Random Discussions On The Case

[GreenIce]

Does it matter if more people read Faye's book than watched Cora's interview? The point is that there are people on this forum who take pleasure in trashing Faye for writing about it in her book but who choose not to say a word about the fact that the information was first made public by Cora.

I've heard a lot from you on this forum on the biases of the "guilty" camp, will I ever read an acknowledgment that the biases happen to run both ways?

Kate

Kate,

Please provided your source that Cora spoke about this in public first. I have never seen the interview. From your posts on this, it appears that Cora called a press conference and with great delight and glee she informed the world of Nicole's private affairs. That she laughed and laughed while telling the media this little bit of gossip. Is that what she did Kate? She ran to the media, she wanted the headlines so she told the media that Faye and Nicole slept together? Did she do it because she hated Nicole or Faye, what were motives?

Faye's book had very little to do with domestic violence and she repeatedly trashed Nicole. What did the "Brentwood Hellos" have to do with anything? Do we even know if that is true? Nicole is not here to defend herself? You need to ask yourself why did Faye make sure she trashed Nicole?

Also, I am not faulting Faye for writing a book, I do fault her for doing it before the trials and I believe she did so to make sure neither side would call her as a witness. Faye wrote those books to keep herself alive, she did not write it for Nicole, she did write it for domestic abuse victims. She is selfish and petty woman who, IMO, very likely was the reason that Nicole and Ron were stabbed to death.

It is your choice to treat Faye like she did a good thing. But tell me, what good did Faye do with her books? She did nothing but point fingers and trash Nicole.

Just to make sure we are clear, I have no problem with her writing a book but I do have a problem with the trashing of Nicole and that did not have to be done and bottom line is no one could possible stand up for Nicole on several of these issues. So we don't even know if the filth she wrote was even true.

I don't take great pleasure in trashing Faye. I think she is a parasite that has always lived off the blood of others. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

Kate,

Please provided your source that Cora spoke about this in public first. I have never seen the interview. From your posts on this, it appears that Cora called a press conference and with great delight and glee she informed the world of Nicole's private affairs. That she laughed and laughed while telling the media this little bit of gossip. Is that what she did Kate? She ran to the media, she wanted the headlines so she told the media that Faye and Nicole slept together? Did she do it because she hated Nicole or Faye, what were motives?

Faye's book had very little to do with domestic violence and she repeatedly trashed Nicole. What did the "Brentwood Hellos" have to do with anything? Do we even know if that is true? Nicole is not here to defend herself? You need to ask yourself why did Faye make sure she trashed Nicole?

Also, I am not faulting Faye for writing a book, I do fault her for doing it before the trials and I believe she did so to make sure neither side would call her as a witness. Faye wrote those books to keep herself alive, she did not write it for Nicole, she did write it for domestic abuse victims. She is selfish and petty woman who, IMO, very likely was the reason that Nicole and Ron were stabbed to death.

It is your choice to treat Faye like she did a good thing. But tell me, what good did Faye do with her books? She did nothing but point fingers and trash Nicole.

Just to make sure we are clear, I have no problem with her writing a book but I do have a problem with the trashing of Nicole and that did not have to be done and bottom line is no one could possible stand up for Nicole on several of these issues. So we don't even know if the filth she wrote was even true.

I don't take great pleasure in trashing Faye. I think she is a parasite that has always lived off the blood of others. Again, IMO.

Can anyone tell me what faye did good for nicole when she was alive. She brought her cocain habit right into nicoles house where her two kids lived.She caused the drug dealers to come to Nicoles to bring her drugs.She influenced
Nicole to do the bar hopping and drinking.Being involved with different men they met.When Nicole and Oj went to carbo for vacations Faye made sure she wormed her tail on the trip also.She talked to Nicole against and oj and oj against nicole. She wedged herself right into these peoples lives.I think one of Nicoles friends apologized to Nicole for introducing faye to her.
So what did this friend Faye do for Nicole that could be called good or helpful.
imo

[GreenIce]

Can anyone tell me what faye did good for nicole when she was alive. She brought her cocain habit right into nicoles house where her two kids lived.She caused the drug dealers to come to Nicoles to bring her drugs.She influenced
Nicole to do the bar hopping and drinking.Being involved with different men they met.When Nicole and Oj went to carbo for vacations Faye made sure she wormed her tail on the trip also.She talked to Nicole against and oj and oj against nicole. She wedged herself right into these peoples lives.I think one of Nicoles friends apologized to Nicole for introducing faye to her.
So what did this friend Faye do for Nicole that could be called good or helpful.
imo

Martin,

We need to address your terms "bar hopping". I don't think Nicole should be judge for going out at night and drinking. There is no evidence to support that Nicole left her children alone or that she was not there in the morning to make sure they got off to school and made sure they had their lunch money or made their lunch.

