sweats at all but another material?

It makes no sense that Simpson knew he had to get rid of the shoes and weapon but felt he could just toss the clothes into the washing machine and that would take care of it. Blood is not easy to get out of clothes. I don't remember Kato testify or being asked if he heard a washing machine while in the kitchen with Simpson.

There are reasons why washing machines and laundry rooms are searched, what has been left in the laundry and/or in the laundry room has been the undoing of many who have committed murder.

There have been too many assumptions on the evidence in this case that never should have been made and this is just another one on a very, very long list--IMO.

I agree. If we assume that Simpson is the murderer, then you have to assume this and that, because a person assumes Simpson is the murderer.

[William Anthony]

William,

The picture I saw was in MF's book. However, wouldn't it be interesting if the only picture of this was in MF's book? If Clark's book does not have a picture of this, what does that tell you?

I wonder if MF was asked did he know where the sweatsuit went.

[William Anthony]

The problem begins with if we presume that Simpson is not the murderer (presumption of innocence) then the prosecution must provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (not based on assumptions) that Simpson and only Simpson committed these murders. That is the way that the system is supposed to work and that is what the magnificent one and the dream team reminded the jury.

[weezer]

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

there was blood at Bundy to the left of the footprints -- blood that testing proved to be orenthal's and guess what? orenthal had a cut on his left hand! :eek:

The shower drain did prove positive for blood -- just not enough to test for DNA.

what about orenthal's animus for Nicole? what about the history of abuse, threats, and stalking? seems to me that his conduct was much more relevant to the trial than 'words' written for a screenplay.

[weezer]

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

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

it was the afternoon of her recital -- he could have caught an earlier flight out that would have put him in his hotel at bedtime. I believe he thought he'd be spending the evening with Nicole, kids and family.

[weezer]

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

August 2, 1995 (92k zip) -- Defense DNA expert John Gerdes said LAPD has "persistent and chronic" contamination problems.

August 3, 1995 (92k zip) -- Defense DNA expert John Gerdes said he had no confidence in blood samples taken from Simpson's Bronco.

August 4, 1995 (61k zip) -- Defense DNA expert John Gerdes conceded that Simpson's blood samples were not contaminated during a critical stage in evidence gathering.

[William Anthony]

there was blood at Bundy to the left of the footprints -- blood that testing proved to be orenthal's and guess what? orenthal had a cut on his left hand! :eek:

The shower drain did prove positive for blood -- just not enough to test for DNA.

what about orenthal's animus for Nicole? what about the history of abuse, threats, and stalking? seems to me that his conduct was much more relevant to the trial than 'words' written for a screenplay.

You are talking about blood that was collected after Simpson gave his sample. The presumptive tests are not allowed in court because they yield false positives and, consequently, we can not confirm that was blood.

The prosecution put forth that evidence but the defense combated it. The one thing that the prosecution did not combat and admitted to was that MF was a racist and a liar, or his hatred of interracial couples. In fairness to the prosecution, they only questioned that MF would have made those statements to those people, which, to me, means he would have made them others he could trust, such as those members of LE who he felt he could trust. Therefore, the record established evidence of motive, means and opportunity in regard to the planting of the glove by MF, and the blood trail found at Rockingham contradicts the prosecution's theory of how the glove got to the location but is in line with Simpson's story that he cut his hand reaching for his cell phone or accessories prior to going into his home to ready himself for his planned flight.

[William Anthony]

August 2, 1995 (92k zip) -- Defense DNA expert John Gerdes said LAPD has "persistent and chronic" contamination problems.

August 3, 1995 (92k zip) -- Defense DNA expert John Gerdes said he had no confidence in blood samples taken from Simpson's Bronco.

August 4, 1995 (61k zip) -- Defense DNA expert John Gerdes conceded that Simpson's blood samples were not contaminated during a critical stage in evidence gathering.

What blood samples and what happened at the cesspool of a lab, in regard to the mixtures?

[weezer]

:tongue:Martin,

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

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

girl -- I don't know where in the world you come up with some of this stuff! LOL

the sweats were photographed in the washing machine along with women's lingerie and, no, none were taken for testing. I guess they didn't know at the time that orenthal liked to wear women's lingerie under his sweats! :eek::tongue:

[William Anthony]

it was the afternoon of her recital -- he could have caught an earlier flight out that would have put him in his hotel at bedtime. I believe he thought he'd be spending the evening with Nicole, kids and family.

Perhaps, this is what he thought. There would have been no reason to change his flight. I am not familiar enough with the flight schedules to tell how he could have rescheduled. So, the assumption would be, that because we assume Simpson is the killer, he did not change his flight plans, therefore, Simpson is the killer, correct?

[weezer]

TV,

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

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

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

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

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

Makes no sense, IMO.

LOL -- wow!

Faye never changed her story and there were not multiple calls.

Cora F didn't know what Nicole's plans were for that evening. At the time of her death, Nicole and Cora were not on the best of terms because Nicole was angry that Cora was using their friendship to hide her (Cora's) affair with the grocery store boy.

Nicole knew who was following her: orenthal

orenthal knew she was home because he called and (I believe) was the 'friend' that Sydney said called and made her mother cry.

Kato never remarked on how Nicole was dressed -- he hadn't seen her. orenthal made the remark to Kato after the recital.

I don't think there's a big mystery as to why Ron was at Nicole's that night. She called him and asked if he'd drop off the glasses.

We know why Nicole was scared that night and probably every night that she knew orenthal was in town!

[martin II]

I wonder if MF was asked did he know where the sweatsuit went.

GEES
you think he took it home to put in the book he planned to write?

[weezer]

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

link please to the sweatsuit being taken for examination and being non-fitting.

[William Anthony]

GEES
you think he took it home to put in the book he planned to write?

I think someone was collecting memorabilia.

[martin II]

there was blood at Bundy to the left of the footprints -- blood that testing proved to be orenthal's and guess what? orenthal had a cut on his left hand! :eek:

The shower drain did prove positive for blood -- just not enough to test for DNA.

what about orenthal's animus for Nicole? what about the history of abuse, threats, and stalking? seems to me that his conduct was much more relevant to the trial than 'words' written for a screenplay.

No blood was found in the shower or sink pipes.
no blood was found in the washing machine.

The 1989 event of abuse was too far from 6/12 to come to a conclusion that he killed her.
imo

[William Anthony]

link please to the sweatsuit being taken for examination and being non-fitting.

I am good but do not have electronic link to my thoughts or beliefs, if you will.

I believe it was examined and determined like the gloves that it did not fit

What about the links to you claim that Simpson was a hoodlum in his youth and that pigeon-toed shoe prints were found at Bundy?

[fgump2]

The glove demonstration was meaningless becasue the slow motion pictures of OJS putting the gloves on showed he wasn't making an honest effort.

I have never heard of a video showing the integrity of the effort. Please, if you will be so kind, explain how the integrity of Simpson's efforts were shown in the slow motion video?



The video showed that OJS was spreading his fingers as did his glove demo. A person making an honest effort to put gloves on wouldn't do that.
I must admit I haven't studied this case as well as other have (or seem to have). I don't plan on doing that.


I think a lot of the defenses attempts to make the LAPD look incompetent were misleading at best. One of the things the defense scored a lot of points on was in asking the prosecution people (mostly criminologists) about what they did several months earlier. I think anyone would have trouble with this. I believe this mostly because what I know to be true about forensic memory. I also think that if the defense had much evidence of serious mistakes by the prosecution they wouldn't have bothered with this. I thought of this as petty harassment that made the defense look worse than the prosecution. I don't like to see people treated in this manner. I don't like rich people like J. Cochran who drag other people's names through the mud, especially people who don’t have the resources to fight back.

I don't know how to evaluate the blood under the fingernail, and I don't think you do either. I wouldn't be surprised if scientific research in the last 14 years or so might shed some new light on this.

Could you show me how giving all the time estimates 7-8 minutes of error margin makes the prosecution time line implausible? One of the things I wondered about at the time was the time the dog started barking. In the news media at the time was that some reporters thought that there was such a wide range of times for when people thought the dog started barking that some reporters thought there might have been 2 barking dogs. I thought at the time that if there were be two barking dogs, then the cops should have been able to spot that by making a map of where and when various people first heard a barking dog. If there were 2 barking dogs that should have shown up in the sense that people in one location heard one dog and people in anther location heard another dog. Since we know about where Nicole's dog was when it started barking, that might have shed some more light on when that dog started barking. My guess is that there was only one barking dog, and just more proof that people's memories are often inaccurate.

[weezer]

TV,

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

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

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

Oh my!

There were no reports that the sweat were taken and tested for blood -- because they weren't.

it's a popular belief that if the women's lingerie in the washer with the sweats weren't orenthal's, then they just might have belonged to the 'insider'.

Fung didn't hold up the sweats and see blood -- LOL. the sweats had recently been washed -- along with the women's lingerie.

the sweats were not included in the first search warrant because at the time of the first warrant, there had been no reports of what orenthal was wearing that night.

[martin II]

there was blood at Bundy to the left of the footprints -- blood that testing proved to be orenthal's and guess what? orenthal had a cut on his left hand! :eek:

The shower drain did prove positive for blood -- just not enough to test for DNA.

what about orenthal's animus for Nicole? what about the history of abuse, threats, and stalking? seems to me that his conduct was much more relevant to the trial than 'words' written for a screenplay.

The prosecution never charged oj with abuse,stalking or threats as they knew there was no proof. just guesses by some and rumors by others.imo

[weezer]

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

why is it assumed that Fuhrman's reaction to clark and darden hugging had anything to do with race? why couldn't it have just been that Fuhrman saw it as unprofessional?

[martin II]

Oh my!

There were no reports that the sweat were taken and tested for blood -- because they weren't.

it's a popular belief that if the women's lingerie in the washer with the sweats weren't orenthal's, then they just might have belonged to the 'insider'.

Fung didn't hold up the sweats and see blood -- LOL. the sweats had recently been washed -- along with the women's lingerie.

the sweats were not included in the first search warrant because at the time of the first warrant, there had been no reports of what orenthal was wearing that night.

The sweats meant nothing in the case and i think fung thought so as he saw no blood on them or in the machine.imo

[martin II]

why is it assumed that Fuhrman's reaction to clark and darden hugging had anything to do with race? why couldn't it have just been that Fuhrman saw it as unprofessional?

Clarke and Darden knew more about Furhman than most. They thought his reaction was about his racial attitudes.imo

Furhman was not thinking about being professional when he said he did not want Darden to handle him.

[martin II]

Oh my!

There were no reports that the sweat were taken and tested for blood -- because they weren't.

it's a popular belief that if the women's lingerie in the washer with the sweats weren't orenthal's, then they just might have belonged to the 'insider'.

Fung didn't hold up the sweats and see blood -- LOL. the sweats had recently been washed -- along with the women's lingerie.

the sweats were not included in the first search warrant because at the time of the first warrant, there had been no reports of what orenthal was wearing that night.

There was no report or proof that those sweats were at ojs house after the last le left.

[William Anthony]

why is it assumed that Fuhrman's reaction to clark and darden hugging had anything to do with race? why couldn't it have just been that Fuhrman saw it as unprofessional?

Because I believe that the display was a test to see his reaction to the testimony about his hatred of interracial couples. If MF thought it was unprofessional, and I don't think he has authored a book on ethics yet, (which I would not purchase) then why did he not ask Mr. Darden why he allowed Ms. Clark to hang on him like a cheap suit, other than for the obvious reasons that he thought Ms. Clark and he might think alike.

[William Anthony]

The video showed that OJS was spreading his fingers as did his glove demo. A person making an honest effort to put gloves on wouldn't do that.
I must admit I haven't studied this case as well as other have (or seem to have). I don't plan on doing that.


I think a lot of the defenses attempts to make the LAPD look incompetent were misleading at best. One of the things the defense scored a lot of points on was in asking the prosecution people (mostly criminologists) about what they did several months earlier. I think anyone would have trouble with this. I believe this mostly because what I know to be true about forensic memory. I also think that if the defense had much evidence of serious mistakes by the prosecution they wouldn't have bothered with this. I thought of this as petty harassment that made the defense look worse than the prosecution. I don't like to see people treated in this manner. I don't like rich people like J. Cochran who drag other people's names through the mud, especially people who don’t have the resources to fight back.

I don't know how to evaluate the blood under the fingernail, and I don't think you do either. I wouldn't be surprised if scientific research in the last 14 years or so might shed some new light on this.

Could you show me how giving all the time estimates 7-8 minutes of error margin makes the prosecution time line implausible? One of the things I wondered about at the time was the time the dog started barking. In the news media at the time was that some reporters thought that there was such a wide range of times for when people thought the dog started barking that some reporters thought there might have been 2 barking dogs. I thought at the time that if there were be two barking dogs, then the cops should have been able to spot that by making a map of where and when various people first heard a barking dog. If there were 2 barking dogs that should have shown up in the sense that people in one location heard one dog and people in anther location heard another dog. Since we know about where Nicole's dog was when it started barking, that might have shed some more light on when that dog started barking. My guess is that there was only one barking dog, and just more proof that people's memories are often inaccurate.

I thought that I had answered this before but my answers did not post. I have large hands and I spread my fingers to see if the gloves fit when trying them on.

I am sure you know that there were records available for the witnesses to review before they testified. The problem was that the records did not match the videos of what they did and their testimonies contradicted the records. The point is that the prosecution tried unsuccessfully to hide the fact that a novice collected most of the evidence and that made them lose credibility, imho.

I know what testimony the jury heard about the degradation of the blood under the fingernails and how a prosecution witness tried to say that the blood degraded in a manner inconsistent with the scientific literature.

I have already shown you how a seven or 8 minute disparity makes the time line implausible. According to the prosecution, Simpson was committing murder and was seen by the limo driver at ten fifty-two, by phone records. The testimony is what it is and that is what those jurors were called to evaluate and draw inferences from and they did, saying the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

The video showed that OJS was spreading his fingers as did his glove demo. A person making an honest effort to put gloves on wouldn't do that.
I must admit I haven't studied this case as well as other have (or seem to have). I don't plan on doing that.


I think a lot of the defenses attempts to make the LAPD look incompetent were misleading at best. One of the things the defense scored a lot of points on was in asking the prosecution people (mostly criminologists) about what they did several months earlier. I think anyone would have trouble with this. I believe this mostly because what I know to be true about forensic memory. I also think that if the defense had much evidence of serious mistakes by the prosecution they wouldn't have bothered with this. I thought of this as petty harassment that made the defense look worse than the prosecution. I don't like to see people treated in this manner. I don't like rich people like J. Cochran who drag other people's names through the mud, especially people who don’t have the resources to fight back.

I don't know how to evaluate the blood under the fingernail, and I don't think you do either. I wouldn't be surprised if scientific research in the last 14 years or so might shed some new light on this.

Could you show me how giving all the time estimates 7-8 minutes of error margin makes the prosecution time line implausible? One of the things I wondered about at the time was the time the dog started barking. In the news media at the time was that some reporters thought that there was such a wide range of times for when people thought the dog started barking that some reporters thought there might have been 2 barking dogs. I thought at the time that if there were be two barking dogs, then the cops should have been able to spot that by making a map of where and when various people first heard a barking dog. If there were 2 barking dogs that should have shown up in the sense that people in one location heard one dog and people in anther location heard another dog. Since we know about where Nicole's dog was when it started barking, that might have shed some more light on when that dog started barking. My guess is that there was only one barking dog, and just more proof that people's memories are often inaccurate.


Some neighbors testified they heard the dog first bark at 10:05 10:10(the lady next door to Nicole.Stein was her name) others said they heard it at about 10:30. Lady across the street from Nicole. Heidstra said he first heard it when he arrived at Bundy and Gorham at 10:35.Another lady at Bundy and Dorthy gave another time.(one house from nicole and across the street) So how do we know when that dog started barking.

We also don't know how that dog got out of Nicoles front yard through the closed gate.

The dog was a interesting issue but in the end i am not sure it proved much as we were trying to solve the murders based on when a dog barked.

There were actually two dogs barking. The Akita and the black dog that lived in the house in the alley where Heidstra was standing at 10:40.across bundy from nicole.imo

[martin II]

The video showed that OJS was spreading his fingers as did his glove demo. A person making an honest effort to put gloves on wouldn't do that.
I must admit I haven't studied this case as well as other have (or seem to have). I don't plan on doing that.


I think a lot of the defenses attempts to make the LAPD look incompetent were misleading at best. One of the things the defense scored a lot of points on was in asking the prosecution people (mostly criminologists) about what they did several months earlier. I think anyone would have trouble with this. I believe this mostly because what I know to be true about forensic memory. I also think that if the defense had much evidence of serious mistakes by the prosecution they wouldn't have bothered with this. I thought of this as petty harassment that made the defense look worse than the prosecution. I don't like to see people treated in this manner. I don't like rich people like J. Cochran who drag other people's names through the mud, especially people who don’t have the resources to fight back.

I don't know how to evaluate the blood under the fingernail, and I don't think you do either. I wouldn't be surprised if scientific research in the last 14 years or so might shed some new light on this.

Could you show me how giving all the time estimates 7-8 minutes of error margin makes the prosecution time line implausible? One of the things I wondered about at the time was the time the dog started barking. In the news media at the time was that some reporters thought that there was such a wide range of times for when people thought the dog started barking that some reporters thought there might have been 2 barking dogs. I thought at the time that if there were be two barking dogs, then the cops should have been able to spot that by making a map of where and when various people first heard a barking dog. If there were 2 barking dogs that should have shown up in the sense that people in one location heard one dog and people in anther location heard another dog. Since we know about where Nicole's dog was when it started barking, that might have shed some more light on when that dog started barking. My guess is that there was only one barking dog, and just more proof that people's memories are often inaccurate.


Everytime i put on my gloves i must spread my fingers a bit to allow my fingers to go into each individual finger channel. i know of no other way to put gloves on.
Adding 7-8 minutes to all times changes all the timeline events. oj would be seen by park at 10:59 and his clock would be wrong.JS would have been in the market and could not have seen oj. heidstra would have been in front of his house and would not have see the white suv. Fung would have been wrong when he said Vanhatter gave him the blood even though he was seen on media video. etc etc etc
That is a non starter. imo

[martin II]

Because I believe that the display was a test to see his reaction to the testimony about his hatred of interracial couples. If MF thought it was unprofessional, and I don't think he has authored a book on ethics yet, (which I would not purchase) then why did he not ask Mr. Darden why he allowed Ms. Clark to hang on him like a cheap suit, other than for the obvious reasons that he thought Ms. Clark and he might think alike.

Thats it. What furhman didn't know according to many media reports Clarke and Darden has been hanging on each other up stairs in their office before. If he had known that he would have handcuffed both of them. hahaha

[weezer]

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

and that's exactly what the picture of the sweat depict.

[fgump2]

I thought that I had answered this before but my answers did not post. I have large hands and I spread my fingers to see if the gloves fit when trying them on.

I am sure you know that there were records available for the witnesses to review before they testified. The problem was that the records did not match the videos of what they did and their testimonies contradicted the records. The point is that the prosecution tried unsuccessfully to hide the fact that a novice collected most of the evidence and that made them lose credibility, imho.

I know what testimony the jury heard about the degradation of the blood under the fingernails and how a prosecution witness tried to say that the blood degraded in a manner inconsistent with the scientific literature.

I have already shown you how a seven or 8 minute disparity makes the time line implausible. According to the prosecution, Simpson was committing murder and was seen by the limo driver at ten fifty-two, by phone records. The testimony is what it is and that is what those jurors were called to evaluate and draw inferences from and they did, saying the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.


I don't think I ever saw the pictures of OJS saying the gloves didn't fit. I don't see why having large hands would make a difference. People with large hands usually have large gloves, if the glove fits. People with small hands have small gloves. If we took a slow motion picture of people with different size hands trying on gloves I don't think we could tell which people have large hands and which people have small hands. I suppose this is one of those cases in which it would be interesting to find some neutral observers (Outer Mongolia maybe) and get them to watch and pass judgment.

If DNA testing is junk science or an art, I don't see how you can be so sure of the meaning of the blood under the fingernail. Remember, art is about beauty and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In any case I am not going to pretend to be an expert. At most it would reduce the credibility of the evidence a little. But it isn't proof that the evidence was planted.

When the criminologists went to the stand, they probably didn't realize they were going to be quizzed about what they did 4-5 earlier and then have that compared to a movie. Some of them may have been naive enough to think that they would be questioned about how the evidence was processed, and how reliable it was.
I have heard about experiments in the natural sciences (physics for example) being rejected, but never because one of the technical people couldn't remember what they did 4 or 5 months earlier.
Are you going to give me an explanation about why Gerdes couldn't find any case in which the LAPD lab blew it completely? To me his testimony about 'cesspool of contamination', or 'garbage in garbage out', and then not backing it up with specific cases of innocent people in jail, or guilty people on the streets, didn’t make much sense. It would be like someone complaining that a pile of books was a 'cesspool of misspelled words' and then not showing specific examples of it. He did try to s how some specific examples of it, but to me the prosecution did a good job of refuting it, and he never even attempted (as far as I know) to show how these alleged mistakes made a mess out of a specific case. I think he examined 2 years worth of data.

I didn't see where that discrepancy would make the time line invalid; but realisitically the time estimates may have been more than 7 or 8 minutes off. I don't claim to be enough of an expert to put realistic guidelines on how much allowance we should make for time estimate errors.

[weezer]

I am good but do not have electronic link to my thoughts or beliefs, if you will.



What about the links to you claim that Simpson was a hoodlum in his youth and that pigeon-toed shoe prints were found at Bundy?

good Lord william! your tactic isn't working -- I've posted those --

[martin II]

I don't think I ever saw the pictures of OJS saying the gloves didn't fit. I don't see why having large hands would make a difference. People with large hands usually have large gloves, if the glove fits. People with small hands have small gloves. If we took a slow motion picture of people with different size hands trying on gloves I don't think we could tell which people have large hands and which people have small hands. I suppose this is one of those cases in which it would be interesting to find some neutral observers (Outer Mongolia maybe) and get them to watch and pass judgment.

If DNA testing is junk science or an art, I don't see how you can be so sure of the meaning of the blood under the fingernail. Remember, art is about beauty and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In any case I am not going to pretend to be an expert. At most it would reduce the credibility of the evidence a little. But it isn't proof that the evidence was planted.

When the criminologists went to the stand, they probably didn't realize they were going to be quizzed about what they did 4-5 earlier and then have that compared to a movie. Some of them may have been naive enough to think that they would be questioned about how the evidence was processed, and how reliable it was.
I have heard about experiments in the natural sciences (physics for example) being rejected, but never because one of the technical people couldn't remember what they did 4 or 5 months earlier.
Are you going to give me an explanation about why Gerdes couldn't find any case in which the LAPD lab blew it completely? To me his testimony about 'cesspool of contamination', or 'garbage in garbage out', and then not backing it up with specific cases of innocent people in jail, or guilty people on the streets, didn’t make much sense. It would be like someone complaining that a pile of books was a 'cesspool of misspelled words' and then not showing specific examples of it. He did try to s how some specific examples of it, but to me the prosecution did a good job of refuting it, and he never even attempted (as far as I know) to show how these alleged mistakes made a mess out of a specific case. I think he examined 2 years worth of data.

I didn't see where that discrepancy would make the time line invalid; but realisitically the time estimates may have been more than 7 or 8 minutes off. I don't claim to be enough of an expert to put realistic guidelines on how much allowance we should make for time estimate errors.


i answered your question about Gerdis.

If the personds hands are larger than the glove size the glove will not fit.
ojs hands were larger than the gloves he was asked to try on.
oj had very thick plams and back hand that did not allow him to put his hands into the gloves.

Most of us here learned the facts of the cases by reading testimony before posting.

[martin II]

and that's exactly what the picture of the sweat depict.


the sweats were photographed in the machine. one could not tell if they belonged to a man, a 7 yeard old little girl or a midget.

[martin II]

good Lord william! your tactic isn't working -- I've posted those --

you never did.

[fgump2]

Everytime i put on my gloves i must spread my fingers a bit to allow my fingers to go into each individual finger channel. i know of no other way to put gloves on.
Adding 7-8 minutes to all times changes all the timeline events. oj would be seen by park at 10:59 and his clock would be wrong.JS would have been in the market and could not have seen oj. heidstra would have been in front of his house and would not have see the white suv. Fung would have been wrong when he said Vanhatter gave him the blood even though he was seen on media video. etc etc etc
That is a non starter. imo


I think he faked it with the gloves, but I don't know enough to press the issue. I think I saw magazine picture which looked to me like he was spreading his hands too much to be making an honest effort. I tried on some gloves, and for me it was easier with the fingers not spread. In any case I thought if was foolish to think that an actor couldn't fake it.
I may have not expressed myself correctly when I wrote ' add 7-8 minutes to the time estimates'. I meant to write something like, give each time estimate 7-8 minutes of error margin in either direction. I other words if the person said about 10:30, it should mean about 10:23 to 10:37. Actually I think an expert on forensic memory or an experienced detective woulld give error margin than that; but I don't claim to be an expert. I remember once I was talking with a friend, and I said I thought it was a certain time, and looked at my watch and realized I was about an hour off.

[weezer]

I think he faked it with the gloves, but I don't know enough to press the issue. I think I saw magazine picture which looked to me like he was spreading his hands too much to be making an honest effort. I tried on some gloves, and for me it was easier with the fingers not spread. In any case I thought if was foolish to think that an actor couldn't fake it.
I may have not expressed myself correctly when I wrote ' add 7-8 minutes to the time estimates'. I meant to write something like, give each time estimate 7-8 minutes of error margin in either direction. I other words if the person said about 10:30, it should mean about 10:23 to 10:37. Actually I think an expert on forensic memory or an experienced detective woulld give error margin than that; but I don't claim to be an expert. I remember once I was talking with a friend, and I said I thought it was a certain time, and looked at my watch and realized I was about an hour off.

criminal jurors Carrie Bess and Marsha Rubin-Jackson (Dateline interview)

". . .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." . . .