"Bar hopping" is a blast Martin. There is nothing wrong with it. Nicole was not doing anything different then many people, of both sexes enjoy. IMO, you are using the wrong term, "bar hopping". I think it would be fair to say that maybe Nicole's drinking was becoming a serious problem that was affecting her phyiscal health, she was getting drunk and being taken advantage of or other people were getting her good and blasted so she would engage in behavior that she would never do while she was sober.

Also, Martin many women, including my self, love to dance. Love to go to places where you can lose yourself in a place that is filled with people that have nothing to do with your home life.

Maybe because of our gender difference we see this differently.

[GreenIce]

Can anyone tell me what faye did good for nicole when she was alive. She brought her cocain habit right into nicoles house where her two kids lived.She caused the drug dealers to come to Nicoles to bring her drugs.She influenced
Nicole to do the bar hopping and drinking.Being involved with different men they met.When Nicole and Oj went to carbo for vacations Faye made sure she wormed her tail on the trip also.She talked to Nicole against and oj and oj against nicole. She wedged herself right into these peoples lives.I think one of Nicoles friends apologized to Nicole for introducing faye to her.
So what did this friend Faye do for Nicole that could be called good or helpful.
imo

Martin,

Had Faye been a true friend to Nicole, we would have true list of the good things Faye did for Nicole.

I don't see one thing that Faye brought into the relationship. People forget that the last time Faye talked to her best friend, she made her best friend cry hard enough to alarm her daughter.

[martin II]

Martin,

We need to address your terms "bar hopping". I don't think Nicole should be judge for going out at night and drinking. There is no evidence to support that Nicole left her children alone or that she was not there in the morning to make sure they got off to school and made sure they had their lunch money or made their lunch.

"Bar hopping" is a blast Martin. There is nothing wrong with it. Nicole was not doing anything different then many people, of both sexes enjoy. IMO, you are using the wrong term, "bar hopping". I think it would be fair to say that maybe Nicole's drinking was becoming a serious problem that was affecting her phyiscal health, she was getting drunk and being taken advantage of or other people were getting her good and blasted so she would engage in behavior that she would never do while she was sober.

Also, Martin many women, including my self, love to dance. Love to go to places where you can lose yourself in a place that is filled with people that have nothing to do with your home life.

Maybe because of our gender difference we see this differently.


your second paragraph explains BAR HOPPING and what can be the results if a person is not aware of the pitfalls and the personal danger that one can run into.It seems the liquor was one negative result Nicole experienced.

[GreenIce]

your second paragraph explains BAR HOPPING and what can be the results if a person is not aware of the pitfalls and the personal danger that one can run into.It seems the liquor was one negative result Nicole experienced.

Martin,

Again, it must the gender thing. They way use the term, I get the sense that you think Nicole was doing something wrong by "bar hopping". And please note, the friends that said they were very concerned for Nicole's well being at the end of her life, are very short on details. What exactly was it about Nicole's behavior or words that caused them alarm?

Kris Jenner said something that we assume has some thing to do with sex, such as you never knew where Nicole was going to wake up in the morning but could it be something?

Ron Shipp, he also thought that Nicole was leading a face pace life and he was concerned, but gives no other details. I think that his being a former LAPD member as well as being an alcoholic, he would have given more examples of Nicole's behavior. Perhaps these friends did not details to be known? Perhaps the DA's didn't want to go down certain paths.

Robert Shapiro in his book wrote they had a lot of stuff on Nicole and it was relevant to the case, however, Simpson refused to let them use it and he choose not to write about it in his book. He also points out that they did not even put on half of their intended case. Because the DA's took so long and the defense really won the case during their case in chief, the defense was not going to open any doors that they had already nailed shut.

Again, IMO, "bar hopping" is not an accurate description. Must be the gender thing:)

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Again, it must the gender thing. They way use the term, I get the sense that you think Nicole was doing something wrong by "bar hopping". And please note, the friends that said they were very concerned for Nicole's well being at the end of her life, are very short on details. What exactly was it about Nicole's behavior or words that caused them alarm?

Kris Jenner said something that we assume has some thing to do with sex, such as you never knew where Nicole was going to wake up in the morning but could it be something?

Ron Shipp, he also thought that Nicole was leading a face pace life and he was concerned, but gives no other details. I think that his being a former LAPD member as well as being an alcoholic, he would have given more examples of Nicole's behavior. Perhaps these friends did not details to be known? Perhaps the DA's didn't want to go down certain paths.

Robert Shapiro in his book wrote they had a lot of stuff on Nicole and it was relevant to the case, however, Simpson refused to let them use it and he choose not to write about it in his book. He also points out that they did not even put on half of their intended case. Because the DA's took so long and the defense really won the case during their case in chief, the defense was not going to open any doors that they had already nailed shut.

Again, IMO, "bar hopping" is not an accurate description. Must be the gender thing:)

Let me say that I see nothing wrong with a woman drinking liquor, as much as she desires, as I have been a proponent of the belief that candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.:)

[martin II]

I think many of nicoles friends knew about Nicoles sudden change of life style that included nightly visits to the Monkey bar and other simular establishments.The stories about excessive drinking and involvement with various new men concerned them. It seems that CF was the only one that confronted Nicole head on about this change in life style and told her flat out that she didn't approve of Faye.KJ came out after Nicole was killed and announced that she was nicoles best friend. But she didn't act like that when she was living.There was some dissagreement between KJ and CF about who was going to sell their story. i will look for it.

[martin II]

Edward Kennedy thanks for everything

RIP:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:

[martin II]

GI

When mf was around la flirting with people like MS BELL and others he was still married. right?

[William Anthony]

Edward Kennedy thanks for everything

RIP:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:

Ditto.

[tv]

have you read where anyone other than faye and cora said they knew about the alledged encounter between faye and Nicole?

This doesn't have anything to do with the encounter between Faye and Nicole but Nicole had two good friends, David and D'Anne LeBon. Many of the things her friends and acquaintances said couldn't make it into the civil trial because of hearsay but what they had to say is interesting. She had known David since right after high school.

When she caught Simpson cheating and told LeBon about it, which was frequently, LeBon finally confronted OJ directly. "Why are you screwing around on Nicole?" he demanded. Simpson said "Well, I'm OJ Simpson. You don't know what it's like to be OJ." LeBon said Simpson bought Nicole off with a Ferrari. LeBon's wife, D'Anne, said that after Nicole's divorce from OJ in 1992, Nicole once confided in her that she felt Simpson was going to cut her up in pieces and throw her over the freeway. --Triumph of Justice, Daniel Petrocelli

[weezer]

This doesn't have anything to do with the encounter between Faye and Nicole but Nicole had two good friends, David and D'Anne LeBon. Many of the things her friends and acquaintances said couldn't make it into the civil trial because of hearsay but what they had to say is interesting. She had known David since right after high school.

When she caught Simpson cheating and told LeBon about it, which was frequently, LeBon finally confronted OJ directly. "Why are you screwing around on Nicole?" he demanded. Simpson said "Well, I'm OJ Simpson. You don't know what it's like to be OJ." LeBon said Simpson bought Nicole off with a Ferrari. LeBon's wife, D'Anne, said that after Nicole's divorce from OJ in 1992, Nicole once confided in her that she felt Simpson was going to cut her up in pieces and throw her over the freeway. --Triumph of Justice, Daniel Petrocelli

They were on the potential witness list:

D'Anne and David LeBon, who also appear on the newly released list, allegedly overheard Simpson say, "I loved you too much" over Nicole Simpson's coffin at her funeral. And William Thibodeau, a golfing partner of Simpson, told authorities that Simpson had showed him a "secret way" into Nicole Simpson's house.

[tv]

They were on the potential witness list:

D'Anne and David LeBon, who also appear on the newly released list, allegedly overheard Simpson say, "I loved you too much" over Nicole Simpson's coffin at her funeral. And William Thibodeau, a golfing partner of Simpson, told authorities that Simpson had showed him a "secret way" into Nicole Simpson's house.

Very interesting -- just more examples of his obsession with her and his attempt to justify the killings by saying he loved her 'too much'. I love how he always used that excuse -- putting the blame on her.

Robin Greer, another friend of Nicole's, told Daniel Petrocelli that Arnelle was militant and would do anything for her father and the same was true of Cathy Randa -- "You'll never get through to them."

[William Anthony]

Very interesting -- just more examples of his obsession with her and his attempt to justify the killings by saying he loved her 'too much'. I love how he always used that excuse -- putting the blame on her.

Robin Greer, another friend of Nicole's, told Daniel Petrocelli that Arnelle was militant and would do anything for her father and the same was true of Cathy Randa -- "You'll never get through to them."

Although his initials stand for death penalty, DP was not trying murder case. Personally, I do not know how you love someone too much and believe that you can't love one enough but it seems you have some understanding of this and how it leads to murder. Please, explain it to me?

[William Anthony]

They were on the potential witness list:

D'Anne and David LeBon, who also appear on the newly released list, allegedly overheard Simpson say, "I loved you too much" over Nicole Simpson's coffin at her funeral. And William Thibodeau, a golfing partner of Simpson, told authorities that Simpson had showed him a "secret way" into Nicole Simpson's house.

So, they did not testify, which would be under oath and penalty of perjury.

[weezer]

Very interesting -- just more examples of his obsession with her and his attempt to justify the killings by saying he loved her 'too much'. I love how he always used that excuse -- putting the blame on her.

Robin Greer, another friend of Nicole's, told Daniel Petrocelli that Arnelle was militant and would do anything for her father and the same was true of Cathy Randa -- "You'll never get through to them."

I think arnelle HAS done 'anything' for orenthal. I've said from the beginning that there is something dysfunctional and bizarre in her involvement with her daddy's life.

[tv]

I think arnelle HAS done 'anything' for orenthal. I've said from the beginning that there is something dysfunctional and bizarre in her involvement with her daddy's life.