[weezer]

same interview:

". . .10/18/96 - 07:39 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday.

"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case. . ."

[fgump2]

i answered your question about Gerdis.

If the personds hands are larger than the glove size the glove will not fit.
ojs hands were larger than the gloves he was asked to try on.
oj had very thick plams and back hand that did not allow him to put his hands into the gloves.

Most of us here learned the facts of the cases by reading testimony before posting.

I don't think you answered my question about Gerdes. You said that others said the same thing. I doubt that, they may have criticized the lab, but if the criticized it that harshly, 'cesspool of contamination', and then couldn't find any specific cases to back that up, I would reject that also. A police lab can be pretty accurate, and still be badly in need of improvement. If a police lab is 99% accurate on each sample, that is pretty good, but if it could be more accurate for the same money, there is room for improvement. If they still send and innocent person to prison, their errors, however few, stand out. The innocent person in prison won't like it. In this case we have a variety of evidence, the victems blood in the car, OJS blood at the crime scene, and othe evidence unrelated to DNA. I would be very reluctant to send someone to prison if the only piece of evidence is the DNA in a spot of blood. To me the scenarios the defense created to explain how carelessness could explain the blood evidence are impossible. Contamination can't explain it.

[weezer]

I don't think you answered my question about Gerdes. You said that others said the same thing. I doubt that, they may have criticized the lab, but if the criticized it that harshly, 'cesspool of contamination', and then couldn't find any specific cases to back that up, I would reject that also. A police lab can be pretty accurate, and still be badly in need of improvement. If a police lab is 99% accurate on each sample, that is pretty good, but if it could be more accurate for the same money, there is room for improvement. If they still send and innocent person to prison, their errors, however few, stand out. The innocent person in prison won't like it. In this case we have a variety of evidence, the victems blood in the car, OJS blood at the crime scene, and othe evidence unrelated to DNA. I would be very reluctant to send someone to prison if the only piece of evidence is the DNA in a spot of blood. To me the scenarios the defense created to explain how carelessness could explain the blood evidence are impossible. Contamination can't explain it.

". . .odds that it was someone's other than Simpson's blood found near the bodies of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman at 1out of 240,000. That is an increase from the previously expressed odds of 1 out of 5,200 on the basis of testing done at Cellmark Diagnostics.

The numbers show how many people have a certain type of DNA pattern, and are used to help narrow the possibility that a particular person's known genetic signature matches that of a collected stain.

The chances that it was someone other than Nicole Simpson's blood on the sock found at the foot of Simpson's bed soared to an astronomical level -- the combined calculations being 1 out of 21 billion, Sims said. By comparison, Cellmark put the calculation at 1 out of 9.7 billion. . ."

[martin II]

Oh my!

There were no reports that the sweat were taken and tested for blood -- because they weren't.

it's a popular belief that if the women's lingerie in the washer with the sweats weren't orenthal's, then they just might have belonged to the 'insider'.

Fung didn't hold up the sweats and see blood -- LOL. the sweats had recently been washed -- along with the women's lingerie.

the sweats were not included in the first search warrant because at the time of the first warrant, there had been no reports of what orenthal was wearing that night.

There had been no report on the towel or the socks either.

[martin II]

". . .odds that it was someone's other than Simpson's blood found near the bodies of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman at 1out of 240,000. That is an increase from the previously expressed odds of 1 out of 5,200 on the basis of testing done at Cellmark Diagnostics.

The numbers show how many people have a certain type of DNA pattern, and are used to help narrow the possibility that a particular person's known genetic signature matches that of a collected stain.

The chances that it was someone other than Nicole Simpson's blood on the sock found at the foot of Simpson's bed soared to an astronomical level -- the combined calculations being 1 out of 21 billion, Sims said. By comparison, Cellmark put the calculation at 1 out of 9.7 billion. . ."

what day do you believe the lab deposited ojs blood on the socks.

[weezer]

- DNA evidence proved that five blood drops found near the killer's footprints at the Bundy murder scene belong to OJ.

- DNA evidence showed that OJ's blood trail from his Bronco to his Rockingham estate included: one blood drop behind the Bronco on the street (Rockingham), one on the driveway just inside the Rochingham gate, three more on the driveway leading to the front door of Simpson's residence, five on the floor of the foyer and one on the bathroom floor.

- DNA test proved that spots of blood on the driver's door of the Bronco was OJ's.

- DNA tests proved that three blood stains found on the rear gate of Nicole's home belonged to OJ.

- DNA tests proved that in at least one blood drop found at the Bundy murder scene, the chances of it belonging to anyone but OJ are about 170 million to one.

- Just on the blood evidence alone, there's only one out of 57 billion chance that Simpson is innocent. Fifty-seven billion is approximately 10 times the current population of the entire world.

- Blood on socks in OJ's bedroom matches OJ's and Nicole's.

- Tests show that three stains on the Bronco's console were a mixture of OJ's blood with that of both of the victims. Another console stain is a mixture of OJ's and Ron's blood, and Nicole's blood was found on the driver's side carpet.

- Nicole's DNA in blood found on OJ's socks, occurs in olny 1 out of 21 billion people.

- DNA from Ron Goldman's blood found on the Rockingham glove, has only a 1-in-41 billion chance of belonging to someone else.

- Cellmark, the nation's largest private DNA laboratory, ran 11 genetic tests on blood drops found at the crime scene and on a blood drop found in OJ's house - and every test matched it with OJ's blood.

[martin II]

I don't think you answered my question about Gerdes. You said that others said the same thing. I doubt that, they may have criticized the lab, but if the criticized it that harshly, 'cesspool of contamination', and then couldn't find any specific cases to back that up, I would reject that also. A police lab can be pretty accurate, and still be badly in need of improvement. If a police lab is 99% accurate on each sample, that is pretty good, but if it could be more accurate for the same money, there is room for improvement. If they still send and innocent person to prison, their errors, however few, stand out. The innocent person in prison won't like it. In this case we have a variety of evidence, the victems blood in the car, OJS blood at the crime scene, and othe evidence unrelated to DNA. I would be very reluctant to send someone to prison if the only piece of evidence is the DNA in a spot of blood. To me the scenarios the defense created to explain how carelessness could explain the blood evidence are impossible. Contamination can't explain it.

Again since you ask.

Dr Gerdis was not hired to follow up any lab mistakes in criminal or civil trials. His function was only to audit police and other lab operations and report his findings on those operations and make recomendations.

I don't have the link to this story but some years ago some San Francisco police lab persons were exposed for making false testing reports of evidence that caused the courts to free 500 people. Some reports were made by the lab for evidence that was never even tested by the lab.imo

[martin II]

- DNA evidence proved that five blood drops found near the killer's footprints at the Bundy murder scene belong to OJ.

- DNA evidence showed that OJ's blood trail from his Bronco to his Rockingham estate included: one blood drop behind the Bronco on the street (Rockingham), one on the driveway just inside the Rochingham gate, three more on the driveway leading to the front door of Simpson's residence, five on the floor of the foyer and one on the bathroom floor.

- DNA test proved that spots of blood on the driver's door of the Bronco was OJ's.

- DNA tests proved that three blood stains found on the rear gate of Nicole's home belonged to OJ.

- DNA tests proved that in at least one blood drop found at the Bundy murder scene, the chances of it belonging to anyone but OJ are about 170 million to one.

- Just on the blood evidence alone, there's only one out of 57 billion chance that Simpson is innocent. Fifty-seven billion is approximately 10 times the current population of the entire world.

- Blood on socks in OJ's bedroom matches OJ's and Nicole's.

- Tests show that three stains on the Bronco's console were a mixture of OJ's blood with that of both of the victims. Another console stain is a mixture of OJ's and Ron's blood, and Nicole's blood was found on the driver's side carpet.

- Nicole's DNA in blood found on OJ's socks, occurs in olny 1 out of 21 billion people.

- DNA from Ron Goldman's blood found on the Rockingham glove, has only a 1-in-41 billion chance of belonging to someone else.

- Cellmark, the nation's largest private DNA laboratory, ran 11 genetic tests on blood drops found at the crime scene and on a blood drop found in OJ's house - and every test matched it with OJ's blood.


the missing blood indicates that planting of blood took place.imo

[tv]

No blood was found in the shower or sink pipes.
no blood was found in the washing machine.

The 1989 event of abuse was too far from 6/12 to come to a conclusion that he killed her.
imo
There was a positive test for blood in the shower drain.

[tv]

In regard to the mysterious sweat suit, isn't proper procedure to photograph where evidence items were located, as opposed to moving them and then photographing them and Shouldn't Mr. Ford have had a picture of the sweat suit, if LE placed them back in the washer? I mean shouldn't caution be used to preserve a scene as close as possible as it appeared?
William, are you trying to say there is no picture of the sweat suit in the washer? The sweats were videoed in the washer by the police.

[tv]

Thats it. What furhman didn't know according to many media reports Clarke and Darden has been hanging on each other up stairs in their office before. If he had known that he would have handcuffed both of them. hahaha

No one, including Mark Fuhrman, gives a rat's butt who was hanging on who. I love the way you give credence to media reports as long as it fits into your idea of what happened. I also read media reports that the N word was common language in Johnnie Cocran's office. Maybe we should talk about that.

[bobaugust]

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

Parker, the video taken of Simpson’s laundry room was taken the afternoon after the murders. When the sweat suit was seen that day the detectives had no reason to believe it was connected to the murders. A second search warrant was issued on June 28, 1994 to go back to Rockingham to get the sweat suit, but it was gone.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

Parker, a not guilty verdict does not mean Simpson wasn’t the killer. In the civil trial Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The socks.

Appeared no blood
examined. no blood
examined. no blood
examined. blood.

“Appeared no blood” when looked at under normal lighting.
“Examined, no blood” when looked at under normal lighting.
“Examined, no blood” when looked at under normal lighting.
“Examined, blood,” when looked at under high intensity lighting.

[tv]

William,

The picture I saw was in MF's book. However, wouldn't it be interesting if the only picture of this was in MF's book? If Clark's book does not have a picture of this, what does that tell you?
It tells you that Marcia Clarke chose not to include it in her book.

[bobaugust]

No blood was found in the shower or sink pipes.

imo


Dennis Fung
November 5, 1996

Q. What does this photograph depict, Mr. Fung?
A. That photograph depicts me holding a cotton applicator in the drain of
the master shower.
Q. And what are you doing with the cotton applicator?
A. I'm doing a presumptive test for blood.
Q. Okay. Let's see the next photograph, please. There it is. This doesn't
show-up too well on the screen, but what color is at the end of your cotton
swab there?
A. That is a pink color indicating the presence of blood.
Q. Okay. This would be 2139. And this is in the shower in the master
bathroom; is that correct?
A. That's correct.

*

Q. Now, you took apart Mr. Simpson's sink traps in his bathroom, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. There was no evidence of any blood in the sink traps, was there?
A. None was detected in the traps.
Q. And you did -- you tried to do testing in the traps, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you got no positive results, did you?
A. The sink traps were negative.
Q. And there was nothing in the bowl that appeared to be blood, correct?
A. In the bowl?
Q. The bowl of the sink?
A. No. It was mainly in the -- where the drain is. There's that lip around it.
That was where it was.

[weezer]

we've missed you bobaugust -- welcome back!!! :beer:

[tv]

we've missed you bobaugust -- welcome back!!! :beer:


The voice of reason has entered the building. :)

[tv]

William,

The picture I saw was in MF's book. However, wouldn't it be interesting if the only picture of this was in MF's book? If Clark's book does not have a picture of this, what does that tell you?

If you look closely you'll see the abc logo under the timestamp. What's cut off on the left side are the words PRIME TIME LIVE. If anyone doubts this I can rescan the picture with those words showing.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e90/aneera/sweats1.jpg

[martin II]

If you look closely you'll see the abc logo under the timestamp. What's cut off on the left side are the words PRIME TIME LIVE. If anyone doubts this I can rescan the picture with those words showing.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e90/aneera/sweats1.jpg

That Furman swipped the picture??

[martin II]

Dennis Fung
November 5, 1996

Q. What does this photograph depict, Mr. Fung?
A. That photograph depicts me holding a cotton applicator in the drain of
the master shower.
Q. And what are you doing with the cotton applicator?
A. I'm doing a presumptive test for blood.
Q. Okay. Let's see the next photograph, please. There it is. This doesn't
show-up too well on the screen, but what color is at the end of your cotton
swab there?
A. That is a pink color indicating the presence of blood.
Q. Okay. This would be 2139. And this is in the shower in the master
bathroom; is that correct?
A. That's correct.

*

Q. Now, you took apart Mr. Simpson's sink traps in his bathroom, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. There was no evidence of any blood in the sink traps, was there?
A. None was detected in the traps.
Q. And you did -- you tried to do testing in the traps, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you got no positive results, did you?
A. The sink traps were negative.
Q. And there was nothing in the bowl that appeared to be blood, correct?
A. In the bowl?
Q. The bowl of the sink?
A. No. It was mainly in the -- where the drain is. There's that lip around it.
That was where it was.


A presumptive test for blood is not proof of blood until it is confirmed by further test. The pink tip only means it could or may be blood. I am sure you know this.IMO

[martin II]

“Appeared no blood” when looked at under normal lighting.
“Examined, no blood” when looked at under normal lighting.
“Examined, no blood” when looked at under normal lighting.
“Examined, blood,” when looked at under high intensity lighting.

The socks sat in the lab for weeks becausea matherson i think it was, said he could not find the high intensity lighting.Right?

[martin II]

There was no liquid that was proven to be BLOOD in the traps or sink in ojs bathroom.

[martin II]

- DNA evidence proved that five blood drops found near the killer's footprints at the Bundy murder scene belong to OJ.

- DNA evidence showed that OJ's blood trail from his Bronco to his Rockingham estate included: one blood drop behind the Bronco on the street (Rockingham), one on the driveway just inside the Rochingham gate, three more on the driveway leading to the front door of Simpson's residence, five on the floor of the foyer and one on the bathroom floor.

- DNA test proved that spots of blood on the driver's door of the Bronco was OJ's.

- DNA tests proved that three blood stains found on the rear gate of Nicole's home belonged to OJ.

- DNA tests proved that in at least one blood drop found at the Bundy murder scene, the chances of it belonging to anyone but OJ are about 170 million to one.

- Just on the blood evidence alone, there's only one out of 57 billion chance that Simpson is innocent. Fifty-seven billion is approximately 10 times the current population of the entire world.

- Blood on socks in OJ's bedroom matches OJ's and Nicole's.

- Tests show that three stains on the Bronco's console were a mixture of OJ's blood with that of both of the victims. Another console stain is a mixture of OJ's and Ron's blood, and Nicole's blood was found on the driver's side carpet.

- Nicole's DNA in blood found on OJ's socks, occurs in olny 1 out of 21 billion people.

- DNA from Ron Goldman's blood found on the Rockingham glove, has only a 1-in-41 billion chance of belonging to someone else.

- Cellmark, the nation's largest private DNA laboratory, ran 11 genetic tests on blood drops found at the crime scene and on a blood drop found in OJ's house - and every test matched it with OJ's blood.


The lapd lab had all the samples including the missing oj blood samples.

[tv]

That Furman swipped the picture??


There has been a lot of speculation by some posters that want to believe that the sweats were never videoed or were videoed after being removed from the washer. This is a picture of the sweats still in the washer, with full credit given to Prime Time Live on the abc network, and you say Det. Fuhrman stole it.

[weezer]

There has been a lot of speculation by some posters that want to believe that the sweats were never videoed or were videoed after being removed from the washer. This is a picture of the sweats still in the washer, with full credit given to Prime Time Live on the abc network, and you say Det. Fuhrman stole it.

oh come on -- what did you expect? LOL

personally, I bet it was the boogey man. he seems to have been everywhere doing all kinds of things in this case AND the civil trial AND the vegas trial. :shrug::biggrin:

[GreenIce]

The video showed that OJS was spreading his fingers as did his glove demo. A person making an honest effort to put gloves on wouldn't do that.
I must admit I haven't studied this case as well as other have (or seem to have). I don't plan on doing that.


I think a lot of the defenses attempts to make the LAPD look incompetent were misleading at best. One of the things the defense scored a lot of points on was in asking the prosecution people (mostly criminologists) about what they did several months earlier. I think anyone would have trouble with this. I believe this mostly because what I know to be true about forensic memory. I also think that if the defense had much evidence of serious mistakes by the prosecution they wouldn't have bothered with this. I thought of this as petty harassment that made the defense look worse than the prosecution. I don't like to see people treated in this manner. I don't like rich people like J. Cochran who drag other people's names through the mud, especially people who don’t have the resources to fight back.

I don't know how to evaluate the blood under the fingernail, and I don't think you do either. I wouldn't be surprised if scientific research in the last 14 years or so might shed some new light on this.

Could you show me how giving all the time estimates 7-8 minutes of error margin makes the prosecution time line implausible? One of the things I wondered about at the time was the time the dog started barking. In the news media at the time was that some reporters thought that there was such a wide range of times for when people thought the dog started barking that some reporters thought there might have been 2 barking dogs. I thought at the time that if there were be two barking dogs, then the cops should have been able to spot that by making a map of where and when various people first heard a barking dog. If there were 2 barking dogs that should have shown up in the sense that people in one location heard one dog and people in anther location heard another dog. Since we know about where Nicole's dog was when it started barking, that might have shed some more light on when that dog started barking. My guess is that there was only one barking dog, and just more proof that people's memories are often inaccurate.

fgump2,

The Simpson trial was a unique trial in very many ways and while many people have taken their shots at Shapiro, he was brilliant in insisting on Simpson's right to a fair trial. It is not uncommon for trials to take place a few years after the murders. The state's witnesses, like crime lab techs, etc. know this. They know that their notes are the keystone to their testimony. Their training is not OJT, they spend many, many hours on every aspect of their jobs, such as note taking. To say that the defense was expecting too much from the CSI team just isn't fair. These are trained professionals who know what happens in a trial, including the fact that they will be called to testify.

I agree with you that anybody and everybody should be concerned about this, however, not about what they could remember but how is it that the key blood evidence in this trial was collected weeks and months later? How do you explain Fung getting a sample from the Bronco but the first time around he only got Nicole's, Simpson's and some unknown and then in August, he manages to get Goldman's?

BTW, if the broken AC unit destroyed some of the blood evidence after being in the truck for several hours, how do you explain that blood samples taken from inside a car after spending weeks and weeks in the sun was able to produce any results?


Your comments about the defense, IMO, are unfair because they asked fair and legitimate questions. It was the state's witnesses who did not give logical answers or did more dancing on the witness stand then they did anything else.

Please remember, all the witnesses know, that when they are crossed examined, the "other" side is going to bring every thing they have to cast doubt on their recollections and motives. Remember what disaster it was for Clark when she went after the couple on the blind date? Trying to suggest they were too drunk to notice anything?

Also remember, some of the state's witnesses testified three times, once at the grand jury, once at the prelim and then during the trial.

[GreenIce]

Some neighbors testified they heard the dog first bark at 10:05 10:10(the lady next door to Nicole.Stein was her name) others said they heard it at about 10:30. Lady across the street from Nicole. Heidstra said he first heard it when he arrived at Bundy and Gorham at 10:35.Another lady at Bundy and Dorthy gave another time.(one house from nicole and across the street) So how do we know when that dog started barking.

We also don't know how that dog got out of Nicoles front yard through the closed gate.

The dog was a interesting issue but in the end i am not sure it proved much as we were trying to solve the murders based on when a dog barked.

There were actually two dogs barking. The Akita and the black dog that lived in the house in the alley where Heidstra was standing at 10:40.across bundy from nicole.imo


Martin,

As you may remember, I believe that if anyone truly believes that the dog's barking and wailing was an indication of Nicole's death, then they have to believe that the dog also cleared Simpson---in regards to the timeline.

Did the DA's ever have a theory on where Simpson parked his car that night?

[tv]

oh come on -- what did you expect? LOL

personally, I bet it was the boogey man. he seems to have been everywhere doing all kinds of things in this case AND the civil trial AND the vegas trial. :shrug::biggrin:
I guess I expected too much. I thought after all the speculation about the sweats that it would at least be acknowledged that they WERE vidoed by the LAPD while still in the washer.

It must have been that mean old boogey man that got rid of the sweats. Whether or not there was blood on them after being washed is doubtful but where are they??

[GreenIce]

There has been a lot of speculation by some posters that want to believe that the sweats were never videoed or were videoed after being removed from the washer. This is a picture of the sweats still in the washer, with full credit given to Prime Time Live on the abc network, and you say Det. Fuhrman stole it.

TV,

Isn't it fair to say that the police and the CSI team had every reason to check the washing machine? That checking washing machines and dryers are pretty much standard procedure?

It was not the defense who leaked the information about the sweats. I'm pretty sure that most of the books written by the state's "side" clearly gave the impression that they did find the bloody clothes but Dennis Fung strikes again! There is no way you can tell what those dark items were in the washing machine. The only people who can answer that question are the people who actually picked them up and looked at them. As far as I know, the only person who has been given credit for doing that is Fung.

[tv]

TV,

Isn't it fair to say that the police and the CSI team had every reason to check the washing machine? That checking washing machines and dryers are pretty much standard procedure?

It was not the defense who leaked the information about the sweats. I'm pretty sure that most of the books written by the state's "side" clearly gave the impression that they did find the bloody clothes but Dennis Fung strikes again! There is no way you can tell what those dark items were in the washing machine. The only people who can answer that question are the people who actually picked them up and looked at them. As far as I know, the only person who has been given credit for doing that is Fung.

You're the one that insinuated that Mark Fuhrman was the only person that had a picture of the sweats. The picture I posted is small but if you enlarge it the clothing looks more like sweat suit material. I'm sure the LE personnel that actually saw the sweats knew what they were looking at. I don't believe at that point they realized that sweats would become a key issue in the crime or trial. Brad Roberts is the person that discovered the sweats. I know from experience you can look in a washer and recognize sweat suit material.

I'm surprised you say the clothes were bloody -- I've seen nothing that supports this as the sweats were never examined.

[GreenIce]

You're the one that insinuated that Mark Fuhrman was the only person that had a picture of the sweats. The picture I posted is small but if you enlarge it the clothing looks more like sweat suit material. I'm sure the LE personnel that actually saw the sweats knew what they were looking at. I don't believe at that point they realized that sweats would become a key issue in the crime or trial. Brad Roberts is the person that discovered the sweats. I know from experience you can look in a washer and recognize sweat suit material.

I'm surprised you say the clothes were bloody -- I've seen nothing that supports this as the sweats were never examined.

TV,

There is a picture of the sweats in MF's book. I only made the comment that it would be interesting if only MF's book had that picture. MF did a book tour, which I have no problem with. It was during his book tour that it came out that Roberts found the sweats in the washer.

It only makes sense that the killer's or killers' clothes had blood on them. Which witness testified that the clothes seen in the washing machine was in fact sweats?

[fgump2]

Again since you ask.

Dr Gerdis was not hired to follow up any lab mistakes in criminal or civil trials. His function was only to audit police and other lab operations and report his findings on those operations and make recomendations.

I don't have the link to this story but some years ago some San Francisco police lab persons were exposed for making false testing reports of evidence that caused the courts to free 500 people. Some reports were made by the lab for evidence that was never even tested by the lab.imo
************************************************** *****
I must admit my knowledge of this is superficial. I can only repeat that I found what Gerdes said to be unconvincing. I realize he can criticize without citing specific cases, but it would be more convincing to me if he had cited specific cases being mishandled. I looked at some of Gerdes testimony and it looked to me like he made sweeping generalizations he couldn't back up, and then admitted that he was wrong on a number of items. There have been othre cases of crime labs making serious mistakes and courts being faced with difficult problems of how to react. I do't think that crime labs, or other testing labs, can be neatly divided into competent an incompetent. There are degress of competence and reliability. Even the best of labs are going to make some careless mistakes.

[tv]

TV,

There is a picture of the sweats in MF's book. I only made the comment that it would be interesting if only MF's book had that picture. MF did a book tour, which I have no problem with. It was during his book tour that it came out that Roberts found the sweats in the washer.

It only makes sense that the killer's or killers' clothes had blood on them. Which witness testified that the clothes seen in the washing machine was in fact sweats?GreenIce, this picture is from Mark Fuhrman's book. Why would it be interesting if only Mark Fuhrman's book had the picture? I think I'm somehow missing your point.

[tv]

************************************************** *****
I must admit my knowledge of this is superficial. I can only repeat that I found what Gerdes said to be unconvincing. I realize he can criticize without citing specific cases, but it would be more convincing to me if he had cited specific cases being mishandled. I looked at some of Gerdes testimony and it looked to me like he made sweeping generalizations he couldn't back up, and then admitted that he was wrong on a number of items. There have been othre cases of crime labs making serious mistakes and courts being faced with difficult problems of how to react. I do't think that crime labs, or other testing labs, can be neatly divided into competent an incompetent. There are degress of competence and reliability. Even the best of labs are going to make some careless mistakes.

Dr. Gerdes had never tested crime scene evidence; neither had his lab. he had never given classes in forensic science. He had never conducted validation studes on forensic evidence samples. He had never conducted experiments in the area of forensic evidence. he had used the DQ Alpha test once. The LAPD forensic scientist had run it thousands of times. Dr. Gerdes agreed that he had never done any forensic testing, had never run the tests at issue in the trial but he testified as an expert. This from the civil trial:

TOM LAMBERT: "So all those test results are good test results that the jury can rely on?"

DR. GERDES: "In my opinon, that's true."

[fgump2]

fgump2,

The Simpson trial was a unique trial in very many ways and while many people have taken their shots at Shapiro, he was brilliant in insisting on Simpson's right to a fair trial. It is not uncommon for trials to take place a few years after the murders. The state's witnesses, like crime lab techs, etc. know this. They know that their notes are the keystone to their testimony. Their training is not OJT, they spend many, many hours on every aspect of their jobs, such as note taking. To say that the defense was expecting too much from the CSI team just isn't fair. These are trained professionals who know what happens in a trial, including the fact that they will be called to testify.

I agree with you that anybody and everybody should be concerned about this, however, not about what they could remember but how is it that the key blood evidence in this trial was collected weeks and months later? How do you explain Fung getting a sample from the Bronco but the first time around he only got Nicole's, Simpson's and some unknown and then in August, he manages to get Goldman's?

BTW, if the broken AC unit destroyed some of the blood evidence after being in the truck for several hours, how do you explain that blood samples taken from inside a car after spending weeks and weeks in the sun was able to produce any results?


Your comments about the defense, IMO, are unfair because they asked fair and legitimate questions. It was the state's witnesses who did not give logical answers or did more dancing on the witness stand then they did anything else.

Please remember, all the witnesses know, that when they are crossed examined, the "other" side is going to bring every thing they have to cast doubt on their recollections and motives. Remember what disaster it was for Clark when she went after the couple on the blind date? Trying to suggest they were too drunk to notice anything?

Also remember, some of the state's witnesses testified three times, once at the grand jury, once at the prelim and then during the trial.

My impression was that the defense asked them questions about things that didn't directly relate to the competence of the way the evidence was handled. I thought the defense was asking questions on which they might be able to prove them wrong on a video. For example Fung got hammered for saying that he carried a vial of blood back to a truck, and then the defense showed a video which showed that Mazzola carried the evidence. To get on people's backs about irrelevant detail like that was stupid. Do you think the trial had 9 months of information in it? That sort of thing is one of the reasons the trial lasted so long. Also Mazzola was criticized for touching her nose as she collected blood evidence. This was an error, but even if she had blood from all three people on her nose, that shouldn't have made any difference. In that area (the grouond at the crime scene), where she touched her nose, each blood spot had only one person's DNA in it. So if Mazzola incorrectly added some DNA (OJS, NBS or RG) some blood spots should have had two or moe people's DNA. Also the DNA from the nose would have been much smaller than the blood spots. The way I see it, that mistake reflects badly on Mazzola, but didn't damage the evidence. In case you forgot, Henry Lee made worse errors.
I don't think any blood samples were destroyed in the broken AC, just degraded. The blood samples that were picked up were temporarily wet, that is how they were picked up. The blood samples in the bronco were dry. I believe that dry blood withstands heat better. For one thing bacteria can thrive when it is hot and wet, but not when it is hot and dry.
I wont try to judge Dennis Fungs actions. I would want to ask him, and other criminologists who worked with him, or who at least have that work experience, even if not at LA.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, this picture is from Mark Fuhrman's book. Why would it be interesting if only Mark Fuhrman's book had the picture? I think I'm somehow missing your point.

TV,

My point is that there there is a lot of "evidence" that is considered to be a "fact", when in fact, they are not. Perfect example--the voices that the dog walker heard. It has been assumed that the only two people in this world that they could have been is Ron's and OJ's. There is no way prove who's voices they were. I have no problem with anyone who speculates that it was Ron and OJ's but again, speculation is not proof.

Why I think it is interesting if only MF used this picture in his book is because he may not have known that the contents of that washer was collected. Or, he is pointing fingers at Vanatter and Lange--again.

MF was beyond angry, so he says that Lange and Vanatter did not read his notes (which I believe they did but....). He was angry that Clark would not let him or his partner testify about seeing the socks. He was angry about this bloodly fingerprint being lost. He is angry that blood found on the light switch was missed.

Both sides do play cat and mouse with the evidence. If someone conducts an experiment or a test and do not write it down, then how do we know what the results are? It is also clear to me that it does not take an expert to collect blood evidence. All you need is a cotton swab and some water. Just because Fung or Mozzola didn't take these swabs for testing doesn't mean it was not done.

[GreenIce]

My impression was that the defense asked them questions about things that didn't directly relate to the competence of the way the evidence was handled. I thought the defense was asking questions on which they might be able to prove them wrong on a video. For example Fung got hammered for saying that he carried a vial of blood back to a truck, and then the defense showed a video which showed that Mazzola carried the evidence. To get on people's backs about irrelevant detail like that was stupid. Do you think the trial had 9 months of information in it? That sort of thing is one of the reasons the trial lasted so long. Also Mazzola was criticized for touching her nose as she collected blood evidence. This was an error, but even if she had blood from all three people on her nose, that shouldn't have made any difference. In that area (the grouond at the crime scene), where she touched her nose, each blood spot had only one person's DNA in it. So if Mazzola incorrectly added some DNA (OJS, NBS or RG) some blood spots should have had two or moe people's DNA. Also the DNA from the nose would have been much smaller than the blood spots. The way I see it, that mistake reflects badly on Mazzola, but didn't damage the evidence. In case you forgot, Henry Lee made worse errors.
I don't think any blood samples were destroyed in the broken AC, just degraded. The blood samples that were picked up were temporarily wet, that is how they were picked up. The blood samples in the bronco were dry. I believe that dry blood withstands heat better. For one thing bacteria can thrive when it is hot and wet, but not when it is hot and dry.
I wont try to judge Dennis Fungs actions. I would want to ask him, and other criminologists who worked with him, or who at least have that work experience, even if not at LA.

fgump2,

The problem with the vial of blood is that Vanatter said he brought it to Dennis Fung. When he gave that blood vial to Fung, he transfered the chain of custody and interity to Fung. Fung was responsible and that vial and he did not know where it was. Chain of custody is very relevant in any case. However, in all fairness to Fung, he may have been too shocked by the fact that Vanatter brought it to him in the first place.

What never made any sense to me is why Vanatter would taken the blood vial, period, let alone back to Bundy. To the best of my knowedge, Dennis Fung collects evidence ---- he does not doing the actual testing. After the nurse drew the blood, which agency is now responsible for it?

What errors did Dr. Lee make? If you are talking about the footprints then you are forgetting that there was more then one place that showed different footprints, like on Ron's jeans and the envelope.

And I think I asked you this before, if Dr. Lee is right about the footprints, does that mean Simpson is innocent?

[old_soul]

Great posts, all, but I am utterly disappointed. One would think we have learned something in the last 15 years ~ about the person that this thread is about and about the hidden lies and secrets of Domestic Abuse. I have read the posts by everyone since I was last on, and over and over I see words mimicking what the defense used back in 1995.
At the time, the general aura about this case was explosive. The atmosphere is best explained as chaotic and circus like. The jury was sequestered for over 140 days, beaten up by both sides trying to prove their fight. With calmer heads, and a logical understanding of what we know now, surely those who still cry 'reasonable doubt!" can come up with something more...or not. Let's talk Means. Motive. Opportunity.

Here are questions about some things that were not used as evidence, others that were used in evidence, but all remain basically unaddressed in the case. They are just as important.

Why was the Bronco parked Outside the gate, parked hastily at such an odd angle?

Who was the 'black person'/person in black, seen by Parks walking across the driveway towards the house coming from the direction of the Bronco?

Alan Parks got to OJ's at 10:25. He repeatedly buzzed OJ, with no answer, until after seeing the 'black person'. OJ finally answered approximately 11:55.

Where is the 12" stiletto knife bought by OJ ~ 6 weeks before the murders?
This knife is an exact match to the knife that was used in the murders. Knife evidence not used because seller talked to the Enquirer.

Why was the dome light in the Bronco, though working fine, taken down and placed under the seat?

Why did OJ have possession of Nicole's stolen house keys?

Why were the 3 pages of OJ's writings, admitting his abuse of Nicole, shredded? Initially they were blocked because of 'procedural reasons' by OJ's atty's..by the time the pros were able to get them, they were shredded.

OJ owned those 'ugly a**' Magli's...where did they disappear to? The prints in blood at the murder scene were BM's.

What was OJ dumping into the garbage can, seen by a witness at the airport, from his half moon shaped bag? This witness was never called to testify.

Jill Shrively saw OJ run a red light, almost having an accident. She knew it was him, because he stuck his face out the window, shouting "Get Out of The Way!!!" Her testimony was not used because she sold her story to Hard Copy.

What about the voices at the probable time of the murder...HEY! HEY! HEY!

Why did OJ make many trips to the bathroom, as noted by the 'stewardess'?

Why was Nicole so upset by being stalked by OJ, that she sought protection from a battered woman shelter 5 days before the murder??

After seeing photos found in Nicole's diary, LE's report, and in her own words telling how OJ threw her out of a moving car, and threatening to cut off the heads of her boyfriends could anyone not understand his Jeckyl/Hyde personality and what could come of it, in hindsight? BTW ~ his obsession and stalking was reaching explosive levels..He admitted watching her through her windows and following her (to others)...if he hadn't admitted it, would anyone believe her/it?

Why was no blood found on the glass he supposedly cut himself on? Not in/on sink either, but blood was found on sheets and towels....

What about his repeated calls to Paula, who had broken up with him earlier? Last call from his cell at 10:30...

Where were the 2 pairs of gloves, size XL, that Nicole bought for OJ at Bloomies? same make and size as found at murder scene? The gloves found, both were XL...

[tv]

TV,

My point is that there there is a lot of "evidence" that is considered to be a "fact", when in fact, they are not. Perfect example--the voices that the dog walker heard. It has been assumed that the only two people in this world that they could have been is Ron's and OJ's. There is no way prove who's voices they were. I have no problem with anyone who speculates that it was Ron and OJ's but again, speculation is not proof.

Why I think it is interesting if only MF used this picture in his book is because he may not have known that the contents of that washer was collected. Or, he is pointing fingers at Vanatter and Lange--again.

MF was beyond angry, so he says that Lange and Vanatter did not read his notes (which I believe they did but....). He was angry that Clark would not let him or his partner testify about seeing the socks. He was angry about this bloodly fingerprint being lost. He is angry that blood found on the light switch was missed.

Both sides do play cat and mouse with the evidence. If someone conducts an experiment or a test and do not write it down, then how do we know what the results are? It is also clear to me that it does not take an expert to collect blood evidence. All you need is a cotton swab and some water. Just because Fung or Mozzola didn't take these swabs for testing doesn't mean it was not done.

GreenIce, please provide a link or a credible reference that backs up your statement that LE collected the sweats. Not that there aren't many things I'm still learning about this case but this is entirely new to me.

[tv]

Great posts, all, but I am utterly disappointed. One would think we have learned something in the last 15 years ~ about the person that this thread is about and about the hidden lies and secrets of Domestic Abuse. I have read the posts by everyone since I was last on, and over and over I see words mimicking what the defense used back in 1995.
At the time, the general aura about this case was explosive. The atmosphere is best explained as chaotic and circus like. The jury was sequestered for over 140 days, beaten up by both sides trying to prove their fight. With calmer heads, and a logical understanding of what we know now, surely those who still cry 'reasonable doubt!" can come up with something more...or not. Let's talk Means. Motive. Opportunity.

Here are questions about some things that were not used as evidence, others that were used in evidence, but all remain basically unaddressed in the case. They are just as important.

Why was the Bronco parked Outside the gate, parked hastily at such an odd angle?

Who was the 'black person'/person in black, seen by Parks walking across the driveway towards the house coming from the direction of the Bronco?

Alan Parks got to OJ's at 10:25. He repeatedly buzzed OJ, with no answer, until after seeing the 'black person'. OJ finally answered approximately 11:55.

Where is the 12" stiletto knife bought by OJ ~ 6 weeks before the murders?
This knife is an exact match to the knife that was used in the murders. Knife evidence not used because seller talked to the Enquirer.

Why was the dome light in the Bronco, though working fine, taken down and placed under the seat?

Why did OJ have possession of Nicole's stolen house keys?

Why were the 3 pages of OJ's writings, admitting his abuse of Nicole, shredded? Initially they were blocked because of 'procedural reasons' by OJ's atty's..by the time the pros were able to get them, they were shredded.

OJ owned those 'ugly a**' Magli's...where did they disappear to? The prints in blood at the murder scene were BM's.

What was OJ dumping into the garbage can, seen by a witness at the airport, from his half moon shaped bag? This witness was never called to testify.

Jill Shrively saw OJ run a red light, almost having an accident. She knew it was him, because he stuck his face out the window, shouting "Get Out of The Way!!!" Her testimony was not used because she sold her story to Hard Copy.

What about the voices at the probable time of the murder...HEY! HEY! HEY!

Why did OJ make many trips to the bathroom, as noted by the 'stewardess'?

Why was Nicole so upset by being stalked by OJ, that she sought protection from a battered woman shelter 5 days before the murder??

After seeing photos found in Nicole's diary, LE's report, and in her own words telling how OJ threw her out of a moving car, and threatening to cut off the heads of her boyfriends could anyone not understand his Jeckyl/Hyde personality and what could come of it, in hindsight? BTW ~ his obsession and stalking was reaching explosive levels..He admitted watching her through her windows and following her (to others)...if he hadn't admitted it, would anyone believe her/it?

Why was no blood found on the glass he supposedly cut himself on? Not in/on sink either, but blood was found on sheets and towels....

What about his repeated calls to Paula, who had broken up with him earlier? Last call from his cell at 10:30...

Where were the 2 pairs of gloves, size XL, that Nicole bought for OJ at Bloomies? same make and size as found at murder scene? The gloves found, both were XL...




Old Soul, excellent post. Thanks! :)

[GreenIce]

Great posts, all, but I am utterly disappointed. One would think we have learned something in the last 15 years ~ about the person that this thread is about and about the hidden lies and secrets of Domestic Abuse. I have read the posts by everyone since I was last on, and over and over I see words mimicking what the defense used back in 1995.
At the time, the general aura about this case was explosive. The atmosphere is best explained as chaotic and circus like. The jury was sequestered for over 140 days, beaten up by both sides trying to prove their fight. With calmer heads, and a logical understanding of what we know now, surely those who still cry 'reasonable doubt!" can come up with something more...or not. Let's talk Means. Motive. Opportunity.

Here are questions about some things that were not used as evidence, others that were used in evidence, but all remain basically unaddressed in the case. They are just as important.

Why was the Bronco parked Outside the gate, parked hastily at such an odd angle? The defense has claimed that the Bronco was not parked at a funny angle, they said the Bronco was moved. Dean Uelman's book goes over this very neatly.

How did Park not hear or see the Bronco as it pulled up?

Who was the 'black person'/person in black, seen by Parks walking across the driveway towards the house coming from the direction of the Bronco?
It was OJ Simpson because he said it was him.

Alan Parks got to OJ's at 10:25. He repeatedly buzzed OJ, with no answer, until after seeing the 'black person'. OJ finally answered approximately 11:55.
Simpson knew that the driver always came early and they had a routine. Simpson did not know that he did not have his regular driver.

Where is the 12" stiletto knife bought by OJ ~ 6 weeks before the murders?
This knife is an exact match to the knife that was used in the murders. Knife evidence not used because seller talked to the Enquirer. The knife was found right where Simpson said it was going to be found and Judge Ito had Judge Delbert Wong pick it up from the house. The knife was in pristine condition and was not used.

Why was the dome light in the Bronco, though working fine, taken down and placed under the seat? This never became an issue in the trial. The real question is was the bulb dusted for fingerprints? What about that area of the Bronco? Taking the bulb out of the interior is a habit practiced by many. Me, I need that light, it does not bother me.

However, it is common practice for Police Officers to remove their bulbs because they don't want to tip off anybody. Prove it was Simpson who took that bulb out.

Why did OJ have possession of Nicole's stolen house keys? Why didn't the DA's use this information?

Why were the 3 pages of OJ's writings, admitting his abuse of Nicole, shredded? Initially they were blocked because of 'procedural reasons' by OJ's atty's..by the time the pros were able to get them, they were shredded.

OJ owned those 'ugly a**' Magli's...where did they disappear to? The prints in blood at the murder scene were BM's.

What was OJ dumping into the garbage can, seen by a witness at the airport, from his half moon shaped bag? This witness was never called to testify. You are kidding right? There was a witness who did say they saw Simpson by the trash can--one problem, that airport was be ripped apart by 3:00 a.m. that morning, they found nothing. No one except for VA and Lange believe Simpson would have just tossed the evidence in a normal trash can. Someone would have noticed it when it was emptied.

Jill Shrively saw OJ run a red light, almost having an accident. She knew it was him, because he stuck his face out the window, shouting "Get Out of The Way!!!" Her testimony was not used because she sold her story to Hard Copy. Her testimony was not used because it clashed with Clark's timeline. There was at least one other witness who could have backed up her testimony.

What about the voices at the probable time of the murder...HEY! HEY! HEY! No way to prove whose those were.

Why did OJ make many trips to the bathroom, as noted by the 'stewardess'? He was having stomach issues? I don't remember any flight attendant testifying about this.

Why was Nicole so upset by being stalked by OJ, that she sought protection from a battered woman shelter 5 days before the murder?? Nicole was being stalked, but not by OJ Simpson. She may have thought it was him but it very well may not have been him. There is no way that information should have been allowed in the civil trial---however, it also believed that "Nicole" was the wife of actor Duddly Moore who also loved to smack the hell out of each other.

After seeing photos found in Nicole's diary, LE's report, and in her own words telling how OJ threw her out of a moving car, and threatening to cut off the heads of her boyfriends could anyone not understand his Jeckyl/Hyde personality and what could come of it, in hindsight? BTW ~ his obsession and stalking was reaching explosive levels..He admitted watching her through her windows and following her (to others)...if he hadn't admitted it, would anyone believe her/it?

Why was no blood found on the glass he supposedly cut himself on? Not in/on sink either, but blood was found on sheets and towels....

What about his repeated calls to Paula, who had broken up with him earlier? Last call from his cell at 10:30...

Where were the 2 pairs of gloves, size XL, that Nicole bought for OJ at Bloomies? same make and size as found at murder scene? The gloves found, both were XL...




Old Soul,

\

[Parker]

Parker, the video taken of Simpson’s laundry room was taken the afternoon after the murders. When the sweat suit was seen that day the detectives had no reason to believe it was connected to the murders. A second search warrant was issued on June 28, 1994 to go back to Rockingham to get the sweat suit, but it was gone.

bobaugust

Thanks for making that clear. So there is clear evidence that the sweats were in OJ's house. That is on video. Then they disappeared. Did LE ask any of Simpson's staff if they washed the sweats or knew anything about them?
Because that's an important piece of evidence that disappeared.

[Parker]

Great posts, all, but I am utterly disappointed. One would think we have learned something in the last 15 years ~ about the person that this thread is about and about the hidden lies and secrets of Domestic Abuse. I have read the posts by everyone since I was last on, and over and over I see words mimicking what the defense used back in 1995.
At the time, the general aura about this case was explosive. The atmosphere is best explained as chaotic and circus like. The jury was sequestered for over 140 days, beaten up by both sides trying to prove their fight. With calmer heads, and a logical understanding of what we know now, surely those who still cry 'reasonable doubt!" can come up with something more...or not. Let's talk Means. Motive. Opportunity.

Here are questions about some things that were not used as evidence, others that were used in evidence, but all remain basically unaddressed in the case. They are just as important.

Why was the Bronco parked Outside the gate, parked hastily at such an odd angle?

Who was the 'black person'/person in black, seen by Parks walking across the driveway towards the house coming from the direction of the Bronco?

Alan Parks got to OJ's at 10:25. He repeatedly buzzed OJ, with no answer, until after seeing the 'black person'. OJ finally answered approximately 11:55.

Where is the 12" stiletto knife bought by OJ ~ 6 weeks before the murders?
This knife is an exact match to the knife that was used in the murders. Knife evidence not used because seller talked to the Enquirer.

Why was the dome light in the Bronco, though working fine, taken down and placed under the seat?

Why did OJ have possession of Nicole's stolen house keys?

Why were the 3 pages of OJ's writings, admitting his abuse of Nicole, shredded? Initially they were blocked because of 'procedural reasons' by OJ's atty's..by the time the pros were able to get them, they were shredded.

OJ owned those 'ugly a**' Magli's...where did they disappear to? The prints in blood at the murder scene were BM's.

What was OJ dumping into the garbage can, seen by a witness at the airport, from his half moon shaped bag? This witness was never called to testify.

Jill Shrively saw OJ run a red light, almost having an accident. She knew it was him, because he stuck his face out the window, shouting "Get Out of The Way!!!" Her testimony was not used because she sold her story to Hard Copy.

What about the voices at the probable time of the murder...HEY! HEY! HEY!

Why did OJ make many trips to the bathroom, as noted by the 'stewardess'?

Why was Nicole so upset by being stalked by OJ, that she sought protection from a battered woman shelter 5 days before the murder??

After seeing photos found in Nicole's diary, LE's report, and in her own words telling how OJ threw her out of a moving car, and threatening to cut off the heads of her boyfriends could anyone not understand his Jeckyl/Hyde personality and what could come of it, in hindsight? BTW ~ his obsession and stalking was reaching explosive levels..He admitted watching her through her windows and following her (to others)...if he hadn't admitted it, would anyone believe her/it?

Why was no blood found on the glass he supposedly cut himself on? Not in/on sink either, but blood was found on sheets and towels....

What about his repeated calls to Paula, who had broken up with him earlier? Last call from his cell at 10:30...

Where were the 2 pairs of gloves, size XL, that Nicole bought for OJ at Bloomies? same make and size as found at murder scene? The gloves found, both were XL...




Wow, this is an awesome post. If there was a vote for quote of the day, I'd be raising my hand for this one. You have brought into this thread so many great points. Maybe we can discuss just one to start. What was OJ doing with Nicole's stolen housekeys?

Well, let me guess. Maybe he was out just taking a walk and he found the keys on the sidewalk. As you do. Your ex-wife who has been battered by you and you happen to have her house keys. I'm sure OJ was going to return them at the first possible opportunity.;)

[Jayme K]

TV,

The point of what Nicole was wearing was sending a message to OJ Simpson. Remember when Kato was testify about what Simpson's comments were about that? She was sending a message to Simpson that she was dressed to go out that night and not with her kids or her family. Did that mean she was actually going out, no but it does mean she was making it clear that in terms of her social life, she was moving on. IMO.

Where are you getting this? Look at pictures of Nicole in any book and you'll see that she dressed that way all the time, even if she was just going to dinner with her family! I doubt her dress that night was sending any message. In fact, in a picture of her just a few days before she died she was wearing a very similar dress in the middle of the day.

[martin II]

There has been a lot of speculation by some posters that want to believe that the sweats were never videoed or were videoed after being removed from the washer. This is a picture of the sweats still in the washer, with full credit given to Prime Time Live on the abc network, and you say Det. Fuhrman stole it.


TV

I don't think it makes a differancve for me that they were seen in the washer or held up by fung. which is what i though the photo showed initially.To be exact i don't know what is in that picture but will assume it is some sweats. Since they were never collected for presentation in court or for matching to anything, it is a stretch to think they were a important issue.
i was joking about Furhman.imo

[Jayme K]

Old Soul,

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

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

I think that your point says exactly the opposite. I think it's been well confirmed that O.J. Simpson was a super jealous guy, and when a super jealous rages ... it gets ugly.

So here's my point ... though for the record I wouldn't call Nicole's killing "neat and sweet" given that she had a contusion on her head and something like 7 stab wounds to her head and neck before her head was almost chopped off ... it makes perfect sense to me that Ron would get the torture wounds ... he (O.J.) went there to kill Nicole who had just completely told him off hours before publicly, and here comes Ron Goldman who sources say that O.J. had encountered before even though he says he had never met Ron, and people had apparently been telling O.J. that Ron was seen around town driving Nicole's ferrari ... at this point he's going to go more nuts (if that's even possible) than he already was because he's probably assuming that Ron's there to be romantic with Nicole and now he's going to show Ron Goldman that no one touches Nicole.

[tv]

TV

I don't think it makes a differancve for me that they were seen in the washer or held up by fung. which is what i though the photo showed initially.To be exact i don't know what is in that picture but will assume it is some sweats. Since they were never collected for presentation in court or for matching to anything, it is a stretch to think they were a important issue.
i was joking about Furhman.imo

martin, to me the real importance of the sweats is why did they disappear and were never seen again?

Sorry, I didn't realize you were joking about Fuhrman because you don't usually joke with me. See -- I'm smiling now. :)

[martin II]

Great posts, all, but I am utterly disappointed. One would think we have learned something in the last 15 years ~ about the person that this thread is about and about the hidden lies and secrets of Domestic Abuse. I have read the posts by everyone since I was last on, and over and over I see words mimicking what the defense used back in 1995.
At the time, the general aura about this case was explosive. The atmosphere is best explained as chaotic and circus like. The jury was sequestered for over 140 days, beaten up by both sides trying to prove their fight. With calmer heads, and a logical understanding of what we know now, surely those who still cry 'reasonable doubt!" can come up with something more...or not. Let's talk Means. Motive. Opportunity.

Here are questions about some things that were not used as evidence, others that were used in evidence, but all remain basically unaddressed in the case. They are just as important.

Why was the Bronco parked Outside the gate, parked hastily at such an odd angle?The broncos back tire was 1-2 inches from the curb because it was driven from oj driveway and a sharp right turn was made to park. that is how the back wheels would be after that right trun. that it not a odd angkle. see picture.

Who was the 'black person'/person in black, seen by Parks walking across the driveway towards the house coming from the direction of the Bronco?
PARK saw A AA person walk up to the fron walk up to the front door. i believe that was oj after he brought the two bags down to the front from the house that park saw when he drove to the door

Alan Parks got to OJ's at 10:25. He repeatedly buzzed OJ, with no answer, until after seeing the 'black person'. OJ finally answered approximately 11:55.
oj was taking a shower and or packing.he knew park was not going anyplace. the buzzer did not ring in the openhouse it rang on a phone

Where is the 12" stiletto knife bought by OJ ~ 6 weeks before the murders?
This knife is an exact match to the knife that was used in the murders. Knife evidence not used because seller talked to the Enquirer.

The autopsy reported that the murder knife was a 3-4 inch knife not a 12 inch. the 12" inch was presented in court by a grand master and was found not to have been used.

Why was the dome light in the Bronco, though working fine, taken down and placed under the seat?