I thought the word 'militant' was interesting. It suggests aggression and is a good description for the active participant in helping her father that we've always thought she was.

[William Anthony]

I thought the word 'militant' was interesting. It suggests aggression and makes Arnelle seem more the active participant in helping her father that we've always thought she was.

There you go with that dysfunctional mouse in your pocket. The only one that was convicted of any crime as a result of the murder case was MF. To my knowledge no one was arrested for aiding and abetting or accessory after the fact. I think the rest is just wishful thinking and unsupported speculation which can be attributable to a multiplicity of reasons. The one thing that I am sure of is that Ms. Arnelle is a beautiful Black woman.

[martin II]

Martin,

Again, it must the gender thing. They way use the term, I get the sense that you think Nicole was doing something wrong by "bar hopping". And please note, the friends that said they were very concerned for Nicole's well being at the end of her life, are very short on details. What exactly was it about Nicole's behavior or words that caused them alarm?

Kris Jenner said something that we assume has some thing to do with sex, such as you never knew where Nicole was going to wake up in the morning but could it be something?

Ron Shipp, he also thought that Nicole was leading a face pace life and he was concerned, but gives no other details. I think that his being a former LAPD member as well as being an alcoholic, he would have given more examples of Nicole's behavior. Perhaps these friends did not details to be known? Perhaps the DA's didn't want to go down certain paths.

Robert Shapiro in his book wrote they had a lot of stuff on Nicole and it was relevant to the case, however, Simpson refused to let them use it and he choose not to write about it in his book. He also points out that they did not even put on half of their intended case. Because the DA's took so long and the defense really won the case during their case in chief, the defense was not going to open any doors that they had already nailed shut.

Again, IMO, "bar hopping" is not an accurate description. Must be the gender thing:)

Bar Hopping was used by CF in describing Nicoles behavior . It was not my word.

[tv]

They were on the potential witness list:

D'Anne and David LeBon, who also appear on the newly released list, allegedly overheard Simpson say, "I loved you too much" over Nicole Simpson's coffin at her funeral. And William Thibodeau, a golfing partner of Simpson, told authorities that Simpson had showed him a "secret way" into Nicole Simpson's house.

There's only one reason that I can think of that Simpson would need a 'secret way' into Nicole's house and that would be to enter it without her knowledge or permission. If he was only going there to visit or pick up his children there would be no need for that. Creepy.

[William Anthony]

I would not place much faith in out of court statements made by someone, who was not under oath. In fact, I can think of one former LE member that I would not place faith in his statements, if made in court under oath. However, I am not predisposed to finding anyone guilty.

[martin II]

There's only one reason that I can think of that Simpson would need a 'secret way' into Nicole's house and that would be to enter it without her knowledge or permission. If he was only going there to visit or pick up his children there would be no need for that. Creepy.

If a person has never been loved i can see where a ex saying i loved you too much sounds strange.I can understand that oj like others could feel many different emotions standing over his dead ex of 17 years. Not every breakup results in the parties hating each other. It simply looks like oj and Nicole both decided they could not live togeather but could remain friends at some level. They did have kids.

[martin II]

There's only one reason that I can think of that Simpson would need a 'secret way' into Nicole's house and that would be to enter it without her knowledge or permission. If he was only going there to visit or pick up his children there would be no need for that. Creepy.

There was a front door a side glass door and a garage.Tell us where the secrete entrance was.

[martin II]

There's only one reason that I can think of that Simpson would need a 'secret way' into Nicole's house and that would be to enter it without her knowledge or permission. If he was only going there to visit or pick up his children there would be no need for that. Creepy.

Many people 'knew' stuff in order to get some attention.

[weezer]

I thought the word 'militant' was interesting. It suggests aggression and is a good description for the active participant in helping her father that we've always thought she was.

I hadn't thought about it that way -- but that makes sense.

[William Anthony]

what makes sense like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[William Anthony]

There was a front door a side glass door and a garage.Tell us where the secrete entrance was.

If Simpson knew where it was and he came to kill her, why didn't he use it?

[William Anthony]

Yell at me, whisper to me, be mad at me, be sweet to me but Ms. Arnelle grace me with what in my eyes is your beauty.

[martin II]

If Simpson knew where it was and he came to kill her, why didn't he use it?

Maby the poster believes he did.That must be the reason for the clain as i see no other.

[martin II]

Yell at me, whisper to me, be mad at me, be sweet to me but Ms. Arnelle grace me with what in my eyes is your beauty.

I would enjoy that also. Me and a whole hoast of other guys.imo
The prosecutor never came even close to thinking about charging MS Arnell with any wrong doing.
The reason was she never did anything wrong to cause them to do so.