Why did OJ have possession of Nicole's stolen house keys?There was no proof that oj entered nicoles house on 6/12 so the keys mean little.

Why were the 3 pages of OJ's writings, admitting his abuse of Nicole, shredded? Initially they were blocked because of 'procedural reasons' by OJ's atty's..by the time the pros were able to get them, they were shredded.

OJ owned those 'ugly a**' Magli's...where did they disappear to? The prints in blood at the murder scene were BM's.Bloomingdales said oj never baught the bm shoes from them and the shoes to match the prints were never presented in court.

What was OJ dumping into the garbage can, seen by a witness at the airport, from his half moon shaped bag? This witness was never called to testify. A person said he saw oj rest a bag on top on a trash can. no one testified that he was him dum[p anything into a garbage can

Jill Shrively saw OJ run a red light, almost having an accident. She knew it was him, because he stuck his face out the window, shouting "Get Out of The Way!!!" Her testimony was not used because she sold her story to Hard Copy. JS said she was home at 10:45 the time Heidstra said he saw the white suv at bundy.she was a problem.

What about the voices at the probable time of the murder...HEY! HEY! HEY!
there was no proof who this was only speculation because there was no proof

Why did OJ make many trips to the bathroom, as noted by the 'stewardess'?

Why was Nicole so upset by being stalked by OJ, that she sought protection from a battered woman shelter 5 days before the murder??Nicole also told oj about some stalking and asked for his help there was a phone stalker the le caught

After seeing photos found in Nicole's diary, LE's report, and in her own words telling how OJ threw her out of a moving car, and threatening to cut off the heads of her boyfriends could anyone not understand his Jeckyl/Hyde personality and what could come of it, in hindsight? BTW ~ his obsession and stalking was reaching explosive levels..He admitted watching her through her windows and following her (to others)...if he hadn't admitted it, would anyone believe her/it?oj was not chasrged with stalking or abuse

Why was no blood found on the glass he supposedly cut himself on? Not in/on sink either, but blood was found on sheets and towels....

What about his repeated calls to Paula, who had broken up with him earlier? Last call from his cell at 10:30...i think it was 10;10

Where were the 2 pairs of gloves, size XL, that Nicole bought for OJ at Bloomies? same make and size as found at murder scene? The gloves found, both were XL...we don't know the color of the gloves nicole baught and the glove presented in court were too small. it was reported that nicole gave one pair of the gloves to a friend for a christmas present.

Some of what some believe was not fact in the trial and other stuff was just speculation in the absence of proof.The jury heard the trial as presented then when everything was fresh and voted not guilty. imo





Some of what some believe was not fact in the trial and other stuff was just speculation in the absence of proof.The jury heard the trial as presented then when everything was fresh and voted not guilty. imo

[martin II]

martin, to me the real importance of the sweats is why did they disappear and were never seen again?

Sorry, I didn't realize you were joking about Fuhrman because you don't usually joke with me. See -- I'm smiling now. :)

thanks for the smile.

The problen with the sweats is the 10 or more le that were at the house when the sweats were videotaped are the last time we have proof that the sweats were in the house.There is no proof that they were there when oj was allowed back into his house. So one would have to make a assumption that oj was responsible for the dissapearance especially when he had all opportunity to take them with him in the limo. As one poster said Why wash something that one wants to get rid of.
imo

[martin II]

fgump2,

The problem with the vial of blood is that Vanatter said he brought it to Dennis Fung. When he gave that blood vial to Fung, he transfered the chain of custody and interity to Fung. Fung was responsible and that vial and he did not know where it was. Chain of custody is very relevant in any case. However, in all fairness to Fung, he may have been too shocked by the fact that Vanatter brought it to him in the first place.

What never made any sense to me is why Vanatter would taken the blood vial, period, let alone back to Bundy. To the best of my knowedge, Dennis Fung collects evidence ---- he does not doing the actual testing. After the nurse drew the blood, which agency is now responsible for it?

What errors did Dr. Lee make? If you are talking about the footprints then you are forgetting that there was more then one place that showed different footprints, like on Ron's jeans and the envelope.

And I think I asked you this before, if Dr. Lee is right about the footprints, does that mean Simpson is innocent?

SID where all evidence wal logged was across the street from where the nurse took the blood at Parker center. The chain of custrody should have been from the nurse to SID.Fung said in his experience no one had ever brought him blood samples to a crime scene and he was surprised that Vanhatter had done so.This did put Fung on the spot.imo

[tv]

thanks for the smile.

The problen with the sweats is the 10 or more le that were at the house when the sweats were videotaped are the last time we have proof that the sweats were in the house.There is no proof that they were there when oj was allowed back into his house. So one would have to make a assumption that oj was responsible for the dissapearance especially when he had all opportunity to take them with him in the limo. As one poster said Why wash something that one wants to get rid of.
imo
The reason he may have washed them is because he didn't have any other way to get rid of them at the moment and he had to get rid of the blood and get ready for his trip.

As for the video, the house was videoed to show the condition of the house when LE left so that's considered an accurate representation. I don't recall OJ Simpson accusing anyone of stealing the sweats or anything else from the house.

[martin II]

The reason he may have washed them is because he didn't have any other way to get rid of them at the moment and he had to get rid of the blood and get ready for his trip.

As for the video, the house was videoed to show the condition of the house when LE left so that's considered an accurate representation. I don't recall OJ Simpson accusing anyone of stealing the sweats or anything else from the house.


There were at least three bags that oj brought out of his house. two duffle bags and a LV suiter.It would be no problem for him to put the sweats in one of those and take them with him instead of leaving them in a washer for le to find if they were the murder clothes.:)

[martin II]

Fung took the sweats out of the washer,examined them for blood and found none.examined the washing machine and found none. so i see no connection of that item to the murders. Is it true that after fung examined the sweats he tossed or left them in a corner on the floor of the room?

[tv]

There were at least three bags that oj brought out of his house. two duffle bags and a LV suiter.It would be no problem for him to put the sweats in one of those and take them with him instead of leaving them in a washer for le to find if they were the murder clothes.:)

I don't think he knew he'd left a trail from Bundy to Rockingham and he didn't think he'd be suspected. Much better to leave the sweats in the washer with the blood all washed out then to risk getting blood on everything in the LV or other bag. Remember, the alarm that Kato set was off when LE went into the house. Some people think the lovely Arnelle* washed the sweats for her father.

*see -- no Arnelle bashing. :)

[tv]

Fung took the sweats out of the washer,examined them for blood and found none.examined the washing machine and found none. so i see no connection of that item to the murders. Is it true that after fung examined the sweats he tossed or left them in a corner on the floor of the room?
martin, how do you know that Fung examined the sweats? I've never heard a word about him tossing them on the floor.

[old_soul]

There were 5 'hesistation' cuts on Ron's face...they actually served no purpose, but it was felt that the killer poked at him to determine if he was still alive or dead.

It was determined that Nicole did fight for her life. Defensive wounds to her hands show she did and knew what was happening....."HEY! HEY! HEY!" ~ That was all Ron got to say before he was in the fight for his life.

IMO stands to reason that the killer, OJ, was wearing the black sweats. But, one important thing shows how ignorant he was in his haste to wash them..you NEVER would wash any kind of lingerie or delicates with fabrics of such density. THIS WAS NEVER DISCUSSED! Who would ever do this? Someone who knows Jack about washing clothes. He had no time to ditch them, but since they were black and did not 'show blood', he assumed to wash them would wash away the blood and there would be no problem. He lucked out with that whole situation. Period. Funny thing, them being gone later. Funny thing blood was also determined to be in the drain of the shower, and don't insult anyone's intelligence by talking about whether it was or wasn't blood. OJ also assumed incorrectly about the socks. Those 20 or so spots of blood, much around the ankle area didn't show up on the black easily, so he didn't think. There were other more pressing things to get to first I imagine.

Coincidence after coincidence after coincidence. Don't quote trial testimony by the defense used to refute what evidence was found. We know the defense's job, as we witnessed Mark Geragos claiming reasonable doubt in the Laci Peterson case...Homeless people, satanic cults.

If drugs or Faye Resnick were involved in any way, Resnick would be dead now, 100 times over, since she was the target..She is very much alive.

The bodies of both were found at 12:10. Nicole's stomach content showed pasta, and what seems to be spinach or a green leafy substance, etc. Didn't matter if the stomach contents disappeared later, though it makes one wonder where or how it got 'lost'.

Another thing I would like to add here. It is quite common, in many cities, to have a double standard, if I may. There are Italians we like, who we call Italian. Then there are Italians we don't like, that we refer to in a derogatory way. This goes for any nationality, color, or race, ok. This is not my opinion, it is the truth. For everyone on this earth, there is a derogatory reference to the 'bad ones'. Given the racial background of South LA, working with the riff raff so to speak, I would not be surprised to hear or see Furhman, or any other LE individual (black or white) refer to another race in a derogatory fashion. Think there weren't black LE who didn't refer to others of their own race as n*****s? Please. But, it was played to the hilt with this race card by the defense. No surprise, it was their job to incite this emotional thought to the jury! Interesting, that the jury was made up of 10 blacks, 1 hispanic and 1 white. Fuhrman did apparently lie about his reference, but he did nothing different in his references than many other people in this world. Cochran, smart cookie, used that to the fullest advantage.

IMO things are changing re racism now, finally and thankfully, but at that time, that's what went on.

[martin II]

My impression was that the defense asked them questions about things that didn't directly relate to the competence of the way the evidence was handled. I thought the defense was asking questions on which they might be able to prove them wrong on a video. For example Fung got hammered for saying that he carried a vial of blood back to a truck, and then the defense showed a video which showed that Mazzola carried the evidence. To get on people's backs about irrelevant detail like that was stupid. Do you think the trial had 9 months of information in it? That sort of thing is one of the reasons the trial lasted so long. Also Mazzola was criticized for touching her nose as she collected blood evidence. This was an error, but even if she had blood from all three people on her nose, that shouldn't have made any difference. In that area (the grouond at the crime scene), where she touched her nose, each blood spot had only one person's DNA in it. So if Mazzola incorrectly added some DNA (OJS, NBS or RG) some blood spots should have had two or moe people's DNA. Also the DNA from the nose would have been much smaller than the blood spots. The way I see it, that mistake reflects badly on Mazzola, but didn't damage the evidence. In case you forgot, Henry Lee made worse errors.
I don't think any blood samples were destroyed in the broken AC, just degraded. The blood samples that were picked up were temporarily wet, that is how they were picked up. The blood samples in the bronco were dry. I believe that dry blood withstands heat better. For one thing bacteria can thrive when it is hot and wet, but not when it is hot and dry.
I wont try to judge Dennis Fungs actions. I would want to ask him, and other criminologists who worked with him, or who at least have that work experience, even if not at LA.


Another correction to your post.

As has been posted there was no liquid collected from the air conditioner that was proven to be blood. Not even degraded blood. There was no evidence presented that gave proof that oj jumped the fence or was in the area that the glove was found.There was testimony that no one jumped that fence.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

As you may remember, I believe that if anyone truly believes that the dog's barking and wailing was an indication of Nicole's death, then they have to believe that the dog also cleared Simpson---in regards to the timeline.

Did the DA's ever have a theory on where Simpson parked his car that night?

If as Clark thought the murders happened at 10;20 why was the dog according to stein barking at 10;10 If the murders did happen at 10;20 then it took more that 1 1 1/2 minutes to kill both and heidstra did not see the white suv at 10;40 if the murders happened at 10;10 the hey hey hey voice was not rons at 10;40 as he would have already been dead.


I think that because the foot prints led to the back gate they assumed oj had parked near nicoles back garage in the alley. but there was no proof of this.there were no blood drops from the back gate to the garage parking area.

[martin II]

martin, how do you know that Fung examined the sweats? I've never heard a word about him tossing them on the floor.

Are you suggesting that fung did not examine the sweats for blood and found none? examined the washer for blood and found none?

[tv]

Are you suggesting that fung did not examine the sweats for blood and found none? examined the washer for blood and found none?

Fung examined the washer for a possible blood transfer which turned out to be rust. Two other Robbery/Homicide detectives (not Roberts or Fuhrman) looked at the sweats and had Willie Ford video them but didn't collect them. They would have been important not only for possible blood but fibers also. They also didn't collect the blood smear that Det. Roberts found near the light switch in the bathroom near the maid's room.

[martin II]

tv

if fung did not remove the sweats to examine them how did he know they were adult sweats. not from the picture.

[tv]

tv

if fung did not remove the sweats to examine them how did he know they were adult sweats. not from the picture.
I don't know that he didn't take them out but I have no information that he did. Maybe he did but I don't want to state something as fact if I don't really know.

[martin II]

Fung examined the washer for a possible blood transfer which turned out to be rust. Two other Robbery/Homicide detectives (not Roberts or Fuhrman) looked at the sweats and had Willie Ford video them but didn't collect them. They would have been important not only for possible blood but fibers also. They also didn't collect the blood smear that Det. Roberts found near the light switch in the bathroom near the maid's room.


So fung examined the washer with the sweats still in it?

[tv]

So fung examined the washer with the sweats still in it?
I don't know if the rust stain he examined was on the inside or outside. If you find something that gives those details I'd be interested to read it.

[martin II]

Fung examined the washer for a possible blood transfer which turned out to be rust. Two other Robbery/Homicide detectives (not Roberts or Fuhrman) looked at the sweats and had Willie Ford video them but didn't collect them. They would have been important not only for possible blood but fibers also. They also didn't collect the blood smear that Det. Roberts found near the light switch in the bathroom near the maid's room.


So fung examined the washer with the sweats still in it?
The prosecution basically told the jury. We dont have a item to match up with these fibers to prove the source of the fibers but we want you to to believe they came from ojs sweats because we say they did.imo

[martin II]

I don't know if the rust stain he examined was on the inside or outside. If you find something that gives those details I'd be interested to read it.
When i return i will look

[martin II]

if the sweats were never removed from the washer how do we know if they were for a adult or a child?

[tv]

if the sweats were never removed from the washer how do we know if they were for a adult or a child?The only answer I can give you is that sweats are very bulky and adult-sized sweats would take up much more room than a child's sweats. Were there any small children living in that house?

I'm not saying Fung didn't pick up the sweats -- I'm saying I don't know.

[old_soul]

Why was the Bronco outside the gates? Hello. I saw the pictures, I drive, that car was not parked normally.

So, even though Parks was there since 10:25, and buzzed with no answer, he did not see OJ come out of the house at any time earlier?... and then only saw him when he came back across the driveway? Dressed in black, from the direction of that Bronco? Because OJ could not deny it makes it innocent?

Parks saw 5 bags. A LV garment bag, a golf bags 2 duffel bags and a small
knapsack. He saw OJ get in the limo with 2 duffel bags, he did not know what he did with the smaller knapsack. During a closed door conference, Pros revealed a witness who came forward, who saw OJ 'reach down into the garbage can, then reached back up and zipped the duffel bag closed'. This was next to the luggage check in. Parks was the one who said he saw him resting the golf clubs on the garbage can, not the witness. Two different things.

Oj's neighbor Charles Cale did not see OJ's car at 9:45 when he walked his dog. He did see it @ 7:00 AM the next morning, noting this because cars were rarely parked on Rockingham. (This fits Katos testimony) When Parks was looking for curb numbers at 10:25, there was no Bronco, nor later when he drove around to another entrance.

Receipts mean crap re the shoes. There are many photos of him wearing them.

Maybe he had stomach problems?? Maybe he didn't.

Nicoles keys were stolen he had them. Who's to say he didn't use them to get inside the gate moments before Ron showed up?

OJ was taking a shower. We know this to be truth, because he said it, right?

Jill saw him run the red light. He was out, he was by her house, not at home oversleeping, packing or showering. Period. She was not used because she sold the story.

Details about the gloves are crap also. Those were the brand, the style and the size gloves he wore. Period. The odds are ridiculous.

There is absolutely no reason to take the dome light down and out, unless you are LE or have something to hide. It's incorrect to assume the average person does this. It can be adjusted to not come on, or if it does, you can quickly shut the darn thing off. To take it off is telling.

No, OJ was not charged with stalking or threatening her life. Only once did he deal with the law on that count. You all saw those pictures and heard her own words. If he was taken into account for everything he was doing, she might be alive now.

[weezer]

fgump2,

The Simpson trial was a unique trial in very many ways and while many people have taken their shots at Shapiro, he was brilliant in insisting on Simpson's right to a fair trial. It is not uncommon for trials to take place a few years after the murders. The state's witnesses, like crime lab techs, etc. know this. They know that their notes are the keystone to their testimony. Their training is not OJT, they spend many, many hours on every aspect of their jobs, such as note taking. To say that the defense was expecting too much from the CSI team just isn't fair. These are trained professionals who know what happens in a trial, including the fact that they will be called to testify.

I agree with you that anybody and everybody should be concerned about this, however, not about what they could remember but how is it that the key blood evidence in this trial was collected weeks and months later? How do you explain Fung getting a sample from the Bronco but the first time around he only got Nicole's, Simpson's and some unknown and then in August, he manages to get Goldman's?

BTW, if the broken AC unit destroyed some of the blood evidence after being in the truck for several hours, how do you explain that blood samples taken from inside a car after spending weeks and weeks in the sun was able to produce any results?


Your comments about the defense, IMO, are unfair because they asked fair and legitimate questions. It was the state's witnesses who did not give logical answers or did more dancing on the witness stand then they did anything else.

Please remember, all the witnesses know, that when they are crossed examined, the "other" side is going to bring every thing they have to cast doubt on their recollections and motives. Remember what disaster it was for Clark when she went after the couple on the blind date? Trying to suggest they were too drunk to notice anything?

Also remember, some of the state's witnesses testified three times, once at the grand jury, once at the prelim and then during the trial.

the truth doesn't work in orenthal's defense does it?

link please to ". . .blood samples taken from inside a car after spending weeks and weeks in the sun was able to produce any results?. . .:

[weezer]

Martin,

As you may remember, I believe that if anyone truly believes that the dog's barking and wailing was an indication of Nicole's death, then they have to believe that the dog also cleared Simpson---in regards to the timeline.

Did the DA's ever have a theory on where Simpson parked his car that night?

LOL -- girl where you been? you know that orenthal parked his Bronco in the back alley -- the trail of his blood led right to it. :eek:

[martin II]

There were 5 'hesistation' cuts on Ron's face...they actually served no purpose, but it was felt that the killer poked at him to determine if he was still alive or dead.

It was determined that Nicole did fight for her life. Defensive wounds to her hands show she did and knew what was happening....."HEY! HEY! HEY!" ~ That was all Ron got to say before he was in the fight for his life.

IMO stands to reason that the killer, OJ, was wearing the black sweats. But, one important thing shows how ignorant he was in his haste to wash them..you NEVER would wash any kind of lingerie or delicates with fabrics of such density. THIS WAS NEVER DISCUSSED! Who would ever do this? Someone who knows Jack about washing clothes. He had no time to ditch them, but since they were black and did not 'show blood', he assumed to wash them would wash away the blood and there would be no problem. He lucked out with that whole situation. Period. Funny thing, them being gone later. Funny thing blood was also determined to be in the drain of the shower, and don't insult anyone's intelligence by talking about whether it was or wasn't blood. OJ also assumed incorrectly about the socks. Those 20 or so spots of blood, much around the ankle area didn't show up on the black easily, so he didn't think. There were other more pressing things to get to first I imagine.

Coincidence after coincidence after coincidence. Don't quote trial testimony by the defense used to refute what evidence was found. We know the defense's job, as we witnessed Mark Geragos claiming reasonable doubt in the Laci Peterson case...Homeless people, satanic cults.

If drugs or Faye Resnick were involved in any way, Resnick would be dead now, 100 times over, since she was the target..She is very much alive.

The bodies of both were found at 12:10. Nicole's stomach content showed pasta, and what seems to be spinach or a green leafy substance, etc. Didn't matter if the stomach contents disappeared later, though it makes one wonder where or how it got 'lost'.did the autopsi report indicate what nicole had in her stomach. it would be helpful if you have a link to what was found.

Another thing I would like to add here. It is quite common, in many cities, to have a double standard, if I may. There are Italians we like, who we call Italian. Then there are Italians we don't like, that we refer to in a derogatory way. This goes for any nationality, color, or race, ok. This is not my opinion, it is the truth. For everyone on this earth, there is a derogatory reference to the 'bad ones'. Given the racial background of South LA, working with the riff raff so to speak, I would not be surprised to hear or see Furhman, or any other LE individual (black or white) refer to another race in a derogatory fashion. Think there weren't black LE who didn't refer to others of their own race as n*****s? Please. But, it was played to the hilt with this race card by the defense. No surprise, it was their job to incite this emotional thought to the jury! Interesting, that the jury was made up of 10 blacks, 1 hispanic and 1 white. Fuhrman did apparently lie about his reference, but he did nothing different in his references than many other people in this world. Cochran, smart cookie, used that to the fullest advantage.

IMO things are changing re racism now, finally and thankfully, but at that time, that's what went on.

If it was common knowledge in le for people to use racist comments as furhman did why didn't he just say yes i and others used those type comments. i don't think that most cops used that language in their work.

[martin II]

old south
you were correct about nicoles stomach contents
sorry for the question.

[tv]

If it was common knowledge in le for people to use racist comments as furhman did why didn't he just say yes i and others used those type comments. i don't think that most cops used that language in their work.It was well known that Johnnie Cochran and those that worked in his office routinely used the N word. I wouldn't think lawyers would use that word in their professional lives but it looks like I was wrong.

[martin II]

The only answer I can give you is that sweats are very bulky and adult-sized sweats would take up much more room than a child's sweats. Were there any small children living in that house?

I'm not saying Fung didn't pick up the sweats -- I'm saying I don't know.

ojs children spent time at his house and nicole brought them there for visits.

[martin II]

It was well known that Johnnie Cochran and those that worked in his office routinely used the N word. I wouldn't think lawyers would use that word in their professional lives but it looks like I was wrong.

i just don't believe that most lapd cops used the kind of language that furman used in their work.

[old_soul]

Martin, it is 3/4 of the way down, listed under gastrointestinal system, sorry, I should have provided that link since it was discussed earlier.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas45.htm

[martin II]

LOL -- girl where you been? you know that orenthal parked his Bronco in the back alley -- the trail of his blood led right to it. :eek:

I think the blood drops stoped just before the back gate. i know of no reported drops leading up to where you believe oj may have parked in the alley.

[tv]

ojs children spent time at his house and nicole brought them there for visits.

Oh for heaven's sake -- now the sweats belong to the children?

[old_soul]

i just don't believe that most lapd cops used the kind of language that furman used in their work.

You know what, and I'm being totally honest here and I do not agree it is right, but yes, it is done, and not necessarily in 'mixed' company. In other words, you can do it around some, others you can't. Not right, but true.

Human nature? I don't know...it's still not right.

[martin II]

Martin, it is 3/4 of the way down, listed under gastrointestinal system, sorry, I should have provided that link since it was discussed earlier.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas45.htm

i just saw it. thanks
sorry for the question.

[martin II]

Oh for heaven's sake -- now the sweats belong to the children?

Since no blood was found on the sweats or in the washing machine and since they were never compared to the fibers found,There is no proof that they meant anything as far as proof was concerned other than some clothes in a washer.

[old_soul]

Public Perception/internet info.....People are crazy, how do they have time to figure this stuff up??? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/satire_seuss.html



Gallop opinion polls..interesting. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/polls.html

[martin II]

the truth doesn't work in orenthal's defense does it?

link please to ". . .blood samples taken from inside a car after spending weeks and weeks in the sun was able to produce any results?. . .:

Fung took blood samples from the bronco on 6/13. the car was taken to the police impound where it sat for weeks before fung for some reason decided to go and look for more samples.I think it was during that time that those two men had rammaged through the car looking for anything they could find as the car was not locked at the impound.

[martin II]

Public Perception/internet info.....People are crazy, how do they have time to figure this stuff up??? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/satire_seuss.html



Gallop opinion polls..interesting. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/polls.html

Some time ago i postee that poll link showing that 85% of whites thought oj was guilty BEFORE the trial started. i don't know if it was media reports that caused these opinions so early or something like black man killed two white people. But i believe that once people decide on something and make their opinions known to friends etc they don't change their opinion even when later facts prove them wrong. example the jury found oj not guilty based on the facts of the trial and how they the tryers of fact viewed those facts. yet some say oh the jury was racist and ignorant yet most believe in the jury system.Or say they do.:shrug:

[old_soul]

old south
you were correct about nicoles stomach contents
sorry for the question.

Martin, no apologies necessary, kiddo...that's why we're here, to trade info and discuss the injustices of humankind :(

[weezer]

It was well known that Johnnie Cochran and those that worked in his office routinely used the N word. I wouldn't think lawyers would use that word in their professional lives but it looks like I was wrong.

lawyers? how about preachers? :eek: are you listening jesse jackson? :no:

[fgump2]

Some time ago i postee that poll link showing that 85% of whites thought oj was guilty BEFORE the trial started. i don't know if it was media reports that caused these opinions so early or something like black man killed two white people. But i believe that once people decide on something and make their opinions known to friends etc they don't change their opinion even when later facts prove them wrong. example the jury found oj not guilty based on the facts of the trial and how they the tryers of fact viewed those facts. yet some say oh the jury was racist and ignorant yet most believe in the jury system.Or say they do.:shrug:


I was part of that 85%, and I thought I was right in assuming he was guilty. I thought he was innocent at first, that he was too nice a guy.

I changed my mind for several reasons.

First of all, it came out that she was afraid of him; her psychotherapist, Susan Forward publicly stated that Nicole was afraid of OJS, and feared for her life. Ms Forward also stated that she thought Nicole was correct in being afraid of OJS. The Brown family made similar statements.

I thought OJS made statements which were more consistent with guilt than innocence. I have had people close to me unexpectedly die, and I have been around others who went through the same thing. I think that part of the normal experience of this is a feeling of guilt, or at least regret, that the survivor didn't act nicer to the deceased when they had the chance. OJS made a number of statements with these feelings completely absent.

Another factor was that the football people from the teams he played on gave him almost no support. I realize many of them wouldn't want to court controversy by giving him strong support; but he wasn't even getting much weak support. For example, his ex team mates seemed to consistently say things like 'I feel terrible about this'. Almost none of them said as much as: He may be guilty, but he didn't seem like that kind of guy. I thought of him as being morally upright'.
I remember reading about one ex team mate who attended Nicole’s funeral and said to the press "I didn't know if I should give him a punch in the face or a hug of sympathy; he deserves one or the other". This was one of OJS's few ex team mates who was even willing to even bring up the possibility that OJS might be innocent. The news media didn't mention the player's race or how long he had been a team mate of OJS. I thought that the press should have investigated what the former team mates and coaches thought of him.
We should keep in mind that football probably generates more feeling of team loyalty than any other American sport. We should also keep in mind that a common characteristic of narcisstic psychopaths is that people who know them superficially usually like and respect them. People who know them well are more likely to have a low opinion of them.
I think most Americans do have faith in the jury system; but few think of the jury system as being infallible.

[martin II]

I was part of that 85%, and I thought I was right in assuming he was guilty. I thought he was innocent at first, that he was too nice a guy.

I changed my mind for several reasons.

First of all, it came out that she was afraid of him; her psychotherapist, Susan Forward publicly stated that Nicole was afraid of OJS, and feared for her life. Ms Forward also stated that she thought Nicole was correct in being afraid of OJS. The Brown family made similar statements.

I thought OJS made statements which were more consistent with guilt than innocence. I have had people close to me unexpectedly die, and I have been around others who went through the same thing. I think that part of the normal experience of this is a feeling of guilt, or at least regret, that the survivor didn't act nicer to the deceased when they had the chance. OJS made a number of statements with these feelings completely absent.

Another factor was that the football people from the teams he played on gave him almost no support. I realize many of them wouldn't want to court controversy by giving him strong support; but he wasn't even getting much weak support. For example, his ex team mates seemed to consistently say things like 'I feel terrible about this'. Almost none of them said as much as: He may be guilty, but he didn't seem like that kind of guy. I thought of him as being morally upright'.
I remember reading about one ex team mate who attended Nicole’s funeral and said to the press "I didn't know if I should give him a punch in the face or a hug of sympathy; he deserves one or the other". This was one of OJS's few ex team mates who was even willing to even bring up the possibility that OJS might be innocent. The news media didn't mention the player's race or how long he had been a team mate of OJS. I thought that the press should have investigated what the former team mates and coaches thought of him.
We should keep in mind that football probably generates more feeling of team loyalty than any other American sport. We should also keep in mind that a common characteristic of narcisstic psychopaths is that people who know them superficially usually like and respect them. People who know them well are more likely to have a low opinion of them.
I think most Americans do have faith in the jury system; but few think of the jury system as being infallible.

i would say that most public opinion is not by people that have studies the case but by media reports that they hear/see or read. Which is why i don't pay attention to public opinion or what most Americans think.

I think you expect more from ojs friends than is expected from other defendants.
How many celebrities/friends spoke out in the media for scott peterson or Robert Blake.Blake was better known for movies that ok.

Trying to make a case for ojs guilt based on how many football players made public statements of support is a non starter for me.

[old_soul]

Some time ago i postee that poll link showing that 85% of whites thought oj was guilty BEFORE the trial started. i don't know if it was media reports that caused these opinions so early or something like black man killed two white people. But i believe that once people decide on something and make their opinions known to friends etc they don't change their opinion even when later facts prove them wrong. example the jury found oj not guilty based on the facts of the trial and how they the tryers of fact viewed those facts. yet some say oh the jury was racist and ignorant yet most believe in the jury system.Or say they do.:shrug:


What you say is true. Some people, racist people, did pass judgement based on race. I never saw it that way. This/these murders were about control, jealousy and uncontrolled emotions, ie, a psychological problem.

I did not make any assumptions, but my first feeling hinkey about it was the car chase and what was disclosed about what OJ had with him : $8,000, a comical disguise, a passport, the suicide note, professing his love for Nicole. Mourning, grieving, does not make one take these items and 'go on the lam'. Would you have the presence of mind to do this in finding a loved one (god forbid) was killed like this? Is that normal? I thought he was fine, over her?
What was this sudden 'I don't want to live' stuff?

Whatever happened to searching the ends of the earth for her killer and not stopping until he found out who it was. He Never did anything. Let us also not forget the outcome in the civil case too.

I believe the first jury had too much to take in, it was too circus for them to really absorb what was behind all the stuff swirling in front of them. I also believe that those jurors did not want to believe he was capable of this ~ not OJ Simpson! The atmosphere of the case allowed them to decide what they did.

Much later on, I read interviews with 3 jurors. They admitted they really didn't grasp the DNA evidence, and didn't realize how important the DNA really was.....imagine that, after days and days of testimony, all of it and the bickering by both sides....the jury really didn't get it! :(

[weezer]

It wasn't until the playoffs were interrupted with the bronco ride that I guess I was aware that the murders had happened. After the bronco ride and suicide note, I thought that he 'probably' did it. So I guess I'm in that 85% also.

BTW, I keep seeing the percentage of 'whites' that thought he was guilty before the trial, anyone have the percentage of blacks that thought he wasn't guilty? or the percentage of blacks that thought LE was framing orenthal?

[weezer]

What you say is true. Some people, racist people, did pass judgement based on race. I never saw it that way. This/these murders were about control, jealousy and uncontrolled emotions, ie, a psychological problem.

I did not make any assumptions, but my first feeling hinkey about it was the car chase and what was disclosed about what OJ had with him : $8,000, a comical disguise, a passport, the suicide note, professing his love for Nicole. Mourning, grieving, does not make one take these items and 'go on the lam'. Would you have the presence of mind to do this in finding a loved one (god forbid) was killed like this? Is that normal? I thought he was fine, over her?
What was this sudden 'I don't want to live' stuff?

Whatever happened to searching the ends of the earth for her killer and not stopping until he found out who it was. He Never did anything. Let us also not forget the outcome in the civil case too.

I believe the first jury had too much to take in, it was too circus for them to really absorb what was behind all the stuff swirling in front of them. I also believe that those jurors did not want to believe he was capable of this ~ not OJ Simpson! The atmosphere of the case allowed them to decide what they did.

Much later on, I read interviews with 3 jurors. They admitted they really didn't grasp the DNA evidence, and didn't realize how important the DNA really was.....imagine that, after days and days of testimony, all of it and the bickering by both sides....the jury really didn't get it! :(

not only that they didn't understand the DNA but didn't consider it because they didn't understand it! then of course, there is the sad admission by the jurors that orenthal's history of domestic violence against Nicole also wasn't considered because they didn't think it was relevant. then of course, you have the jurors admitting that the gloves did fit. so now we're left with what? Fuhrman who lied about using a word and orenthal who hid behind his color and the adverse feelings of the black community toward LE at the time.

my heart sank the day I saw lionel cryer give orenthal the 'black power salute' and heard another juror say "we take care of our own" -- I knew we'd been duped.

[martin II]

What you say is true. Some people, racist people, did pass judgement based on race. I never saw it that way. This/these murders were about control, jealousy and uncontrolled emotions, ie, a psychological problem.

I did not make any assumptions, but my first feeling hinkey about it was the car chase and what was disclosed about what OJ had with him : $8,000, a comical disguise, a passport, the suicide note, professing his love for Nicole. Mourning, grieving, does not make one take these items and 'go on the lam'. Would you have the presence of mind to do this in finding a loved one (god forbid) was killed like this? Is that normal? I thought he was fine, over her?
What was this sudden 'I don't want to live' stuff?

Whatever happened to searching the ends of the earth for her killer and not stopping until he found out who it was. He Never did anything. Let us also not forget the outcome in the civil case too.

I believe the first jury had too much to take in, it was too circus for them to really absorb what was behind all the stuff swirling in front of them. I also believe that those jurors did not want to believe he was capable of this ~ not OJ Simpson! The atmosphere of the case allowed them to decide what they did.

Much later on, I read interviews with 3 jurors. They admitted they really didn't grasp the DNA evidence, and didn't realize how important the DNA really was.....imagine that, after days and days of testimony, all of it and the bickering by both sides....the jury really didn't get it! :(

I think that initially oj did hire a investigator but after both trials and mounting legal expenses He said he was no longer able to finance the search
And la da stated they were not interested in any investigation for any suspect.

There were no media reports that the jury did not pay attention to ALL of the testimony. The prosecution over did the DNA and lost most everyone.
I think the jury did pay attention to the DNA testimony but B Schak did a excellant job in attacking it at every turn.creating reasonable doubt. The white juror stated that she just did not believe the DNA (testimony)

If there had not been so many collection and lab problems and false testimony
maby it would have been easier to believe.

It may be that oj had a idea to run but he quickly realized there was no place to run so he and AC went to nicoles grave and then back home.

Wagner presents another theory as to who the killers were and based on how they were killed i don't find it strange that they were killed as they were.

The problem with the DNA was all the lies by lab people and most of all ojs missing blood and the fact that vanhatter carried it around on his person to a crime scene. If what was given to cellmark was faulty or planted then the DNA results means nothing. imo

These type black religious good citizens jury women send black men to jail every day. oj was no different to them.To say they went in not wanting to convict oj is not fair to them.

[martin II]

Some saw the bronco returning from nicoles grave on the highway and decided oj was guilty. the prosecution dissagreed with that idea as they did not use that tape in the trial.

[martin II]

old soul

I read your post again.
$8,000.00 was not a excessive amount of money for OJ to have with him at anytime as Paula said he always carried large sums of money.If he
was planning to run say to Mexico and hide as some have thought he was, he would need much more money that $8,000.00. imo

The testimony in the case was that he and AC went from the lawyers house
to nicoles grave. seeing it guarded by le they parked and talked.They then drove to the highway that led them back to ojs house.

[old_soul]

Martin, I don't know how old you are, but I figured I'd post this as a refresher for anyone who didn't know who 'OJ ~ The Juice' really was ~ and what he meant to Football, and Blacks (and whites) alike. This is who they saw sitting in that courtroom. Not the person who was on trial for the murder of 2 people.... Mr. Joe Public. Not saying these were ignorant folk, far from it, but this is what the State was up against. A legend, a Hero, who people had the utmost love and respect for.

How could a legend like OJ do this? Unbelievable.

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

[old_soul]

old soul

I read your post again.
$8,000.00 was not a excessive amount of money for OJ to have with him at anytime as Paula said he always carried large sums of money.If he
was planning to run say to Mexico and hide as some have thought he was, he would need much more money that $8,000.00. imo

The testimony in the case was that he and AC went from the lawyers house
to nicoles grave. seeing it guarded by le they parked and talked.They then drove to the highway that led them back to ojs house.

From what he was carrying...he was running. He was almost gone. So was Scott Peterson.

[martin II]

Martin, I don't know how old you are, but I figured I'd post this as a refresher for anyone who didn't know who 'OJ ~ The Juice' really was ~ and what he meant to Football, and Blacks (and whites) alike. This is who they saw sitting in that courtroom. Not the person who was on trial for the murder of 2 people.... Mr. Joe Public. Not saying these were ignorant folk, far from it, but this is what the State was up against. A legend, a Hero, who people had the utmost love and respect for.

How could a legend like OJ do this? Unbelievable.

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

OLD SOUTH
Some may have seen it that way but most of the guys i know said well juice is in trouble. If they prove it his butt is gone.When i saw all those black women on the jury i thought they will convict him.

Most of the women said be beat her, he killed her. My wife still says he killed her.

The LA DA has a 97 98 % conviction rate and those juries are made up of the same type black women and others as ojs. on average.

They are not football rabid football fans and most may have never seen oj play ball in Baffalo ny.THEY convict black men all the time.

I try not to determine what happened and why oj did this or didn't do that as much as i look to the testimony and how the evidence was presented.

One very strong issue for me is what happened in the two testimonies Mazzola gave.If she lied under cross and i think she did, all the DNA meant nothing. The prosecution tried with that late night video of Peratis to cover up OJS missing blood.But that failed imo

The state had five times the resources including their friend the FBI, much more than what oj had.
So it was oj that was "up against the wall". But the State still blew it. imo

[martin II]

From what he was carrying...he was running. He was almost gone. So was Scott Peterson.



I respect your opinion although it is in conflict with the facts.

[old_soul]

OLD SOUTH
Some may have seen it that way but most of the guys i know said well juice is in trouble. If they prove it his butt is gone.When i saw all those black women on the jury i thought they will convict him.

Most of the women said be beat her, he killed her. My wife still says he killed her. Your wife is a smart woman MartinThe LA DA has a 97 98 % conviction rate and those juries are made up of the same type black women and others as ojs. on average.

They are not football rabid football fans and most may have never seen oj play ball in Baffalo ny.THEY convict black men all the time.

I try not to determine what happened and why oj did this or didn't do that as much as i look to the testimony and how the evidence was presented.

One very strong issue for me is what happened in the two testimonies Mazzola gave.If she lied under cross and i think she did, all the DNA meant nothing. The prosecution tried with that late night video of Peratis to cover up OJS missing blood.But that failed imo IMO one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch.
The state had five times the resources including their friend the FBI, much more than what oj had.
So it was oj that was "up against the wall". But the State still blew it. imo

The state did screw up , that trial seemed to have a life of it's own :eek: but this convoluted puzzle still adds up to OJ being the perp. Too many so called coincidences. The most recent revelation about his hiding the $ (he said he supposedly didn't have) shows his feeling of entitlement. He was always treated like royalty, people couldn't do enough for him. Even though he lost the civil case, he felt he didn't have to pay up. Screw them, he said. He felt he was above the law. Reread his initial testimony to LE. He lies like a rug.
I'm also not at all surprised at how easily he can smile and lie right to someones face.

BTW ~ I'm old_soul, not old south...YeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaa! lol

[GreenIce]

Where are you getting this? Look at pictures of Nicole in any book and you'll see that she dressed that way all the time, even if she was just going to dinner with her family! I doubt her dress that night was sending any message. In fact, in a picture of her just a few days before she died she was wearing a very similar dress in the middle of the day.

Jayme,

I am basing my opinons on Kato's testimony. Do you remember when Marcia Clark declared Kato a hostile witness--it was during the portion of his testimony when he and Simpson are talking about what Nicole wore to the recital.

[GreenIce]

Thanks for making that clear. So there is clear evidence that the sweats were in OJ's house. That is on video. Then they disappeared. Did LE ask any of Simpson's staff if they washed the sweats or knew anything about them?
Because that's an important piece of evidence that disappeared.

Parker,

There is not clear evidence that there sweats in Simpson's home because this was never brought up in the trial. I believe the defense did ask OJ's housekeeper about seeing sweats and she said she did not see any.

Since the only person who handled them and never testified to what the garments, we do not know if the "evidence" disappeared.

[GreenIce]

The state did screw up , that trial seemed to have a life of it's own :eek: but this convoluted puzzle still adds up to OJ being the perp. Too many so called coincidences. The most recent revelation about his hiding the $ (he said he supposedly didn't have) shows his feeling of entitlement. He was always treated like royalty, people couldn't do enough for him. Even though he lost the civil case, he felt he didn't have to pay up. Screw them, he said. He felt he was above the law. Reread his initial testimony to LE. He lies like a rug.
I'm also not at all surprised at how easily he can smile and lie right to someones face.

BTW ~ I'm old_soul, not old south...YeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaa! lol

Old Soul,

In all fairness, didn't the state's case a lot more "coincidences" then the defense team? We know the key evidence had the same pattern of being found weeks and months later?

Again, in all fairness, would any one of us pay a civil judgement if we did not commit the crime if we were in the same situation---especially if we aquitted in the criminal trial?

Isn't it fair to say that if Simpson did pay off the judgement, people would say that proves his guilt because none of us would pay for a crime we didn't commit?

Isn't it fair to say many of us who refused to pay for a crime we did not commit, we would do our best to keep as much money as we could for our children?

Please remember, there are laws that do allow people to skirt a civil judge and these laws have been on books long before the Simpson case.

[GreenIce]

Why was the Bronco outside the gates? Hello. I saw the pictures, I drive, that car was not parked normally.

What time did Fuhrman go over to the Bronco and what time were pictures taken of it?

So, even though Parks was there since 10:25, and buzzed with no answer, he did not see OJ come out of the house at any time earlier?... and then only saw him when he came back across the driveway? Dressed in black, from the direction of that Bronco? Because OJ could not deny it makes it innocent?

No, it does make Simpson, however, Alan Park could only testify that see saw an African-American---dressed in black--there is no way to prove or disprove that Simpson was not telling the truth.

Parks saw 5 bags. A LV garment bag, a golf bags 2 duffel bags and a small
knapsack. He saw OJ get in the limo with 2 duffel bags, he did not know what he did with the smaller knapsack. During a closed door conference, Pros revealed a witness who came forward, who saw OJ 'reach down into the garbage can, then reached back up and zipped the duffel bag closed'. This was next to the luggage check in. Parks was the one who said he saw him resting the golf clubs on the garbage can, not the witness. Two different things.

Again, if Simpson did toss the evidence in the trash can, it would have noticed by the person who emptied the trash. What do the tapes say? Don't most airports have security cameras not only inside the airport but also at the drop offs.

The DA's did not ask for the all bags, I believe the bag in question was at Robert Kardashian's house. The real question on the bags, all of them is why they were seized by the police and tested for blood. Again, another example of the DA's not proving anything---yet many people believe this is the truth.

Oj's neighbor Charles Cale did not see OJ's car at 9:45 when he walked his dog. He did see it @ 7:00 AM the next morning, noting this because cars were rarely parked on Rockingham. (This fits Katos testimony) When Parks was looking for curb numbers at 10:25, there was no Bronco, nor later when he drove around to another entrance.

At least two major witnesses in this trial claimed they did not see evidence because they were not looking for it. Why would Park be looking for a car parked in the street as he pulled up. While I do not believe that Park is lying, however, he did not see Kato's car and he claimed. He also claimed that he saw no lights on in house--again, this proves nothing--how do we know that every single light on the inside of the house can be seen from the gated?


Receipts mean crap re the shoes. There are many photos of him wearing them.

Maybe he had stomach problems?? Maybe he didn't.

Where is testimony on this? Simpson's gonig to the bathroom several times on the plane means nothing because at least two witnesses saw his hands and they saw no cuts on his hand. Simpson's going to the bathroom means nothing, he could be one of the guys that are perfect for the commercial about men who suffer with this.

Why would Simpson keep going to the bathroom? To get rid of evidence? The plane was ripped apart, they found nothing.

Nicoles keys were stolen he had them. Who's to say he didn't use them to get inside the gate moments before Ron showed up?

Again, who testified about this? Why didn't the DA's introduce this in their case? The reason why is Nicole suspected that there was at least one person who could have taken them, Faye. It is not uncommon for ex's to have keys to each other's house. Nicole had keys to Simpson house, so why wouldn't he have a set for her house.

OJ was taking a shower. We know this to be truth, because he said it, right?
Prove he wasn't taking a shower.

Jill saw him run the red light. He was out, he was by her house, not at home oversleeping, packing or showering. Period. She was not used because she sold the story.

Clark used that as her excuse not to use JS's testimony. JS's testimony would have screwed her timeline. Don't forget there was another car involved, what did this driver see? JS selling her story is no different from the guy who sold his story about the knife.

Details about the gloves are crap also. Those were the brand, the style and the size gloves he wore. Period. The odds are ridiculous. Nicole bought two pairs of gloves that were given to friend. Tom McCallum gave the DA's one pair and the defense the other pair. So Nicole would have had to buy 4 pairs of gloves.

There is absolutely no reason to take the dome light down and out, unless you are LE or have something to hide. It's incorrect to assume the average person does this. It can be adjusted to not come on, or if it does, you can quickly shut the darn thing off. To take it off is telling.

Prove that Simpson took the bulb out of the car--was his Bently missing its dome light? As far as I know the Bronco was used by at least two other people, Simpson's daughter and maid, when were they asked about the dome light?

No, OJ was not charged with stalking or threatening her life. Only once did he deal with the law on that count. You all saw those pictures and heard her own words. If he was taken into account for everything he was doing, she might be alive now.

Yes, I saw the pictures but I heard Nicole's own voice say that it only happend once.

Nicole was being watched, why? Why was Paula's white bronco stolen and why was a notebook found with Nicole's comings and going?

I do agree with you that if Simpson was a better husband, Nicole would be alive today.

[GreenIce]

What you say is true. Some people, racist people, did pass judgement based on race. I never saw it that way. This/these murders were about control, jealousy and uncontrolled emotions, ie, a psychological problem.

I did not make any assumptions, but my first feeling hinkey about it was the car chase and what was disclosed about what OJ had with him : $8,000, a comical disguise, a passport, the suicide note, professing his love for Nicole. Mourning, grieving, does not make one take these items and 'go on the lam'. Would you have the presence of mind to do this in finding a loved one (god forbid) was killed like this? Is that normal? I thought he was fine, over her?
What was this sudden 'I don't want to live' stuff?

Whatever happened to searching the ends of the earth for her killer and not stopping until he found out who it was. He Never did anything. Let us also not forget the outcome in the civil case too.

I believe the first jury had too much to take in, it was too circus for them to really absorb what was behind all the stuff swirling in front of them. I also believe that those jurors did not want to believe he was capable of this ~ not OJ Simpson! The atmosphere of the case allowed them to decide what they did.

Much later on, I read interviews with 3 jurors. They admitted they really didn't grasp the DNA evidence, and didn't realize how important the DNA really was.....imagine that, after days and days of testimony, all of it and the bickering by both sides....the jury really didn't get it! :(

old_soul,

The DA's did not introduce the Bronco chase. There are very good reasons why they didn't. We do not know who Simpson called during the Bronco Chase. We do not know the whole conversation between Lange and Simpson.

We do not know what Simpson has or hasn't done in regard to finding Nicole's killers.

The civil trial jurors did not believe that Simpson was trying to flee. Where could he go and every transport agency, such as harbors, etc. were put on alert.

If the money was a sign of guilt, then why wasn't this introduce in court? Most people who knew both OJ and Nicole knew they carried large amounts of money on their person. The money was not a big deal.

[GreenIce]

Fung examined the washer for a possible blood transfer which turned out to be rust. Two other Robbery/Homicide detectives (not Roberts or Fuhrman) looked at the sweats and had Willie Ford video them but didn't collect them. They would have been important not only for possible blood but fibers also. They also didn't collect the blood smear that Det. Roberts found near the light switch in the bathroom near the maid's room.

TV,

The socks were also video taped. The socks were also checked by Fung at Rockingham and saw none but he collected them any---why, because he believed that they could provide evidence--like blood that can't be see with the naked eye.

Deedrick, nor any other state's witness testified the fibers came from a sweat suit. Deedrick testified that he believed the fibers came for the same cloth. No comparisons were done to any sweat suit.

How many garments have the same type fibers? The fibers were not unique in anyway.

[GreenIce]

Old Soul,

I do not blame you nor do I find your reasoning to be totally out of the ball park on some of the evidence.

IMO, one person may see "evidence" as clear signs of guilt while someone else can see the same "evidence" as clear signs of innocence. Which is why this case is so interesting. Which is why we are here how many years later?

[old_soul]

Old Soul,

In all fairness, didn't the state's case a lot more "coincidences" then the defense team? We know the key evidence had the same pattern of being found weeks and months later? No, because they aren't really coincidences, Green Ice.

Again, in all fairness, would any one of us pay a civil judgement if we did not commit the crime if we were in the same situation---especially if we aquitted in the criminal trial? The civil trial was the final word. He was ordered to pay up. He didn't have any repercussions from the criminal case.

Isn't it fair to say that if Simpson did pay off the judgement, people would say that proves his guilt because none of us would pay for a crime we didn't commit?What? The same laws that allowed him no penalties the first time, deemed him to pay up in the civil case. Because it went good for him the first time, means he ignores the other trial?

Isn't it fair to say many of us who refused to pay for a crime we did not commit, we would do our best to keep as much money as we could for our children? For his children? I know you're joking, because HE didn't say that.

Please remember, there are laws that do allow people to skirt a civil judge and these laws have been on books long before the Simpson case.

Recent events have come to light about his lying and scheming to hide his assets, not to mention moving to FL. That's ok, though, because we can see where it got him now.

[martin II]

The state did screw up , that trial seemed to have a life of it's own :eek: but this convoluted puzzle still adds up to OJ being the perp. Too many so called coincidences. The most recent revelation about his hiding the $ (he said he supposedly didn't have) shows his feeling of entitlement. He was always treated like royalty, people couldn't do enough for him. Even though he lost the civil case, he felt he didn't have to pay up. Screw them, he said. He felt he was above the law. Reread his initial testimony to LE. He lies like a rug.
I'm also not at all surprised at how easily he can smile and lie right to someones face.

BTW ~ I'm old_soul, not old south...YeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaa! lol

old soul
Sorry about mispelling you nic.

Mazzolas lie means someone switched the bendels she collected.
Peratis lie means someone used the missing oj blood for planting.

This caused major doubt on any blood sent to the DNA labs.

When the jury find these kind of lies presented to them by the prosecution
it ususlly causes mistrust of their case. this was more than one bad apply in the barrel imo

After the civil trila oj said "i will not pay as dime because i did not do the crime" i don't see that as entitlement. While you may not like his smile or conduct, these issues have nothing to do with the prosecution failing to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. imo

OJ never testified to le or anyone else in eitherr trial.
imo

[GreenIce]

Recent events have come to light about his lying and scheming to hide his assets, not to mention moving to FL. That's ok, though, because we can see where it got him now.

Old Soul,

The blood on the back gate was found two weeks after the crime scene was washed down.

The blood on the socks was not found until August.

Ron's blood was never found in the Bronco until August.

A bloody fingerprint that was on the back gate was not collected and not seen by anyone else but Fuhrman.

A bloody fingerprint found in side Simpson's home was not collected or tested.