Making false claims against her is done by some that became all bent out of shape, maby, by the verdict. So Ms Arnell, the jury.J Cochran,B. Scheck,F lee Baily,Dr H. Lee,AC, Jason, Cora, Ms Bell.LHM the jurors family members all became easy targets to vent on and make unproven vicious allagations against these people to sooth their OWN feelings.For me this is nothing but misdirected anger.

[William Anthony]

Maby the poster believes he did.That must be the reason for the clain as i see no other.

Perhaps. I do not believe that squares with the prosecution's theory.

[GreenIce]

GI

When mf was around la flirting with people like MS BELL and others he was still married. right?

Martin,

I honestly don't know. I know that he has been married and divorced 3 times.

I think it was in Bosco's book where it says that his first marriage broke up because she cheated on him and his second marriage broke up because of MF's depression. I guess he could go for days without talking to anyone.

Bosco's book does go into MF's life in a bit more detail then the others and has printed excerpts of MF's shrink reports.

[socaldiva]

There's only one reason that I can think of that Simpson would need a 'secret way' into Nicole's house and that would be to enter it without her knowledge or permission. If he was only going there to visit or pick up his children there would be no need for that. Creepy.

Very creepy. A man that has "moved on" doesn't steal his ex-wife's keys or spend time figuring out a 'secret way' into her home. It just goes to show he was obsessed with her. imo.

[William Anthony]

Another unsupported accusation.

[tv]

Very creepy. A man that has "moved on" doesn't steal his ex-wife's keys or spend time figuring out a 'secret way' into her home. It just goes to show he was obsessed with her. imo.

Right. Why would he even bother to find a secret way into her house? Maybe he would have used it if not for Ron or maybe he did use it. We'll never know. There are some people that think he was actually in her house at some point that night.

[socaldiva]

Right. Why would he even bother to find a secret way into her house? Maybe he would have used it if not for Ron or maybe he did use it. We'll never know. There are some people that think he was actually in her house at some point that night.

I hadn't heard of anyone thinking he might have been in the house that evening. Was that part of the case? I wonder if he would have had time to do that?

[tv]

I hadn't heard of anyone thinking he might have been in the house that evening. Was that part of the case? I wonder if he would have had time to do that?

Just some people that are followers of the case have said that. Personal theories, that's all, but it is something to think about. I don't know if he would have had time or not. I guess it's possible he startled her and she ran away from him and he caught her where she was found. I think there are a lot of possibilities.

[William Anthony]

I tend to go by the evidence presented.

[weezer]

Very creepy. A man that has "moved on" doesn't steal his ex-wife's keys or spend time figuring out a 'secret way' into her home. It just goes to show he was obsessed with her. imo.

or stand outside her house and sneak around peeking in windows -- WTH?!

[weezer]

I hadn't heard of anyone thinking he might have been in the house that evening. Was that part of the case? I wonder if he would have had time to do that?

I've always wondered about the knife found on the kitchen counter. maybe she heard something or maybe after his phone call, she armed herself for what she knew was going to happen. I think he threatened her during the call where she was crying. I also think she protected her children by telling them it was 'mommy's friend' and not orenthal on the phone that upset her. . .

[William Anthony]

I tend to go by the evidence presented.

[GreenIce]

I think many of nicoles friends knew about Nicoles sudden change of life style that included nightly visits to the Monkey bar and other simular establishments.The stories about excessive drinking and involvement with various new men concerned them. It seems that CF was the only one that confronted Nicole head on about this change in life style and told her flat out that she didn't approve of Faye.KJ came out after Nicole was killed and announced that she was nicoles best friend. But she didn't act like that when she was living.There was some dissagreement between KJ and CF about who was going to sell their story. i will look for it.

Martin,

You know, I have been thinking about the comments that Nicole's friends were saying but it appears to me that they are holding back. Were they afraid for Nicole's life or were they afraid for Nicole's health? IMO, there is a difference.

Also, I wonder if all of Faye's shrugged off her fears and her wanting to leave the country. It appears to me that if Nicole kicked Faye out for drugs and she went to another friend's house, how come the police have never talked to her or she was never interviewed?

[GreenIce]

I tend to go by the evidence presented.

William,

I think it was you or Martin who said that a lot can be learned in the side bar transcripts. I was just thinking about Faye. Faye went public and said that was the person who Nicole was "fighting and crying" with, she is that best friend, however, Sydney is wrong, her mother was laughing and giggling.

It makes me wonder why Faye did not let the Browns and continue push the total and absolute falsehood that it was OJ Simpson. IMO, Faye came forward with these lies is because Faye knew Sydney heard her mother and knew who her mother was talking to. It is very possible that Sydney came into the room to find out what was wrong and Nicole may have said something to Sydney that let Faye know that Sydney heard what she heard.

It is because of this and other leads the police didn't follow is why I do not trust their investigation. They knew they had their man and they didn't let the facts stand in the way.

IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I think it was you or Martin who said that a lot can be learned in the side bar transcripts. I was just thinking about Faye. Faye went public and said that was the person who Nicole was "fighting and crying" with, she is that best friend, however, Sydney is wrong, her mother was laughing and giggling.