The blood drops on Nicole's back were not collected or tested.

The nurse testified twice about how much blood he drew yet it was only until Johnnie Cochran's opening statements when he realized his mistake.

Fuhrman did not see any evidence of a person jumping over the fence or any other evidence that indicated a person was behind the wall that night--however, he was not looking for any.

The female detective who did not see any blood in the Bronco--yet she was not looking for it either.

There are a few more, just think of them right now!

[martin II]

Recent events have come to light about his lying and scheming to hide his assets, not to mention moving to FL. That's ok, though, because we can see where it got him now.

The civil judgement meant that oj had debt to Fred and the NBS estate. it did not mean the oj had a responsibility to inform anyone when he had money.

It is the same when a bank gets a judgement against a person for non payment on a credit card.It was and still is up to the judgement holder to find and attatch the defendants assets which is why Fred is constantly looking for his assets to enforce the judgement.

Most civil judgements are never paid in America by Americans.Many many Americans move to Florida to take advantage of State laws.Long before oj
and presently.HE broke no law by moving to Florida as he did have a family to care for and i assume he did as many would do. Care for his family rather than pay a judgement for something he did not do. imo

[old_soul]

Yes, I saw the pictures but I heard Nicole's own voice say that it only happend once.I need to know what you mean by stating this. Many many people she was close to knew he was abusive. Nicole kept those pictures and accounts of being thrown out of a moving vehicle, OJ showing up when she went out, he admitted watching her have oral sex with another man, through her living room window. 911 phone calls with him in the background raging. Denise Brown admittedly didn't know all of it, but she took those pictures, and did admit to once seeing him throw her against a wall. Even a comment saying ONLY ONCE is insulting, when this woman was scared for her life many times. She even made remarks to the effect "he's going to kill me".

Nicole was being watched, why? Because OJ was obsessed with her. She was not being watched by anyone else, unless it was an investigator he hired. Why was Paula's white bronco stolen and why was a notebook found with Nicole's comings and going? Well, why?

I do agree with you that if Simpson was a better husband, Nicole would be alive today.That ain't the half of it.

From my last list of questions, all of my statements came from transcripts and trial coverage or interviews with the people mentioned. I suggest you do a refresher and reread trial coverage., but I will try to answer some I remember........

Parks noticed no Bronco, because he was reading the street numbers which are on the curbs . If the Bronco was there, he couldn't have missed it.

Nicole stated her keys were stolen. Those very same set of keys were found in OJ's possession. She DID NOT give them to him.

I can only guess that in 1994-95 airport cameras were not in place at the area in question, otherwise we would have heard about it.

Did you really say to prove he wasn't taking a shower? First he says it was him seen by Parks walking across the driveway. Then it's that he overslept. Or packing. Then, he was taking a shower?

The bag in question (that you mentioned) was a garment bag Kardashian carried for him when OJ came back from Chicago. This is what K was seen carrying, and what he also stated. He also said he did not open it up. I was referring to the small half moon shaped knapsack that OJ came out of the house with.

Are you saying the maid took the dome light off and put it under the seat???

Pictures at Rockingham then, show the house could have been seen from the street. It was 'black, until when Kato came out with the flashlight and buzzed OJ again with Parks there. Oj answed the buzz this time, and then all the lights on the first floor lit up.

MOO ~Lastly, I am not saying he had prostate problems. I am not saying he had intestional problems. No one noticed if he had a band aid on or not. IMO, it was actually the first chances he got to be alone,to compose himself, after that 'hot' limo ride to the airport....

That's it for me, for now.

[old_soul]

More interesting reading.........http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/reports/kardashian.html

[Parker]

From my last list of questions, all of my statements came from transcripts and trial coverage or interviews with the people mentioned. I suggest you do a refresher and reread trial coverage., but I will try to answer some I remember........

Parks noticed no Bronco, because he was reading the street numbers which are on the curbs . If the Bronco was there, he couldn't have missed it.

Nicole stated her keys were stolen. Those very same set of keys were found in OJ's possession. She DID NOT give them to him.

I can only guess that in 1994-95 airport cameras were not in place at the area in question, otherwise we would have heard about it.

Did you really say to prove he wasn't taking a shower? First he says it was him seen by Parks walking across the driveway. Then it's that he overslept. Or packing. Then, he was taking a shower?

The bag in question (that you mentioned) was a garment bag Kardashian carried for him when OJ came back from Chicago. This is what K was seen carrying, and what he also stated. He also said he did not open it up. I was referring to the small half moon shaped knapsack that OJ came out of the house with.

Are you saying the maid took the dome light off and put it under the seat???

Pictures at Rockingham then, show the house could have been seen from the street. It was 'black, until when Kato came out with the flashlight and buzzed OJ again with Parks there. Oj answed the buzz this time, and then all the lights on the first floor lit up.

MOO ~Lastly, I am not saying he had prostate problems. I am not saying he had intestional problems. No one noticed if he had a band aid on or not. IMO, it was actually the first chances he got to be alone,to compose himself, after that 'hot' limo ride to the airport....

That's it for me, for now.

I think you've added so much to the conversation here.:beer: It is great to read opinions that are based on fact. Bob August, TVDinner and fbgweezer also discuss the obvious truth. I appreciate that. Jayme and Kate when they drop in do that as well.

Isn't it about time that a free and open discussion appears here, rather than 2 people telling others what to think? It seems desperation to me on the parts of William Anthony and Martin that they appear to be right all the time about everything and what they say is the truth and that's it.

When obviously other people have different opinions. Why shouldn't other people be allowed to give their opinions?

Of course they should.:patriot: That's what this country is all about. IMO.

[Jayme K]

Jayme,

I am basing my opinons on Kato's testimony. Do you remember when Marcia Clark declared Kato a hostile witness--it was during the portion of his testimony when he and Simpson are talking about what Nicole wore to the recital.

OMG, you're basing it off of Kato's tetimony? If that's the case then can you please take into account the entire thing? It wasn't ONLY that O.J. was upset about what Nicole was wearing on that one night, he was upset in general about the fact that she STILL continued to dress that way which he thought was inappropriate for her age.

You paint such a different picture other than the real facts so many times it almost blows my mind. In fact, many pages back there are still some questions from tvdinner and from Kate that were posed to you and correcting your several mis-statements but I haven't seen you respond to any of that!

[Jayme K]

old_soul,

The DA's did not introduce the Bronco chase. There are very good reasons why they didn't. We do not know who Simpson called during the Bronco Chase. We do not know the whole conversation between Lange and Simpson.

We do not know what Simpson has or hasn't done in regard to finding Nicole's killers.

The civil trial jurors did not believe that Simpson was trying to flee. Where could he go and every transport agency, such as harbors, etc. were put on alert.

If the money was a sign of guilt, then why wasn't this introduce in court? Most people who knew both OJ and Nicole knew they carried large amounts of money on their person. The money was not a big deal.

Can you point me in the direction of statements from the civil trial jurors where they said that they didn't believe he was trying to flee?

Thanks!

[martin II]

From my last list of questions, all of my statements came from transcripts and trial coverage or interviews with the people mentioned. I suggest you do a refresher and reread trial coverage., but I will try to answer some I remember........

Parks noticed no Bronco, because he was reading the street numbers which are on the curbs . If the Bronco was there, he couldn't have missed it.

Nicole stated her keys were stolen. Those very same set of keys were found in OJ's possession. She DID NOT give them to him.

I can only guess that in 1994-95 airport cameras were not in place at the area in question, otherwise we would have heard about it.

Did you really say to prove he wasn't taking a shower? First he says it was him seen by Parks walking across the driveway. Then it's that he overslept. Or packing. Then, he was taking a shower?Kato never buzzed oj. when Oj returned from placing the two bags at the door the down stairs foyer light came on not all the lights in the downstairs.

MOO ~Lastly, I am not saying he had prostate problems. I am not saying he had intestional problems. No one noticed if he had a band aid on or not. IMO, it was actually the first chances he got to be alone,to compose himself, after that 'hot' limo ride to the airport....
Oj going to the bathroom means nothing.

That's it for me, for now.

There was no testimony by anyone that Oj was seen rummaging through a trash can.One sky cap said as they were checking his bag he stood next to a trash can and rested a bag on top of it. Anyway le searched all LAX trash cans and found nothing.imo

The small bag you refer to was always outside next to the Bently. Oj never brought this bag out of his house.

Oj was in his house when Park buzzed his he just did not answer right away.
Park saw oj when oj was returning to the door after he had deposited the bags on the front steps.
When park drove up to the door he saw two duffle bags on the steps.This means that oj had brought them down when park was buzzing him and puit them on the steps at the door.

Martin

[weezer]

Jayme,

I am basing my opinons on Kato's testimony. Do you remember when Marcia Clark declared Kato a hostile witness--it was during the portion of his testimony when he and Simpson are talking about what Nicole wore to the recital.

just so everyone is clear about Kato's testimony regarding Nicole's dress -- it wasn't kato and orenthal talking about how Nicole was dressed, it was orenthal being upset over how she was dressed:

A: It was sitting down. There's a phone here when he sits down, and I'm sitting across about five feet away, and it was, "Nicole's playing hardball with me. Sydney's my child, too. I can see her when want to. "And the dresses, the dresses they wear. I mean. Kato, what are they gonna do when they're grandmas? Are they going to wear those kind of dresses? Come on, how can they wear those dresses when they're older like that. It was a recital. They shouldn't -- it was like they're wearing stuff that they would wear to a club."

[weezer]

Parker,

There is not clear evidence that there sweats in Simpson's home because this was never brought up in the trial. I believe the defense did ask OJ's housekeeper about seeing sweats and she said she did not see any.

Since the only person who handled them and never testified to what the garments, we do not know if the "evidence" disappeared.

I don't know how much clearer it can be made than pictures and videos! but you are right, the housekeeper was asked about the laundry basket (determined to be arnelle's) and the freshly washed clothes in the washing machine (dark colored sweatsuit and women's lingerie). The housekeeper testified that when she left on Friday, there were no clothes or laundry basket in the laundry room.

I agree that the sweatsuit disappeared -- along with arnelle's laundry basket and the women's lingerie. hmmmm -- wonder who took them? :rolleyes:

[weezer]

Old Soul,

In all fairness, didn't the state's case a lot more "coincidences" then the defense team? We know the key evidence had the same pattern of being found weeks and months later?

Again, in all fairness, would any one of us pay a civil judgement if we did not commit the crime if we were in the same situation---especially if we aquitted in the criminal trial?

Isn't it fair to say that if Simpson did pay off the judgement, people would say that proves his guilt because none of us would pay for a crime we didn't commit?

Isn't it fair to say many of us who refused to pay for a crime we did not commit, we would do our best to keep as much money as we could for our children?

Please remember, there are laws that do allow people to skirt a civil judge and these laws have been on books long before the Simpson case.


LOL -- I didn't realize that paying a judgment was an option! who knew? :shrug:

[martin II]

just so everyone is clear about Kato's testimony regarding Nicole's dress -- it wasn't kato and orenthal talking about how Nicole was dressed, it was orenthal being upset over how she was dressed:

A: It was sitting down. There's a phone here when he sits down, and I'm sitting across about five feet away, and it was, "Nicole's playing hardball with me. Sydney's my child, too. I can see her when want to. "And the dresses, the dresses they wear. I mean. Kato, what are they gonna do when they're grandmas? Are they going to wear those kind of dresses? Come on, how can they wear those dresses when they're older like that. It was a recital. They shouldn't -- it was like they're wearing stuff that they would wear to a club."


In this testimony Kato said oj was not angry or upset when talking about the ladies dress. It was all in banter or regular conversation. imo

[tv]

Old Soul,

In all fairness, didn't the state's case a lot more "coincidences" then the defense team? We know the key evidence had the same pattern of being found weeks and months later?

Again, in all fairness, would any one of us pay a civil judgement if we did not commit the crime if we were in the same situation---especially if we aquitted in the criminal trial?

Isn't it fair to say that if Simpson did pay off the judgement, people would say that proves his guilt because none of us would pay for a crime we didn't commit?

Isn't it fair to say many of us who refused to pay for a crime we did not commit, we would do our best to keep as much money as we could for our children?

Please remember, there are laws that do allow people to skirt a civil judge and these laws have been on books long before the Simpson case.

Is it just a coincidence that:

-- Simpson cut himself at his home, leaving blood in the Bronco, his driveway, his foyer and his bathroom at about the time the murders occurred?

-- Simpson cut himself on his left hand and that there are drops of blood to the left of bloody footprints leaving the murder scene?

-- Simpson cut himself again in a hotel room in Chicago a few hours later?

-- the bloody shoe impressions walking away from the murder scene were in OJ's size and that the shoes which made them were quite expensive -- $160 a pair. Is it just another coincidence that he regularly purchased size 12 shoes at one of of only forty stores in the US which sold these expensive shoes.

--the doctor that Simpson went to a few days after the murders (at the behest of his lawyers) found numerous cuts and abrasions on his left hand.

-- the killer wore gloves from a batch of only a few hundred, of which Nicole purchased two pairs and Simpson had been depicted wearing two pairs.

And it goes on and on.

[old_soul]

I found this info on the knapsack and the witness who was never used regarding the garbage can. I didn't say rummaging, I just said there was a witness, and he said what he believed he saw. See: March 29, March 30, down to week 11.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/10.html

[weezer]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9174125]SNIPPED "Yes, I saw the pictures but I heard Nicole's own voice say that it only happend once. . ."QUOTE]

and did you also hear Nicole's voice on the 911 Gretna Green calls just months before her murder?

The following are excerpts from the two 911 calls Nicole Brown Simpson made to police on Oct. 25, 1993, from her townhouse.

NICOLE: Can you send someone to my house?
DISPATCHER: What's the problem there?
NICOLE: My ex-husband has just broken into my house and he's ranting and raving outside the front yard.
DISPATCHER: Has he been drinking or anything?
NICOLE: No. But he's crazy.
DISPATCHER: And you said he hasn't been drinking?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Did he hit you?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Do you have a restraining order against him?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: What's your name?
NICOLE: Nicole Simpson.
DISPATCHER: And your address?
NICOLE: 325 Gretna Green Way.
DISPATCHER: Okay, we'll send the police out.
NICOLE: Nicole: Thank you.
DISPATCHER: Dispatcher: Uh-huh.
(The dispatcher puts out a domestic violence call for any patrol car to respond to the address at Gretna Green. A short time later, Nicole Simpson called back.
NICOLE: Could you get somebody over here now, to ... Gretna Green. He's back. Please?
DISPATCHER: What does he look like?
NICOLE: He's O.J. Simpson. I think you know his record. Could you just send somebody over here?
DISPATCHER: What is he doing there?
NICOLE: He just drove up again. (She begins to cry) Could you just send somebody over?
DISPATCHER: Dispatcher: Wait a minute. What kind of car is he in?
NICOLE: He's in a white Bronco, but first of all he broke the back door down to get in.
DISPATCHER: Wait a minute. What's your name?
NICOLE: Nicole Simpson.
DISPATCHER: OK, is he the sportscaster or whatever?
NICOLE: Yeah. Thank you.
DISPATCHER: Wait a minute, we're sending police. What is he doing? Is he threatening you?
NICOLE: He's (expletive) going nuts. (sobs)
DISPATCHER: Has he threatened you in any way or is he just harassing you?
NICOLE: (Sighs) You're going to hear him in a minute. He's about to come in again.
DISPATCHER: OK, just stay on the line...
NICOLE: I don't want to stay on the line. He's going to beat the (expletive) out of me.
DISPATCHER: Wait a minute, just stay on the line so we can know what's going on until the police get there, OK? OK, Nicole?
NICOLE: Uh-huh.
DISPATCHER: Just a moment. Does he have any weapons?
NICOLE: I don't know. He went home and he came back. The kids are up there sleeping and I don't want anything to happen.
DISPATCHER: OK, just a moment. Is he on drugs or anything?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Just stay on the line. Just in case he comes in I need to hear what's going on, all right?
NICOLE: Can you hear him outside?
DISPATCHER: Is he yelling?
NICOLE: Yep.
DISPATCHER: OK. Has he been drinking?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: OK. (speaking over radio to police units) ... All units: additional on domestic violence, 325 South Gretna Green Way, the suspect has returned in a white Bronco. Monitor comments. Incident 48221.
DISPATCHER: OK, Nicole?
NICOLE: Uh-huh.
DISPATCHER: Is he outdoors?
NICOLE: He's in the back yard.
DISPATCHER: He's in the back yard?
NICOLE: Screaming at my roommate about me and at me.
DISPATCHER: OK. What is he saying?
NICOLE: Oh, something about some guy I know and hookers and Keith and I started this (expletive) before and ...
DISPATCHER: Um-hum.
NICOLE: And it's all my fault and 'Now what am I going to do, get the police in this' and the whole thing. It's all my fault, I started this before. (sigh) brother. (inaudible)
DISPATCHER: OK, has he hit you today or...?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: OK, you don't need any paramedics or anything.
NICOLE: Uh-uh
DISPATCHER: OK, you just want him to leave?
NICOLE: My door. He broke the whole back door in.
DISPATCHER : And then he left and he came back?
NICOLE: Then he came and he practically knocked my upstairs door down but he pounded it and he screamed and hollered and I tried to get him out of the bedroom because the kids are sleeping in there.
DISPATCHER: Um-hum. OK.
NICOLE: And then he wanted somebody's phone number and I gave him my phone book or I put my phone book down to write down the phone number that he wanted and then he took my phone book with all my stuff in it.
DISPATCHER: OK. So basically you guys have just been arguing? (Simpson is yelling)
DISPATCHER: Is he inside right now.
NICOLE: Yeah.
DISPATCHER: OK, just a moment.
SIMPSON.: Do you understand me? (inaudible) Keith is a nothing. A skunk, and he still calls me. (inaudible)
DISPATCHER: Is he talking to you?
NICOLE: Yeah.
DISPATCHER: Are you locked in a room or something?
NICOLE: No. He can come right in. I'm not going where the kids are because the kids ...
DISPATCHER: Do you think he's going to hit you?
NICOLE: I don't know.
DISPATCHER: Stay on the line. Don't hang it up, OK?
NICOLE: OK.
DISPATCHER: What is he saying?
NICOLE: What?
DISPATCHER: What is he saying?
NICOLE: What else?
SIMPSON : (inaudible)
(Sound of police radio traffic)
NICOLE: O.J. O.J. The kids are sleeping.
SIMPSON: (More yelling)
DISPATCHER: He's still yelling at you?
(Nicole sobbing into telephone)
DISPATCHER: Just stay on the line, OK
(More yelling)
DISPATCHER: Is he upset with something that you did?
NICOLE: (Sobs) A long time ago. It always comes back. (More yelling)
DISPATCHER: Is your roommate talking to him?
NICOLE: No, who can talk? Listen to him.
DISPATCHER: I know. Does he have any weapons with him right now?
NICOLE: No, uh-uh
DISPATCHER: OK. Where is he standing?
NICOLE: In the back doorway, in the house.
DISPATCHER: OK.
SIMPSON: ... I don't give a (expletive) anymore.... That wife of his, she took so much for this (expletive) (inaudible)
NICOLE: Would you just please, O.J., O.J., O.J., O.J., could you please (inaudible) Please leave.
SIMPSON: I'm leaving with my two (expletive) fists is when I'm leaving. You ain't got to worry about me any more.
NICOLE:: Please leave. O.J. Please, the kids, the kids (inaudible) please.
DISPATCHER: Is he leaving?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Does he know you're on the phone with police?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: OK. Where are the kids at right now?
NICOLE: Up in my room.
DISPATCHER: Can they hear him yelling?
NICOLE: I don't know. The room's the only one that's quiet.
DISPATCHER: Is there someone up there with the kids?
NICOLE: No.
(Yelling continues in the background.)
DISPATCHER: What is he saying now? Nicole? You still on the line?
NICOLE: Yeah.
DISPATCHER: You think he's still going to hit you?
NICOLE: I don't know. He's going to leave. He just said that. He just said he ain't leaving.
SIMPSON: You're not leaving when I'm gone. Hey! I have to read this (expletive) all week in the National Enquirer. Her words exactly. What, who got that, who? (inaudible)
DISPATCHER: Are you the only one in there with him?
NICOLE: Right now, yeah.

[weezer]

Nicole's 911 call continued:

DISPATCHER: And he's talking to you?
NICOLE: Yeah, and he's also talking to my, the guy who lives out back is just standing there. He just came home.
DISPATCHER: Is he arguing with him, too?
NICOLE: No. Absolutely not.
DISPATCHER: Oh, OK.
NICOLE: Nobody's arguing.
DISPATCHER: Yeah. Has this happened before or no?
NICOLE: Many times.
DISPATCHER: OK. The police should be on the way it just seems like a long time because it's kind of busy in that division right now.
(Yelling continues)
Dispatcher to police: Regarding Gretna Green Way, the suspect is still there and yelling very loudly.
DISPATCHER: Is he still arguing? (Knock at the door.)
DISPATCHER: Was someone knocking on your door?
NICOLE: It was him.
DISPATCHER: He was knocking on your door?
NICOLE: There's a locked bedroom and he's wondering why.
DISPATCHER: Oh. He's knocking on the locked door?
NICOLE: Yeah. You know what, O.J.? That window above you is also open. Could you just go, please? Can I get off the phone?
DISPATCHER: You want, you feel safe hanging up?
NICOLE: Well, you're right
DISPATCHER: You want to wait til the police get there?
NICOLE: Yeah.
DISPATCHER: Nicole?
NICOLE: Um-hmm.
DISPATCHER: Is he still arguing with you?
NICOLE: Um-hum.
DISPATCHER: He's moved a little?
NICOLE: But I'm just ignoring him.
DISPATCHER: Okay. But he doesn't know you're...
NICOLE: It works best.
DISPATCHER: Okay. Are the kids are still asleep?
NICOLE: Yes. They're like rocks.
DISPATCHER: What part of the house is he in right now?
NICOLE: Downstairs.
DISPATCHER: Downstairs?
NICOLE: Yes.
DISPATCHER: And you're upstairs?
NICOLE: No, I'm downstairs in the kitchen.
SIMPSON: (continues yelling)
DISPATCHER: Do you see the police, Nicole?
NICOLE: No, but I will go out there right now.
DISPATCHER: OK, you want to go out there?
NICOLE: Yeah.
DISPATCHER: OK.
NICOLE: I'm going to hang up.
DISPATCHER: OK

[tv]

Old Soul,

The blood on the back gate was found two weeks after the crime scene was washed down.
The blood on the socks was not found until August.

Ron's blood was never found in the Bronco until August.

bAloody fingerprint that was on the back gate was not collected and not seen by anyone else but Fuhrman.
A bloody fingerprint found in side Simpson's home was not collected or tested.

The blood drops on Nicole's back were not collected or tested.

The nurse testified twice about how much blood he drew yet it was only until Johnnie Cochran's opening statements when he realized his mistake.

Fuhrman did not see any evidence of a person jumping over the fence or any other evidence that indicated a person was behind the wall that night--however, he was not looking for any.

The female detective who did not see any blood in the Bronco--yet she was not looking for it either.

There are a few more, just think of them right now!

Absolutely untrue. The blood on the back gate was seen by numerous LE personnel the night of the murders. Riske and his partner both saw the blood and showed to other officers -- Sgt. Rossi, Det. Phillips, Det. Fuhrman, Det. Lange, Det. Vannatter all testified that they saw blood on the back gate. You say Fuhrman is the only one that saw it -- not so, Riske saw it first and showed it to Fuhrman. I'm not sure where you're getting this information. :shrug:

[weezer]

In this testimony Kato said oj was not angry or upset when talking about the ladies dress. It was all in banter or regular conversation. imo

actually, this is what he said: Simpson was also "a little bit upset" over his ex-wife wearing a tight dress to the recital. He said Simpson told him he had wanted to spend time with his daughter after the recital but Nicole Simpson had allowed him to see her only briefly before leaving to have dinner with friends.

[tv]

TV,

The socks were also video taped. The socks were also checked by Fung at Rockingham and saw none but he collected them any---why, because he believed that they could provide evidence--like blood that can't be see with the naked eye.

Deedrick, nor any other state's witness testified the fibers came from a sweat suit. Deedrick testified that he believed the fibers came for the same cloth. No comparisons were done to any sweat suit.

How many garments have the same type fibers? The fibers were not unique in anyway.

It was difficult to see the blood on the dark socks. That's why OJ Simpson left them there. He didn't see the blood either.

[weezer]

Old Soul,

The blood on the back gate was found two weeks after the crime scene was washed down.

The blood on the socks was not found until August.

Ron's blood was never found in the Bronco until August.

A bloody fingerprint that was on the back gate was not collected and not seen by anyone else but Fuhrman.

A bloody fingerprint found in side Simpson's home was not collected or tested.

The blood drops on Nicole's back were not collected or tested.

The nurse testified twice about how much blood he drew yet it was only until Johnnie Cochran's opening statements when he realized his mistake.

Fuhrman did not see any evidence of a person jumping over the fence or any other evidence that indicated a person was behind the wall that night--however, he was not looking for any.

The female detective who did not see any blood in the Bronco--yet she was not looking for it either.

There are a few more, just think of them right now!

1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ.

2. Nicole's neighbor Robert Heidstra testifies he heard two men arguing and then saw a white van (similar to a Ford Bronco) rapidly leaving the murder scene.

3. Police find two sets of keys to Nicole's condo on OJ's possession. Nicole reported a set of keys missing a few weeks before the slayings.

4. Expert testimony state that the killer walked from the crime scene and did not run, proving he was familiar enough with his surroundings to safely walk away.

5. Witness Jill Shively says she saw OJ driving his speeding Bronco from the Bundy murder scene around the time of the slayings.

AT THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE:

6. At 9:37 p.m. on the night of the murders, houseguest Kato Kaelin said he saw Simpson wearing a dark blue cotton sweat suit, the same kind of suit that produced the fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

7. Kato hears thumps outside his window between 10:50 p.m. and 10:51 p.m. near where the bloody glove is found.

8. Kato testified that at around 11 p.m. the night of the murders, when he was loading OJ's five bags into the limousine for Simpson's trip to the airport, OJ told him not to touch the smallest black bag which was ready to be loaded into the car. It was the only bag Simpson told him not to touch.

9. Prosecutor believed the black bag held Simpson's bloody clothing and the murder knife. The bag was never seen again.

10. Limo driver Allan Park testified he saw five bags loaded into the car before he left Rockingham but skycap James Williams counted only three bags when OJ got out of the car. He said he noticed Simpson standing by a trash can afterward which led prosecutors to speculate that Simpson stuffed the small bag into the bin. Defense attorney's failed to produce the missing black bag.

[weezer]

11. A week before her death, Nicole tells friend Cici Shahian: "He's going to kill me and get away with it and charm the world because he's OJ Simpson".

12. Pals Faye Resnick and Robin Greir say Nicole told them OJ was going to kill her.

13. Nicole confides in therapist Susan Forward she feared OJ would murder her.

14. In 1982, OJ throws Nicole against a wall: In 1987, he shoves her to the ground; and in 1989, he slaps her and pushes her from a moving car.

15. Nicole makes out her will five weeks before she was murdered.

16. Police respond to a 911 call on New Year's Day 1989 to find a bruised and bleeding Nicole hiding in the bushes, wearing only a bra and sweatpants, crying: "He's going to kill me! He's going to kill me!"

17. Nicole has her sister Denise Brown take pictures of her bruised body, locks them in a safe-deposit box, and tell Denise: "I need proof that OJ beat me. Without proof no one will ever believe me. The public thinks he's a hero who can do no wrong.

18. A nightmarish 911 police recording in 1993 has Nicole shouting: "When he gets this crazed, I get scared...He gets a very animalistic look in him...His eyes are black, just black, I mean cold, like an animal."

19. Nicole tells Faye Resnick, "I look at (OJ's) arms and think 'God, are these going to be the arms that kill me someday?"

20. OJ admits to Resnick he was seeing a therapist over his volatile feelings for Nicole.

21. Nicole tells Kato she thought OJ would kill her with scissors.

[weezer]

THE DAY OF THE MURDERS:


22. The murders happen after Nicole reject OJ's company at their daughter's dance recital.

23. In preparation for what appeared to be a rendezvous with someone, Nicole has a bath ready and is burning candles just before her murder. Prosecutor Chris Darden believes OJ spied his ex-wife Nicole lighting candles and killed her in a jealous rage.

24. DNA evidence proved that five blood drops found near the killer's footprints at the Bundy murder scene belong to OJ.

25. DNA evidence showed that OJ's blood trail from his Bronco to his Rockingham estate included: one blood drop behind the Bronco on the street (Rockingham), one on the driveway just inside the Rochingham gate, three more on the driveway leading to the front door of Simpson's residence, five on the floor of the foyer and one on the bathroom floor.

26. DNA test proved that spots of blood on the driver's door of the Bronco was OJ's.

27. DNA tests proved that three blood stains found on the rear gate of Nicole's home belonged to OJ.

28. DNA tests proved that in at least one blood drop found at the Bundy murder scene, the chances of it belonging to anyone but OJ are about 170 million to one.

29. Just on the blood evidence alone, there's only one out of 57 billion chance that Simpson is innocent. Fifty-seven billion is approximately 10 times the current population of the entire world.

30. At the Bundy premises, Simpson's blood was found at the exact spot where the murders were committed.

31. Drops of OJ's blood lead from his driveway into the foyer of his Rockingham mansion.

32. Blood on socks in OJ's bedroom matches OJ's and Nicole's.

33. Cops find blood in the shower and sink of OJ's bathroom after the murders.

34. Tests show that three stains on the Bronco's console were a mixture of OJ's blood with that of both of the victims. Another console stain is a mixture of OJ's and Ron's blood, and Nicole's blood was found on the driver's side carpet.

35. Nicole's DNA in blood found on OJ's socks, occurs in olny 1 out of 21 billion people.

36. DNA from Ron Goldman's blood found on the Rockingham glove, has only a 1-in-41 billion chance of belonging to someone else.

37. Cellmark, the nation's largest private DNA laboratory, ran 11 genetic tests on blood drops found at the crime scene and on a blood drop found in OJ's house - and every test matched it with OJ's blood.

[weezer]

THE FIBERS:


38. Fibers on the knit cap found at the murder scene match material in OJ's Bronco.

39. Fibers on the bloody glove found behind OJ's house match carpeting in OJ's Bronco.

40. Forensic test confirm fibers on Ron's shirt match the dark sweatsuit Kato says OJ wore the night of the murders.

HAIRS

41. Hairs found in the knit cap match OJ's.

42. Hair matching OJ's is found on Goldman's shirt.

43. A 12-inch hair matching Nicole's is discovered on the bloody glove.

44. A bloody glove matching the glove found at the murder scene that was found on OJ's property within hours of the murders contains a hair with the same microscopic characteristics as Ron's and Nicole's.

45. The killer's bloody shoe print found at the murder scene is from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, the same size worn by OJ.

46. OJ denies owning Bruno Magli shoes but a photo of OJ from a 1993 football game shows him wearing Bruno Maglis that match the prints at the murder scene.

47. GLOBE publishes photos of the Juice wearing Bruno Maglis at another football game.

48. FBI agent William Bodziak testified in the trial that an area of the bloody shoe print inside OJ's bronco could have been made from the corner of a Bruno Magli shoe.

49. Only 299 pairs of these size 12 rare Italian-made Bruno Magli shoes were ever distributed in the United States in 1991 and 1992, and were sold in olny 40 stores in the entire country, one of which is Bloomingdales in New York, where Simpson just happens to have a regular customer during the same period.

[weezer]

THE GLOVES


50. A bloody glove matching the one at the murder scene is found behind OJ's house near the air-conditioning unit, where Kato hears three thumps.

51. The glove at the murder scene and the glove at OJ's home are extra large: OJ's size. And they are a matching right and left glove.

52. Both gloves are identical to the type Nicole bought for Simpson at Bloomingdales in December of 1990, one of only two hundred pairs like them sold through out the whole country that year.

53. Photos and videos of OJ show him wearing the gloves that match the ones found at his home and the murder scene.


THE CUT ON OJ'S FINGER

54. On the night of the murders, OJ cuts the knuckle of his left middle finger. Investigators determine the murderer is cut on the same side based on the blood drops found immediately to the left of the killer's shoe print.

55. Asked by police how he cut his finger, OJ first said: "I don't know". He then said he cut it in Chicago and immediately afterward said he reopened the cut in Chicago, admitting that he cut himself in L.A

56. When Simpson was interrogated by LAPD detectives on the afternoon after the murders, he said he had not cut himself the last time he was at the Bundy address a week earlier. Defense attorney tried to say that his blood at the murder scene came from a previous visit to the address; not on the day of the murders.

57. When police arrested Simpson he had three other cuts besides the deep wound on his finger and seven abrasions.

[weezer]

ODD BEHAVIOR


58. OJ doesn't ask questions about his ex-wife's murder when police notify him in Chicago.

59. The Juice doesn't ask police anything about the safety of his two youngest children after he's told his wife has been murdered at her home.

60. Simpson complains about the heat and sweats during his limo drive to LA airport- even though it is cool out and the air conditioning is on.

61. Flight attendant Beverly Deteresa says OJ gulped down glasses of water and went to the bathroom every 15 minutes throughout the flight.

62. OJ does not shed one tear during his first interview about the murder of his ex-wife.

63. He spends less than a minute at Nicole's grave during his first visit after he's acquitted of murdering her.

64. OJ promises to hunt down the "real" killer of Nicole and Ron Goldman, but fails to pursue his own investigation- even when private investigators offer their services to him for free.

65. The Juice expresses no surprise when police tell him he's a suspect in the murders.

66. Photos show OJ holding a gun to his head during the low-speed chase.

67. Simpson writes a suicide note that is read after his escape from arrest on June 17, 1994. The note is written from pal Robert Kardashian's house on June 15- and reeks of guilt.


THE BRONCO


68. Cellular phone records put OJ in his Bronco at 10:03 p.m., only minutes before the murders took place.

69. OJ's Ford Bronco is parked at a haphazard angle in front of his home the night of the murders.

70. OJ flees from cops on June 17, 1994 in Cowling's Ford Bronco.

71. Jennifer Peace, Cowling lover, tells a grand jury AC admitted OJ was heading to Mexico in the Bronco.

72. After OJ's arrest, police find in his possession a passport, a gun, a fake mustache and a beard, and fresh changes of underwear in the Bronco.

73. Police find cash totaling $8, 750 in Cowling's possession after the Bronco chase. Cowling later says OJ told him to carry the money.

74. A receipt found in the Bronco shows OJ purchased his false beard and mustache on May 27, 1994, just two weeks before the murders.

[weezer]

NICOLE'S FAMILY

75. Denise Brown testifies her reaction to Nicole's death was: "Oh my God, he killed her. He always said he would kill her".

76. Juditha Brown says OJ threatened to kill the Brown family in 1979 if Nicole left him.

77. Juditha says after OJ and Nicole divorced in 1992 he became "very neurotic" and phoned his former mother-in-law "six times a day" to tell her how upset he was about the split.

THE CHICAGO HOTEL

78. Two plastic bags were missing from the hotel room in Chicago where OJ stayed.

79. A broken glass is found in OJ's Chicago hotel room the day after the murders. Simpson says he had reopened the cut on his finger on that glass after he heard the news of his ex-wife's murder. But the glass didn't have any blood on it.

OJ'S ALIBIS

80. Defense witness Dr. Robert Huizenga, at one time the team physician for the Los Angeles Raiders, was called to the stand in the trial to establish that Simpson's arthritic condition would have prevented him from commiting the murders. But he conceded on cross-examination that Simpson definitely was physically capable of commiting the murders of Nicole and Ron.

81. There's only one hour during the 24-hours day that OJ does not have an alibi: the hour of the murders. OJ brushes that off by saying he was home alone.

82. Defense attorney Johnnie Cochran tells the jury that OJ was chipping golf balls at the time the murders took place, while Simpson tells the limo driver he was napping.

83. When he's late for his limo, Simpson tell the chauffeur that he overslept. But the driver seeing a large figure about 6-ft 2-in tall, dresses in black and weighing 200 pounds, walk into the entrance of Simpson's home-at the time OJ says he was sleeping.

84. Also, the chauffeur says he saw this figure at the time he saw Kato walking around with a flashlight (after hearing the three thumps). And the figure was coming from the direction where Kato heard three thumps.

85. Limo driver Park said he rang OJ's buzzer for 20 minutes without a reply, but shortly after he saw the figure going into Simpson's home, OJ answered the buzzer.

86. An expert testifies the bloody gloves would have fit OJ except that blood and moisture caused the extra-large gloves to shrink a full size.

87. OJ claims he couldn't have murdered anyone because of his old football injuries, but just before the slayings, he made an exercise video and he still plays golf on a regular basis.

88. OJ's son Jason, admits he originally thought his father was guilty.

89. OJ says blood at the murder scene came from times he played there with his children before, but the drops are close to the bloody footprints leading from the bodies.

[Parker]

William Anthony obviously lives on here so something very important must be occupying him at the moment.

How could anyone think that OJ had anything to do with his ex-wife's murder?

Just because of all this evidence? Now that's not right. OJ wasn't anywhere near the murder scene. He was busy slow driving his Bronco around LA. As you do. When you're ex-wife and the mother of two of your children is found savagely murdered. You wouldn't want to know who killed her. Of course not.
And you certainly wouldn't want to help LE find who murdered the mother of two of your children.

[weezer]

STUDIES

90. Experts say the murders are consistent with a rage killing, not a Mafia hit or a professional slaying. There is no sign of a break-in or a burglary at the murder scene.

91. In 60 percent of all domestic murders the killer beats his victim, strangles his victim, stabs his victim or slashes his victim's throat.

THE KNIFE

92. Jennifer Peace says AC told her the knife "sleeps with the fishes".

93. Friends say OJ knew Nicole's worst fear was to be killed with a knife

CONFESSIONS

94. Nicole's mom Juditha Brown reveals she overheard OJ moaning "I loved you too much," over Nicole's casket.

95. Pals say OJ told Nicole "If I can't have you, no one else can".

96. Prosecutor Darden claims OJ told a pal the night of Nicole's murder "I'm going to get her. I'm going to teach her a lesson".

97. Ron Shipp say OJ told him he had dreams of killing Nicole.

98. OJ sobbed: "I didn't mean to do it. I didn't mean for things to turn out this way," according to Cowling's girlfriend Jennifer Peace.

99. GLOBE discovers OJ took a polygraph test before the trial and scored a minus 20, which is classified as deceptive.

100. OJ lawyer Robert Shapiro says "probably did it" is not sufficient to convict his client.

101. Prison guard Jeff Stuart in the room when OJ talked to minister Rosey Grier swears in an affidavit he heard OJ shout: "I didn't mean to do it. I'm sorry."

[weezer]

and these were from the criminal trial -- shall we add evidence from the civil trial and orenthal's confession book?

[Parker]

William Anthony obviously lives on here so something very important must be occupying him at the moment.

How could anyone think that OJ had anything to do with his ex-wife's murder?

Just because of all this evidence? Now that's not right. OJ wasn't anywhere near the murder scene. He was busy slow driving his Bronco around LA. As you do. When you're ex-wife and the mother of two of your children is found savagely murdered. You wouldn't want to know who killed her. Of course not.
And you certainly wouldn't want to help LE find who murdered the mother of two of your children.

I've been lost in all of this but I want to make my point. Where is William Anthony? Why has he suddenly gone AWOL?

Besides my other points about OJ.

[martin II]

LOL -- I didn't realize that paying a judgment was an option! who knew? :shrug:

See Florida Law and maby a few others.

[martin II]

I've been lost in all of this but I want to make my point. Where is William Anthony? Why has he suddenly gone AWOL?

Besides my other points about OJ.

He is a little under the weather.

[tv]

I've been lost in all of this but I want to make my point. Where is William Anthony? Why has he suddenly gone AWOL?

Besides my other points about OJ.

I don't know. Maybe he's on vacation?

Oops, sorry to hear he's not feeling well. :(

[Parker]

I don't know. Maybe he's on vacation?

Oops, sorry to hear he's not feeling well. :(

Well if he's not feeling well I hope he's better soon. If he's on vacation I hope he's enjoying himself.

61. Flight attendant Beverly Deteresa says OJ gulped down glasses of water and went to the bathroom every 15 minutes throughout the flight.
Weezer, this is from your last post. Strange things that OJ did. What do you think he was up to?

[weezer]

Well if he's not feeling well I hope he's better soon. If he's on vacation I hope he's enjoying himself.

61. Flight attendant Beverly Deteresa says OJ gulped down glasses of water and went to the bathroom every 15 minutes throughout the flight.
Weezer, this is from your last post. Strange things that OJ did. What do you think he was up to?

my guess is two things:

1. he was still pumping adrenaline from what he'd just done and couldn't sit still ("Now what am I going to do?" "Will LE be waiting for me when I get off the plane?" "I need to call arnelle and tell her to start the washing machine")

and/or

2. he was checking his bleeding finger

[tv]

my guess is two things:

1. he was still pumping adrenaline from what he'd just done and couldn't sit still ("Now what am I going to do?" "Will LE be waiting for me when I get off the plane?" "I need to call arnelle and tell her to start the washing machine")

and/or

2. he was checking his bleeding finger

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

[Parker]

So, who do you figure started the washing machine? And as important, who do you think took the sweats, that were videotaped in OJ's washing machine, out of the building (sounds like Elvis) before LE came back with a search warrant?

[weezer]

So, who do you figure started the washing machine? And as important, who do you think took the sweats, that were videotaped in OJ's washing machine, out of the building (sounds like Elvis) before LE came back with a search warrant?

the freshly washed sweats were videotaped in the washing machine with women's lingerie and arnelle's laundry basket on top of the dryer (?). The maid testified that she left no clothes in the washer, no clothes to be washed and that the laundry basket belonged to arnelle and was not there on Friday afternoon when she left work.

I don't know but I'm thinking one of two things:

1. orenthal started the washing machine with what he had been wearing -- sweatsuit and women's lingerie

or

2. arnelle followed orenthal's instructions and cleaned up after daddy.

[martin II]

Well if he's not feeling well I hope he's better soon. If he's on vacation I hope he's enjoying himself.

61. Flight attendant Beverly Deteresa says OJ gulped down glasses of water and went to the bathroom every 15 minutes throughout the flight.
Weezer, this is from your last post. Strange things that OJ did. What do you think he was up to?


Here is the testimony of the Captain and his interaction with oj.
Please not his comment about the size of ojs hands.


MR. BAILEY: Okay. What time, Chicago time, did you land, if you can compute that, please?

MR. STANFIELD: 4:33 was the actual touchdown if that's 33, and then it took us a few minutes to taxi into the gate, then arriving at 4:41.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And did the flight attendant say stand by for early arrival?

MR. STANFIELD: I don't believe so.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: Would you raise the paper, please.

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. BAILEY: When you went back to the cockpit, without going into anything that was said, did you have a conversation with Mr. Simpson--about Mr. Simpson with your co-pilot or a remark?

MR. STANFIELD: Yes, sir.

(Discussion between the Defense attorneys and the Defendant was had.)

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 hand than I would have expected, but nothing as far as cuts or anything.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you. Your witness.

[martin II]

Testimimony of mr Norris. A courier standing at the lmo and curb talking to oj.
Note his description of ojs demeanor.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you have a--can you tell us what--how Mr. Simpson appeared during the period of time that you saw him?

MR. NORRIS: Umm, he just appeared like, you know, nonchalant, just like he was going, you know, getting ready to leave on a flight. I mean--

MR. SHAPIRO: How did he look to you? Could you describe that to the jury?

MR. NORRIS: He looked natural. He was dressed real nice, you know, had on like stone-washed type denim outfit, you know, trying to look kind of young, you know, just--I mean he was just, you know, just trying to be cool, you know.

MR. SHAPIRO: And would you describe his demeanor to the jury?

MR. NORRIS: He just--I mean, he just was like smooth, just, you know, hey, just walking through like, "I'm O.J."

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he appear to be rushed in any way?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he appear to be distracted in any way?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he appear to be preoccupied in any way?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you--you said he was wearing some stone-washed clothes. Is that similar to a denim material?

MR. NORRIS: Yes. Like a blue jean type material.

MR. SHAPIRO: And can you describe the hue of that material?

MR. NORRIS: Excuse me?

MR. SHAPIRO: The darkness or lightness of that material.

MR. NORRIS: It's more of a light color. That's--it's like a stone wash. It's like a lighter denim, lighter blue jean type. It wasn't like a dark like 405 type blue jean. It was, you know, much lighter.

THE COURT: You mean 501.

MR. NORRIS: 501. Right. Sorry.

THE COURT: Just relax, Mr. Norris.

MR. NORRIS: Okay.

MR. SHAPIRO: Now, during the period that you saw O.J. Simpson, did you observe his hands?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see any cuts on his hands?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: See any band aids on his hands?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: See any bruises on his face?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he appear to be sweating?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did anything at all appear to be out of the ordinary to you when you saw Mr. Simpson?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was he cordial?

MR. NORRIS: Yes. Very. I mentioned to him that Marcus was out there earlier. I had heard Marcus was there, and he said, "Yes, I know." And I asked him about his son, if he was still at SC, and he said, "No. He's through."

MR. SHAPIRO: So he had enough time for small talk for you?

MR. NORRIS: Right.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you said initially he told your friend he had to take care of his luggage, but then he came back and gave the autograph?

MR. NORRIS: Right. That's correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: And do you know if your friend Michael still has that autograph?

[martin II]

This is the testimony of Mr Gladden. Another curier standing and talking to Oj at the limo and curb. Note his description of ojs demenor and his comment about the number of bags unloaded and the size of ojs hands.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you see any bags or any skycaps or anyone around him with any bags that particular evening?

MR. GLADDEN: Not when he first came up, no, but--

MR. COCHRAN: At some point thereafter, did you see any bags?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And can you tell the Court and jury, if you can think back in your mind, how many bags you saw, the total number of bags, if you recall?

MR. GLADDEN: Maybe between four and five.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Four and five bags. And then can you describe for us as you think back the color of the bags that you saw?

MR. GLADDEN: Probably all of them were black. I think there was like a brown looking smaller bag. It wasn't too small, but it was--

MR. COCHRAN: Was it like a carry-on, the brown one?

MR. GLADDEN: Something like that.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what a Louie Vuitton bag is?

MR. GLADDEN: Not really.

MR. COCHRAN: You don't know. But you recall that then, of the four or five bags, majority of them were black, is that right, in color?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading.

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I'm asking.

THE COURT: Overruled, but it is leading. He's already testified to it, but it is leading.

MR. COCHRAN: I just want to make sure. Okay, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Why don't you tell us, of the bags that you saw, what color were they?

MR. GLADDEN: Pretty much or they were all black in color and there was probably one like brownish, tan looking bag.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now--and when the limo first pulled up, was there a skycap available, if you know?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you see the limousine driver do anything when he got out of the limousine?

MR. GLADDEN: Well, he came and opened the door for O.J., and then he was walking around when I--I looked over by the curb, and he was looking around for a skycap. He was just kind of standing there, and then I really wasn't paying attention what he did after that.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at this point, did you get a chance to look at Mr. Simpson, see how he appeared to you?

MR. GLADDEN: Yeah. Pretty much so.

MR. COCHRAN: What was his demeanor? How did he look at that point to you?

MR. GLADDEN: Just kind of calm and just taking his time.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at some point--you described for us how he was dressed. Did you at some point approach him where he was standing?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you approached him, what did you say to him?

MR. GLADDEN: I said, "Hey, juice, can I get an autograph?"

MR. COCHRAN: And when you said that to him, what did he say, if anything?

MR. GLADDEN: He said, "Sure. Just let me get my luggage situated," or something to that effect.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And thereafter, did there come a time when he proceeded to try to get his luggage situated?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see whether or not the limousine driver ever came back with some kind of a cart or something?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And these bags you described generally, where were they placed?

MR. GLADDEN: On that cart.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did someone--did something happen to those bags after he placed them on the cart?

MR. GLADDEN: Yeah. The driver took them over to the curb.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then what happened after that?

MR. GLADDEN: Well, looked like they had like most of the stuff on there, then I walked over like on the side of Mr. Simpson and then I--he had like turned and seen me, and he was like, "Oh, yeah. I forgot," or something like that, or, "Sorry," and then he said--and then he signed the autograph for me.

MR. COCHRAN: He said he was sorry?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes. Something like that.

MR. COCHRAN: And then he turned around and he signed this autograph for you?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And to the best of your recollection, what time of evening was that that Mr. Simpson signed this autograph for you?

MR. GLADDEN: Well, it was probably about close to 11:30 by then.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So it was about 11:30 on June 12th, 1994, he signed an autograph. And do you have that autograph with you today?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And can--may I approach? Can you show it to me?

MR. GLADDEN: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: You have it in a book there?

MR. GLADDEN: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, this--

MR. GLADDEN: You can take it out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. This is a--you have a book. What is this book actually?

MR. GLADDEN: This is the book I put it in.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you have other autographs in this book or--

MR. GLADDEN: Yes. A few.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You have a few autographs in this book? And this is the original autograph that Mr. Simpson signed for you on that night?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And it says, "O.J. Simpson, peace to you"?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to ask you a few other questions. Is that the original signature for Mr. Simpson on that particular night?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And as you observed Mr. Simpson, did you have occasion to look at his hands?

MR. GLADDEN: Yeah. I noticed how big his hands were.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you see any cuts or bruises on his hands?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You saw him, and can you describe for us, if you remember, how he wrote that autograph, what hand he wrote it with and whether he used both hands or not?

MR. GLADDEN: I think he held it with his left hand and signed with his right.

MR. COCHRAN: How close were you to him when he was signing?

MR. GLADDEN: Just to the side of him.

MR. COCHRAN: You were very close?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You could just reach out and touch him?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: At that time, as you saw him sign this, "O.J., peace to you," did you have occasion to notice his demeanor at this time, how he appeared?

MR. GLADDEN: Pretty calm and relaxed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then after he signed this particular autograph and then you put it--as I understand the procedure, you took it on your post-it and you put it then in your book; is that correct?

MR. GLADDEN: Later on, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Later on that evening; is that right?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, where was Mr. Norris, if you know, at the time that Mr. Simpson was signing this autograph?

MR. GLADDEN: I think he was still over by his van.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So he was further away at that point; is that correct?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes. His van was parked like toward the front of the limo and I was parked towards the back of it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, after that, after Mr. Simpson signed the limo--strike that. After he signed the autograph, was there any further conversation between you and Mr. Simpson at that point?

MR. GLADDEN: I just said thank you, and he said, "You're welcome," and I think that was about it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you see in what direction Mr. Simpson went at that point?

MR. GLADDEN: Towards the American airlines door.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you watch him as he went toward that door?

MR. GLADDEN: Not too closely.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. But at some point, did he leave your sight at some point?

MR. GLADDEN: When I pulled off.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. GLADDEN: He was still standing there when I looked--was pulling off.

MR. COCHRAN: You at some point went back to your van, did you?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. At any time while you were out there, did you ever see Mr. Simpson at any time go near any of the trash cans out there?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And these four or five bags that you've described for us earlier, do you know how many, if any, of those bags were checked that night?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know how many, if any, of those bags Mr. Simpson carried that particular evening?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You weren't paying attention as to what bags or whatever he was carrying?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I wasn't.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall as you think about it now whether he had any of the bags with him that he was wearing as he was walking away?

MR. GLADDEN: No, I don't recall.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you've gotten autographs from other so-called celebrities; is that correct?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You mentioned that Mr. Simpson's hands appeared large to you?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, they did.

MR. COCHRAN: And when did you notice that his hands appeared large to you?