It makes me wonder why Faye did not let the Browns and continue push the total and absolute falsehood that it was OJ Simpson. IMO, Faye came forward with these lies is because Faye knew Sydney heard her mother and knew who her mother was talking to. It is very possible that Sydney came into the room to find out what was wrong and Nicole may have said something to Sydney that let Faye know that Sydney heard what she heard.

It is because of this and other leads the police didn't follow is why I do not trust their investigation. They knew they had their man and they didn't let the facts stand in the way.

IMO.

I understand what you are saying but, since my point is reasonable doubt, I tend only to consider the evidence that was presented. I do not have a problem with the civil trial verdict. I agree that much can be learned in side bars but the jury is not normally privy to that information.

[GreenIce]

I understand what you are saying but, since my point is reasonable doubt, I tend only to consider the evidence that was presented. I do not have a problem with the civil trial verdict.

Martin,

I don't have a problem with the civil trial verdict either. However, I do have a problem that a civil trial was used as a mask to try Simpson for murder. I don't care what legal jargon people come up with, it is another bite at the apple and I think it is easy to find someone responsible for someone's death even if they didn't do the actual killing.

I would have had no problem finding Simpson liable for Nicole's death but my verdict would not have been based on the evidence, I would have voted liable just because he cheated on her. I am not kidding, that would have been the only reason why I would have voted liable.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I don't have a problem with the civil trial verdict either. However, I do have a problem that a civil trial was used as a mask to try Simpson for murder. I don't care what legal jargon people come up with, it is another bite at the apple and I think it is easy to find someone responsible for someone's death even if they didn't do the actual killing.

I would have had no problem finding Simpson liable for Nicole's death but my verdict would not have been based on the evidence, I would have voted liable just because he cheated on her. I am not kidding, that would have been the only reason why I would have voted liable.

Oh, I do believe that the civil trial was a socio political production.

I would not want you as a juror in any case where the defendant was a cheater and, if you answered truthfully in voir dire, I would have you excused.:)

[tv]

I've always wondered about the knife found on the kitchen counter. maybe she heard something or maybe after his phone call, she armed herself for what she knew was going to happen. I think he threatened her during the call where she was crying. I also think she protected her children by telling them it was 'mommy's friend' and not orenthal on the phone that upset her. . .

The way I understand it the kitchen was spotless with nothing out of place except for that knife. They ate supper out and she wouldn't have needed a knife to cut the ice cream. Whatever happened she was no match for him. This is one time her detractors can't say she 'gave as good as she got.'

[martin II]

Martin,

I don't have a problem with the civil trial verdict either. However, I do have a problem that a civil trial was used as a mask to try Simpson for murder. I don't care what legal jargon people come up with, it is another bite at the apple and I think it is easy to find someone responsible for someone's death even if they didn't do the actual killing.

I would have had no problem finding Simpson liable for Nicole's death but my verdict would not have been based on the evidence, I would have voted liable just because he cheated on her. I am not kidding, that would have been the only reason why I would have voted liable.

GI

I dissagree. I would not find someone liable of killing another because the defendant cheated on the person befor they were killed.I don't see cheating as THAT important.I see cheating as something wrong with the relationship which both parties should look at. I could only vote on what the person was charged with.Remember the prosecution tried to get the jury to vote oj guilty
based on claimed abuse when he was not charged with that.

[weezer]

The way I understand it the kitchen was spotless with nothing out of place except for that knife. They ate supper out and she wouldn't have needed a knife to cut the ice cream. Whatever happened she was no match for him. This is one time her detractors can't say she 'gave as good as she got.'

makes me so sad to think she spent her last hours in fear of that psycho. :mad:

[martin II]

Martin,

You know, I have been thinking about the comments that Nicole's friends were saying but it appears to me that they are holding back. Were they afraid for Nicole's life or were they afraid for Nicole's health? IMO, there is a difference.

Also, I wonder if all of Faye's shrugged off her fears and her wanting to leave the country. It appears to me that if Nicole kicked Faye out for drugs and she went to another friend's house, how come the police have never talked to her or she was never interviewed?

I think that before nicoles death her friends were basically concerened with their own situations.Not wasting time on nicole. However they may knew nicole was strong willed and would not listen.As she usually did what she wanted to do.She didn't listen to Cora.

LE was not interested in any one but oj. Investigating faye may have lead them to drug dealers that could have been involved.They did not want a second suspect.

[tv]

makes me so sad to think she spent her last hours in fear of that psycho. :mad:

Me too. IMO, in her final moments she knew he was really going to kill her this time. I wonder if she even knew Ron was there? I guess it depends on which scenario you find more likely. :(

[William Anthony]

I do not believe it has ever been proven that Ms. NBS was in fear of Simpson or that Simpson was a psycho or that Simpson was a murderer.

[William Anthony]

The fact that there are different scenarios and one does not know which to believe leads to reasonable doubt in my mind.