MR. GLADDEN: When he was holding this thing. I was like--just like devoured it.

MR. COCHRAN: What devoured it? His hands?

MR. GLADDEN: His hand. Yeah. Just--

MR. COCHRAN: At that point, you were standing right next to him?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: The time that you were with Mr. Simpson, did his demeanor or the way he acted ever change at all?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he seem to be rushed to you at all?

MR. GLADDEN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Seem to be relaxed to you?

MR. GLADDEN: Pretty much so.

MR. COCHRAN: What time was it when you got the autograph and you then walked back and got into your vehicle, your van that night? What time was it then, if you know, your best estimate?

MR. GLADDEN: I really didn't--I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Was that your last job for the night?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I have just a second, your Honor?

[William Anthony]

William, are you trying to say there is no picture of the sweat suit in the washer? The sweats were videoed in the washer by the police.

I am saying where is the picture of the sweats in the washer before LE handled them, not afterward and on a video.

[weezer]

I am saying where is the picture of the sweats in the washer before LE handled them, not afterward and on a video.

don't be silly! orenthal was wearing them -- :eek:

[William Anthony]

No one, including Mark Fuhrman, gives a rat's butt who was hanging on who. I love the way you give credence to media reports as long as it fits into your idea of what happened. I also read media reports that the N word was common language in Johnnie Cocran's office. Maybe we should talk about that.

Why should we talk about what was common place in the magnificent one's office, since he didn't deny saying he hated interracial couples, or say he manufactured/fabricated/planted evidence or deny using the N word in reference to a Black person in the last ten years?

[martin II]

Well if he's not feeling well I hope he's better soon. If he's on vacation I hope he's enjoying himself.

61. Flight attendant Beverly Deteresa says OJ gulped down glasses of water and went to the bathroom every 15 minutes throughout the flight.
Weezer, this is from your last post. Strange things that OJ did. What do you think he was up to?

Parker

I feel compelled to request a link to your claim that a Beverly Deteresa testified about oj gulping down glasses of water and running to the bath room.

I have NOT found any testimony by a Beverly Deteresa listed as a witness in the criminal or civil trial.

thanks.

[William Anthony]

Parker, a not guilty verdict does not mean Simpson wasn’t the killer. In the civil trial Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer.

bobaugust

A not guilty verdict means that twelve people, who listened to the evidence gave weight and credibility to the evidence and determined that the prosecution could not prove Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable. You may want to believe that is what the civil trial proved, but, as you well know, that is not what the verdict meant. It is interesting that you speak of a verdict in one trial and what you think was proven in another.

[old_soul]

Have to run out now, but wanted to say to all................

http://i44.tinypic.com/oszij4.gif http://i39.tinypic.com/2rrthn5.jpg


We're all a little bit Irish on St. Patrick's day, eh? ;)

[martin II]

It was difficult to see the blood on the dark socks. That's why OJ Simpson left them there. He didn't see the blood either.

TV
The socks were examined three times by experts from both sides before the prosecution thought they need more evidence and then blood appeared and this was after it was discovered that some of ojs blood sample was missing.

[William Anthony]

I've been lost in all of this but I want to make my point. Where is William Anthony? Why has he suddenly gone AWOL?

Besides my other points about OJ.

Yes, my departure was abrupt but called for. Thank you for the interest. It was a brief stay at the hospital but the prognosis was that, while serious, it can be treated with medication. I was released before noon today but I am still not a hundred percent. Thank everyone for their concern and I will have to get off for a while, now. I hope I am able to return shortly.

[weezer]

A not guilty verdict means that twelve people, who listened to the evidence gave weight and credibility to the evidence and determined that the plaintiffs could not prove Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable. You may want to believe that is what the civil trial proved, but, as you well know, that is not what the verdict meant. It is interesting that you speak of a verdict in one trial and what you think was proven in another.

A guilty verdict means that twelve people, who listened to the evidence gave weight and credibility to the evidence and determined that the prosecution could prove Simpson responsible by a preponderance of the evidence. That is what the civil trial proved,and that is what the verdict meant. It is interesting that you speak of respecting a verdict in one trial and refuse to acknowledge what was proven in another.

[Kate Sachel]

Yes, my departure was abrupt but called for. Thank you for the interest. It was a brief stay at the hospital but the prognosis was that, while serious, it can be treated with medication. I was released before noon today but I am still not a hundred percent. Thank everyone for their concern and I will have to get off for a while, now. I hope I am able to return shortly.

Oh my, I certainly hope that all is well and that you will adhere to advisement and instruction of your medical team to ensure that you remain as healthy as you can possibly be.

My thoughts are with you.

Kate

[martin II]

This is why those tight fitting little expensive gloves did not fit.


MR. COCHRAN: And as you observed Mr. Simpson, did you have occasion to look at his hands?

MR. GLADDEN: Yeah. I noticed how big his hands were.
-------------------

MR. COCHRAN: You mentioned that Mr. Simpson's hands appeared large to you?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, they did.

MR. COCHRAN: And when did you notice that his hands appeared large to you?

MR. GLADDEN: When he was holding this thing. I was like--just like devoured it.

MR. COCHRAN: What devoured it? His hands?

MR. GLADDEN: His hand. Yeah. Just--

[tv]

Why should we talk about what was common place in the magnificent one's office, since he didn't deny saying he hated interracial couples, or say he manufactured/fabricated/planted evidence or deny using the N word in reference to a Black person in the last ten years?

So it's okay to use racial slurs as long as you don't deny it? I find it much worse to use such language in real life when addressing real people then to use it while telling a fictional story. I also think Darden was wrong to refer to Willie Ford as "a brother" to the jury.

[tv]

TV
The socks were examined three times by experts from both sides before the prosecution thought they need more evidence and then blood appeared and this was after it was discovered that some of ojs blood sample was missing.

Who "discovered" blood was missing? Simpson's defense team -- hardly convincing to me.

[tv]

I am saying where is the picture of the sweats in the washer before LE handled them, not afterward and on a video.

From the looks of the position of the sweats I don't think they had yet been handled when the video was made. I don't see what difference it makes if it was before or after since they were never collected or tested anyway. Why is this still from the video not good enough? Several posters doubted such a picture existed or insinuated that Mark Fuhrman manufactured it. Now this picture isn't enough?

[Parker]

It was difficult to see the blood on the dark socks. That's why OJ Simpson left them there. He didn't see the blood either.

TV Dinner, that's a really good point. Thanks for making it.

[William Anthony]

So it's okay to use racial slurs as long as you don't deny it? I find it much worse to use such language in real life when addressing real people then to use it while telling a fictional story. I also think Darden was wrong to refer to Willie Ford as "a brother" to the jury.

I am not saying it is alright for anyone to use a racial slur. I am saying there is a difference when you deny it under oath and then are impeached and subsequently convicted of perjury. You may consider it a role for a screen play but it is clear to me he was speaking as he spoke in real life to real people.

[William Anthony]

It didn't have anything to do with the "grabby" latex gloves underneath and the cashmere lining? Oh, and of course, the defendant not wanting them to fit...

I use latex gloves all the time in my work. I have a hard time pulling my sweater on over them, forget lined gloves. Darden gave OJ a whopper of a gift with that opportunity, imo. Can't blame OJ for making the most of it.

That's right, they didn't fit.

[William Anthony]

From the looks of the position of the sweats I don't think they had yet been handled when the video was made. I don't see what difference it makes if it was before or after since they were never collected or tested anyway. Why is this still from the video not good enough? Several posters doubted such a picture existed or insinuated that Mark Fuhrman manufactured it. Now this picture isn't enough?

Without a picture before they were pulled from the washing machine that had no blood, we have just an allegation. We know that LE placed them in the washing machine after they had allegedly examined them and, consequently, the only thing we can be certain of is LE placed them in the washing machine.

[William Anthony]

Who "discovered" blood was missing? Simpson's defense team -- hardly convincing to me.

The defense team discovered it, yes and the prosecution made that staged, exparte, rehearsed video.

[William Anthony]

Oh my, I certainly hope that all is well and that you will adhere to advisement and instruction of your medical team to ensure that you remain as healthy as you can possibly be.

My thoughts are with you.

Kate

Thanks and I am trying. I am not ready to stop smoking but I have cut back tremendously.

[William Anthony]

A guilty verdict means that twelve people, who listened to the evidence gave weight and credibility to the evidence and determined that the prosecution could prove Simpson responsible by a preponderance of the evidence. That is what the civil trial proved,and that is what the verdict meant. It is interesting that you speak of respecting a verdict in one trial and refuse to acknowledge what was proven in another.

I respect all three verdicts, just differ on what is alleged that was proven. I will stick to what the verdicts meant without the glorification, but that is simply my choice.

[martin II]

Weezer

i see this was your clain not Parkers.

I feel compelled to request a link to your claim that a Beverly Deteresa testified about oj gulping down glasses of water and running to the bath room.

I have NOT found any testimony by a Beverly Deteresa listed as a witness in the criminal or civil trial.

thanks.

[old_soul]

William Anthony, hope you are on the road to feeling better. We are all sending good thoughts and prayers your way.


While OJ is a big guy, it is not unheard of that a daughter would throw on her dads sweats ~ too big or not. I know this because my daughter and I both do this with my husband's. It's really comfortable. The reason why those sweats ultimately disappeared? Because If OJ was wearing them that night and later tried to say they were Arnelles, and blood was found somehow, he would have been caught lying or was blaming Arnelle. If Arnelle was to even say they were hers, she would have to testify, and would have been asked the question "do you always wash delicates with sweat clothing?". I know I said this earlier, but I will say it again because this is key ~ anyone who washes clothes KNOWS, especially if they are your own delicates, NEVER to wash the two together. So, either Oj took her items out of that basket and threw them in together hastily, or Arnelle did it to cover cause he asked her to. Didn't OJ call her from the plane? (?).

OJ didn't have the presence of mind to understand that it would be checked, nor the socks because HE DIDN'T SEE THE BLOOD. I would say that if they(socks & sweats) were a color where you could see the blood, we wouldn't even be discussing this, cause they would have disappeared Immediately.

Both the Bundy glove and Rockingham glove were XLarge. The size he wears/wore that Nicole bought previously were XLarge. Unless OJ told the perp he wore ugly a** Magli's and Aris Isotoners, (both costly items) then they were his, OK. The gloves were 'rare' and so were those ugly a** size 12/46 Magli's. Weezer already gave us the stats on sales amounts from Bloomies...(thanks).

Normal shrinkage, according to Richard Rubin's testimony, is 2-5% if exposed to liquid. If severely saturated, they could shrink 15%. In and out of the freeze where they were kept because of the blood, and who knows how that made a difference. Another pair were tried, XL, and they fit. Those evidentiary gloves went through a lot, and BTW, the connsumate actor tried to make it look like they didn't fit......

[martin II]

Who "discovered" blood was missing? Simpson's defense team -- hardly convincing to me.

TV

i think it was actually the lab records that indicated they had received less blood than Peratis testified he had drawn. The defence look at the records and discovered the differance. imo

[William Anthony]

don't be silly! orenthal was wearing them -- :eek:

That I understand to be your opinion, even though no evidence was elicited during the trial to draw that inference, imho, which to me means reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

It didn't have anything to do with the "grabby" latex gloves underneath and the cashmere lining? Oh, and of course, the defendant not wanting them to fit...

I use latex gloves all the time in my work. I have a hard time pulling my sweater on over them, forget lined gloves. Darden gave OJ a whopper of a gift with that opportunity, imo. Can't blame OJ for making the most of it.

My point is that here were two men close to ojs hands and thought they were so extra large that they remembered it and commented on the size.
Baily and Shiperio saw the same thing the night before the demo which is why Baily challanged Darden to try the demo.shiperio also had big hands and had tried to try the gloves on the night before.

The glove expert, after testifying that the gloves were extra thin expensive made to fit very skin tight should have known they would not fit. so should have Darden. imo

[martin II]

my guess is two things:

1. he was still pumping adrenaline from what he'd just done and couldn't sit still ("Now what am I going to do?" "Will LE be waiting for me when I get off the plane?" "I need to call arnelle and tell her to start the washing machine")

and/or

2. he was checking his bleeding finger

No proof of this. just opinions.

[martin II]

So, who do you figure started the washing machine? And as important, who do you think took the sweats, that were videotaped in OJ's washing machine, out of the building (sounds like Elvis) before LE came back with a search warrant?

Actually those clothes could have benn put in the washer and washed days before 6/12 and just not taken out.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, hope you are on the road to feeling better. We are all sending good thoughts and prayers your way.


While OJ is a big guy, it is not unheard of that a daughter would throw on her dads sweats ~ too big or not. I know this because my daughter and I both do this with my husband's. It's really comfortable. The reason why those sweats ultimately disappeared? Because If OJ was wearing them that night and later tried to say they were Arnelles, and blood was found somehow, he would have been caught lying or was blaming Arnelle. If Arnelle was to even say they were hers, she would have to testify, and would have been asked the question "do you always wash delicates with sweat clothing?". I know I said this earlier, but I will say it again because this is key ~ anyone who washes clothes KNOWS, especially if they are your own delicates, NEVER to wash the two together. So, either Oj took her items out of that basket and threw them in together hastily, or Arnelle did it to cover cause he asked her to. Didn't OJ call her from the plane? (?).

OJ didn't have the presence of mind to understand that it would be checked, nor the socks because HE DIDN'T SEE THE BLOOD. I would say that if they(socks & sweats) were a color where you could see the blood, we wouldn't even be discussing this, cause they would have disappeared Immediately.

Both the Bundy glove and Rockingham glove were XLarge. The size he wears/wore that Nicole bought previously were XLarge. Unless OJ told the perp he wore ugly a** Magli's and Aris Isotoners, (both costly items) then they were his, OK. The gloves were 'rare' and so were those ugly a** size 12/46 Magli's. Weezer already gave us the stats on sales amounts from Bloomies...(thanks).

Normal shrinkage, according to Richard Rubin's testimony, is 2-5% if exposed to liquid. If severely saturated, they could shrink 15%. In and out of the freeze where they were kept because of the blood, and who knows how that made a difference. Another pair were tried, XL, and they fit. Those evidentiary gloves went through a lot, and BTW, the connsumate actor tried to make it look like they didn't fit......

Yes, I do feel somewhat better, thus far, today. Thank you for your prayers.

Your scenario begins with if and I am not saying it is not a plausible scenario. The problem is that there was no evidence to say that he wore that sweat suit on that day, because it differs from the one Kato described him as having worn. Another problem, if we are considering ifs is that sometimes items of clothing are stuck in the legs or arms of other clothing when placed in a washing machine. Without the before picture we have LE's allegation that they were found together in the washing machine, when it could be that LE found a sweat suit somewhere, examined it, and during the examination the lingerie fell out and was picked up and placed in the washing machine. We only have an allegation that they were freshly washed.

I must disagree that Simpson was a consummate actor.:) We have no proof of who Ms. NBS bought the gloves for and by the glove demonstration, it is my opinion, that they didn't fit and Rubin's testimony admits they didn't but tries to explain why. All of which contributed to reasonable doubt, imho.

[martin II]

STUDIES

90. Experts say the murders are consistent with a rage killing, not a Mafia hit or a professional slaying. There is no sign of a break-in or a burglary at the murder scene. The expert that actually examined oj said he did not fit a abusers profile

91. In 60 percent of all domestic murders the killer beats his victim, strangles his victim, stabs his victim or slashes his victim's throat.

THE KNIFE

92. Jennifer Peace says AC told her the knife "sleeps with the fishes". She said a lot of things after AC dumped her

93. Friends say OJ knew Nicole's worst fear was to be killed with a knife

CONFESSIONS

94. Nicole's mom Juditha Brown reveals she overheard OJ moaning "I loved you too much," over Nicole's casket. Normal grief

95. Pals say OJ told Nicole "If I can't have you, no one else can". Gossip

96. Prosecutor Darden claims OJ told a pal the night of Nicole's murder "I'm going to get her. I'm going to teach her a lesson". What pal

97. Ron Shipp say OJ told him he had dreams of killing Nicole. A drunk that liked nicole

98. OJ sobbed: "I didn't mean to do it. I didn't mean for things to turn out this way," according to Cowling's girlfriend Jennifer Peace. She said a lot that AC said was not true after he dumped her.

99. GLOBE discovers OJ took a polygraph test before the trial and scored a minus 20, which is classified as deceptive. Oj never completed a lie detector test.Who believes the Globe

100. OJ lawyer Robert Shapiro says "probably did it" is not sufficient to convict his client. One cannot be convicted on probably

101. Prison guard Jeff Stuart in the room when OJ talked to minister Rosey Grier swears in an affidavit he heard OJ shout: "I didn't mean to do it. I'm sorry."This was rummor and never proven

[martin II]

Yes, I do feel somewhat better, thus far, today. Thank you for your prayers.

Your scenario begins with if and I am not saying it is not a plausible scenario. The problem is that there was no evidence to say that he wore that sweat suit on that day, because it differs from the one Kato described him as having worn. Another problem, if we are considering ifs is that sometimes items of clothing are stuck in the legs or arms of other clothing when placed in a washing machine. Without the before picture we have LE's allegation that they were found together in the washing machine, when it could be that LE found a sweat suit somewhere, examined it, and during the examination the lingerie fell out and was picked up and placed in the washing machine. We only have an allegation that they were freshly washed.

I must disagree that Simpson was a consummate actor.:) We have no proof of who Ms. NBS bought the gloves for and by the glove demonstration, it is my opinion, that they didn't fit and Rubin's testimony admits they didn't but tries to explain why. All of which contributed to reasonable doubt, imho.

Rubin after testifying on direct that the gloves would shrink 10% finally testified under cross that his tight fitting gloves would not shrink.

[martin II]

William Anthony, hope you are on the road to feeling better. We are all sending good thoughts and prayers your way.


While OJ is a big guy, it is not unheard of that a daughter would throw on her dads sweats ~ too big or not. I know this because my daughter and I both do this with my husband's. It's really comfortable. The reason why those sweats ultimately disappeared? Because If OJ was wearing them that night and later tried to say they were Arnelles, and blood was found somehow, he would have been caught lying or was blaming Arnelle. If Arnelle was to even say they were hers, she would have to testify, and would have been asked the question "do you always wash delicates with sweat clothing?". I know I said this earlier, but I will say it again because this is key ~ anyone who washes clothes KNOWS, especially if they are your own delicates, NEVER to wash the two together. So, either Oj took her items out of that basket and threw them in together hastily, or Arnelle did it to cover cause he asked her to. Didn't OJ call her from the plane? (?).

OJ didn't have the presence of mind to understand that it would be checked, nor the socks because HE DIDN'T SEE THE BLOOD. I would say that if they(socks & sweats) were a color where you could see the blood, we wouldn't even be discussing this, cause they would have disappeared Immediately.

Both the Bundy glove and Rockingham glove were XLarge. The size he wears/wore that Nicole bought previously were XLarge. Unless OJ told the perp he wore ugly a** Magli's and Aris Isotoners, (both costly items) then they were his, OK. The gloves were 'rare' and so were those ugly a** size 12/46 Magli's. Weezer already gave us the stats on sales amounts from Bloomies...(thanks).

Normal shrinkage, according to Richard Rubin's testimony, is 2-5% if exposed to liquid. If severely saturated, they could shrink 15%. In and out of the freeze where they were kept because of the blood, and who knows how that made a difference. Another pair were tried, XL, and they fit. Those evidentiary gloves went through a lot, and BTW, the connsumate actor tried to make it look like they didn't fit......

If you look at Rubins testimony under cross he was asked in his tight fiting gloves would shrink if say a few ccs of liquid was applied and he resonded NO.

[martin II]

William Anthony, hope you are on the road to feeling better. We are all sending good thoughts and prayers your way.


While OJ is a big guy, it is not unheard of that a daughter would throw on her dads sweats ~ too big or not. I know this because my daughter and I both do this with my husband's. It's really comfortable. The reason why those sweats ultimately disappeared? Because If OJ was wearing them that night and later tried to say they were Arnelles, and blood was found somehow, he would have been caught lying or was blaming Arnelle. If Arnelle was to even say they were hers, she would have to testify, and would have been asked the question "do you always wash delicates with sweat clothing?". I know I said this earlier, but I will say it again because this is key ~ anyone who washes clothes KNOWS, especially if they are your own delicates, NEVER to wash the two together. So, either Oj took her items out of that basket and threw them in together hastily, or Arnelle did it to cover cause he asked her to. Didn't OJ call her from the plane? (?).

OJ didn't have the presence of mind to understand that it would be checked, nor the socks because HE DIDN'T SEE THE BLOOD. I would say that if they(socks & sweats) were a color where you could see the blood, we wouldn't even be discussing this, cause they would have disappeared Immediately.

Both the Bundy glove and Rockingham glove were XLarge. The size he wears/wore that Nicole bought previously were XLarge. Unless OJ told the perp he wore ugly a** Magli's and Aris Isotoners, (both costly items) then they were his, OK. The gloves were 'rare' and so were those ugly a** size 12/46 Magli's. Weezer already gave us the stats on sales amounts from Bloomies...(thanks).

Normal shrinkage, according to Richard Rubin's testimony, is 2-5% if exposed to liquid. If severely saturated, they could shrink 15%. In and out of the freeze where they were kept because of the blood, and who knows how that made a difference. Another pair were tried, XL, and they fit. Those evidentiary gloves went through a lot, and BTW, the connsumate actor tried to make it look like they didn't fit......

I think ojs glove size depends on the make of the glove.I know that is the case with me. According to Rubin those gloves were made for skin tight fit which is why the leather was so thin. Oj had very thick palms and back of hand which would make it very difficult to slip those hands in those tight fitting gloves.imo

[William Anthony]

I think ojs glove size depends on the make of the glove.I know that is the case with me. According to Rubin those gloves were made for skin tight fit which is why the leather was so thin. Oj had very thick palms and back of hand which would make it very difficult to slip those hands in those tight fitting gloves.imo

I purposely avoid tight fitting gloves because of the size of my hands and they sometimes swell. I don't know if tight fitting gloves would have been appropriate for Simpson. However, even if that was his personal choice, the glove demonstration failed, imho.

[martin II]

There was no evidence that OJ called Arnell and asked her to do anything with any washer.

[martin II]

I purposely avoid tight fitting gloves because of the size of my hands and they sometimes swell. I don't know if tight fitting gloves would have been appropriate for Simpson. However, even if that was his personal choice, the glove demonstration failed, imho.

Some that wanted the gloves to fit may have ignored the actual size of simpsons hands. This guy could palm,wrap his hands around a football.He had the hand size of a wide receiver. No way those gloves would have fit.Latex or not.

[Kate Sachel]

Thanks and I am trying. I am not ready to stop smoking but I have cut back tremendously.

I beleive that we stop doing the things that are unhealthy for us when we are ready; until such time the effort we make to do so, while the intentions are good, usually fails and we become disappointed in that failure.

I have faith that you will accomplish what is required of you.

Kate

[martin II]

quiting the smoking habit can be as difficult as quiting heron addiction some say. But the time to quit smoking was last month. So i hope you can do so.

[William Anthony]

I beleive that we stop doing the things that are unhealthy for us when we are ready; until such time the effort we make to do so, while the intentions are good, usually fails and we become disappointed in that failure.

I have faith that you will accomplish what is required of you.

Kate


Without going into too much detail about my condition, smoking will not help nor do I think it will harm it at this point. It may add to other organ damage that are at this point normal. I have smoked for a number of years and that habit is very hard to break. I believe that if I can limit the intake I will be able to eventually stop completely, which may be wishful thinking.

I appreciate your faith in my will power and will try not to displease you.:)

[William Anthony]

quiting the smoking habit can be as difficult as quiting heron addiction some say. But the time to quit smoking was last month. So i hope you can do so.

You are quite right. You have more information on my condition than others, so I truly appreciate what you are saying. Today, is the first day that I feel more like my old self in a few days. Due to the procedure that was done, I have to limit some of my activities for two weeks. I never realized how being dependent on someone else can effect you psychologically. It is a strain wishing you could do more but knowing you can't.

[weezer]

That's right, they didn't fit.

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."

[weezer]

Actually those clothes could have benn put in the washer and washed days before 6/12 and just not taken out.

ahh yes -- now it's the maid in on the conspiracy! just looks like no end to the folks out to get orenthal. . .you don't suppose she planned that days ahead do you?

[weezer]

Yes, I do feel somewhat better, thus far, today. Thank you for your prayers.

Your scenario begins with if and I am not saying it is not a plausible scenario. The problem is that there was no evidence to say that he wore that sweat suit on that day, because it differs from the one Kato described him as having worn. Another problem, if we are considering ifs is that sometimes items of clothing are stuck in the legs or arms of other clothing when placed in a washing machine. Without the before picture we have LE's allegation that they were found together in the washing machine, when it could be that LE found a sweat suit somewhere, examined it, and during the examination the lingerie fell out and was picked up and placed in the washing machine. We only have an allegation that they were freshly washed.

I must disagree that Simpson was a consummate actor.:) We have no proof of who Ms. NBS bought the gloves for and by the glove demonstration, it is my opinion, that they didn't fit and Rubin's testimony admits they didn't but tries to explain why. All of which contributed to reasonable doubt, imho.

so you're thinking that when orenthal took the sweatsuit off, his lingerie got stuck in the arms and legs? :eek:

[weezer]

I think ojs glove size depends on the make of the glove.I know that is the case with me. According to Rubin those gloves were made for skin tight fit which is why the leather was so thin. Oj had very thick palms and back of hand which would make it very difficult to slip those hands in those tight fitting gloves.imo

pssst -- orenthal didn't purchase the gloves for himself -- evidence proved that Nicole purchased two pair of the exact model and brand of gloves -- pictures/film proved that orenthal had worn the exact model and brand of gloves.

[martin II]

ahh yes -- now it's the maid in on the conspiracy! just looks like no end to the folks out to get orenthal. . .you don't suppose she planned that days ahead do you?

i never said anything about a maid. but the clothes could have been put into the washer before 6/12.