[martin II]

From testimnony Nicole was doing a lot of drinking in the weeks before she was killed . Considering what excessive alcohol consumtion can do to ones thinlking there is no telling what she may have though oj or anyone else was going to do to her. Nicoles thoughts do not equal murder. She also demanded that oj kick Kato and the maid off the property when she came to visit him at his home.What kind of sense did that make.

[martin II]

The fact that there are different scenarios and one does not know which to believe leads to reasonable doubt in my mind.

I think that is what the judge told the jury.

[William Anthony]

I think that is what the judge told the jury.

I think that is what the prosecution failed to understand.

[martin II]

Martin,

You know, I have been thinking about the comments that Nicole's friends were saying but it appears to me that they are holding back. Were they afraid for Nicole's life or were they afraid for Nicole's health? IMO, there is a difference.

Also, I wonder if all of Faye's shrugged off her fears and her wanting to leave the country. It appears to me that if Nicole kicked Faye out for drugs and she went to another friend's house, how come the police have never talked to her or she was never interviewed?

Some may have been with her changed lifestyle,drinking partying etc.Her health and for what could happen to her for this lifestyle.Cora said she was concerned about HIV as a result oh nicoles changed life style.So it could have been both.

[tv]

I think arnelle HAS done 'anything' for orenthal. I've said from the beginning that there is something dysfunctional and bizarre in her involvement with her daddy's life.

What's odd to me is that Nicole is characterized as a heavy drinker, violent and a sl*t but it's OJ Simpson that slept around during their marriage and even under the same roof as Nicole and had the domestic violence conviction. Arnelle had a drunk driving charge and also knocked Daddy into a glass cabinet. Then there's the road rage. Truly dysfunctional.

[William Anthony]

What's odd to me is that Nicole is characterized as a heavy drinker, violent and a sl*t but it's OJ Simpson that slept around during their marriage and even under the same roof as Nicole and had the domestic violence conviction. Arnelle had a drunk driving charge and also knocked Daddy into a glass cabinet. Then there's the road rage. Truly dysfunctional.

Drunk or sober Ms. Arnelle knocks me out and makes dysfunctional look beautiful.

[weezer]

What's odd to me is that Nicole is characterized as a heavy drinker, violent and a sl*t but it's OJ Simpson that slept around during their marriage and even under the same roof as Nicole and had the domestic violence conviction. Arnelle had a drunk driving charge and also knocked Daddy into a glass cabinet. Then there's the road rage. Truly dysfunctional.

lol -- I don't know any 'heavy drinkers' that get up every morning to jog. I don't know anyone that's labeled as 'violent' to be the one bruised and bloody while the 'other' doesn't have a scratch. Nicole's private life was her own: she didn't sleep around while she was married (unlike orenthal and cora) and no one has accused her of neglecting her children (unlike the stories told about orenthal, the absentee dad) so I guess that part is pretty much a moot issue.

arnelle on the other hand has proven to have personal issues of her own: involvement the night of the beating, drunk driving charges, involvement the murder night, suggesting and then talking siblings into participating in the I Did It book, the las vegas armed robbery, and the smack-down of daddy. Yep, I'm afraid that little acorn didn't fall far from the tree. :eek:

[William Anthony]

I guess we could say that Riske, Phillips, Vannatter, Lang, DF, MF. Corn oil, Kato, Roberts, and countless others had involvement on the night of the murders to include the neighbors. As I have repeatedly stated the only one to be charged and convicted of any crime related to the trial was MF, if you want to talk about someone being dysfunctional as it pertains to violating oaths. The beautiful Ms. Arnelle seems to be the object of nasty and insulting posts, even though she was not charged and convicted with anything related to her father's trials. I guess beauty can be a handicap judging by how one responds to the other's beauty.

[Hotwater]

Rules have been posted. Please read....

http://boards.library.trutv.com/announcement.php?f=284&a=221


___________
Hotwater

[GreenIce]

GI

I dissagree. I would not find someone liable of killing another because the defendant cheated on the person befor they were killed.I don't see cheating as THAT important.I see cheating as something wrong with the relationship which both parties should look at. I could only vote on what the person was charged with.Remember the prosecution tried to get the jury to vote oj guilty
based on claimed abuse when he was not charged with that.

Martin,

I have always and will always post my belief on cheating, it is a form of domestic violence that affects the whole family. I have also posted the double standards regarding men vs women who cheat.

IMO, in this case, had OJ Simpson been faithful, I believe that Nicole would still be alive today. I also believe that Simpson's behavior in this area very well may have made Nicole a lot more reckless when she was on her own. Again, this may be a gender difference.

IMO, it is obvious that everyone who knew OJ and Nicole, knew he cheated on her and he was never called on it, until Nicole was dead. Why does cheating only count for men is when the wife or ex shows up dead or if you are the President of the United States?

In that regard, I could easily find Simpson responsible or playing a very huge role in her murder. And to be honest, when it is only about money, I would not have backed down.

If I was a criminal trial juror, it never would have entered into my decision. But when it is only money, then I would have no problem doing it.

[GreenIce]

I think that before nicoles death her friends were basically concerened with their own situations.Not wasting time on nicole. However they may knew nicole was strong willed and would not listen.As she usually did what she wanted to do.She didn't listen to Cora.

LE was not interested in any one but oj. Investigating faye may have lead them to drug dealers that could have been involved.They did not want a second suspect.

Martin,

The only reason why I question about Nicole's friends' fear is what CR said, that many of them were sleeping with guns under their pillows. Also, what Nicole wrote to Cora in that letter. After Nicole was murdered and Simpson was clearly the prime suspect, perhaps these friends thought better of explain what their true fears were with Nicole. Perhaps they downplayed the danger of her life and opted for the danger of her health.

[martin II]

Martin,

The only reason why I question about Nicole's friends' fear is what CR said, that many of them were sleeping with guns under their pillows. Also, what Nicole wrote to Cora in that letter. After Nicole was murdered and Simpson was clearly the prime suspect, perhaps these friends thought better of explain what their true fears were with Nicole. Perhaps they downplayed the danger of her life and opted for the danger of her health.

That may be the reason.If they thought about danger to her life i don't see why they would not do anything

[martin II]

Martin,

I have always and will always post my belief on cheating, it is a form of domestic violence that affects the whole family. I have also posted the double standards regarding men vs women who cheat.

IMO, in this case, had OJ Simpson been faithful, I believe that Nicole would still be alive today. I also believe that Simpson's behavior in this area very well may have made Nicole a lot more reckless when she was on her own. Again, this may be a gender difference.

IMO, it is obvious that everyone who knew OJ and Nicole, knew he cheated on her and he was never called on it, until Nicole was dead. Why does cheating only count for men is when the wife or ex shows up dead or if you are the President of the United States?

In that regard, I could easily find Simpson responsible or playing a very huge role in her murder. And to be honest, when it is only about money, I would not have backed down.

If I was a criminal trial juror, it never would have entered into my decision. But when it is only money, then I would have no problem doing it.


if you are saying make him pay for cheating i may let you get by with that but not in a trial.I think oj was greatly hurt that nicole had been killed.She was the mother of his two great kids and he did spend 17 years of his life with her.Its hard to nhate someone after that much time togeather.I still believe that oj and nicole still loved each other but were not able to make it like it was in the beginning but kill her NO WAY.

[martin II]

lol -- I don't know any 'heavy drinkers' that get up every morning to jog. I don't know anyone that's labeled as 'violent' to be the one bruised and bloody while the 'other' doesn't have a scratch. Nicole's private life was her own: she didn't sleep around while she was married (unlike orenthal and cora) and no one has accused her of neglecting her children (unlike the stories told about orenthal, the absentee dad) so I guess that part is pretty much a moot issue.

arnelle on the other hand has proven to have personal issues of her own: involvement the night of the beating, drunk driving charges, involvement the murder night, suggesting and then talking siblings into participating in the I Did It book, the las vegas armed robbery, and the smack-down of daddy. Yep, I'm afraid that little acorn didn't fall far from the tree. :eek:

fACTS: Cora testified that nicole was drinking too much.
Cora testified that she and nicole jogged every day.

[GreenIce]

if you are saying make him pay for cheating i may let you get by with that but not in a trial.I think oj was greatly hurt that nicole had been killed.She was the mother of his two great kids and he did spend 17 years of his life with her.Its hard to nhate someone after that much time togeather.I still believe that oj and nicole still loved each other but were not able to make it like it was in the beginning but kill her NO WAY.

Martin,

That was basically what I was saying, I would make him pay dearly for cheating in a civil trial but IMO, it had no bearing on the criminal trial.

[martin II]

Martin,

That was basically what I was saying, I would make him pay dearly for cheating in a civil trial but IMO, it had no bearing on the criminal trial.

I think your best bet would be to catch of eating lobster in a resturant and hit him on the head with it to show your anger and give him a piece of your mind.

[GreenIce]

I think your best bet would be to catch of eating lobster in a resturant and hit him on the head with it to show your anger and give him a piece of your mind.

Martin,

I have just realized something and I made a major error---which I would not have made had I been a civil trial juror. For some reason, I thought the jury could render a liable verdict if they thought Simpson played any role in the murders. However, the more I think about it, they had to decided if it was more likely or not that he actually committed the murders. Have I got that right?

If so, then I would seriously consider your plan!

[martin II]

Martin,

I have just realized something and I made a major error---which I would not have made had I been a civil trial juror. For some reason, I thought the jury could render a liable verdict if they thought Simpson played any role in the murders. However, the more I think about it, they had to decided if it was more likely or not that he actually committed the murders. Have I got that right?

If so, then I would seriously consider your plan!

Better late than never:cool:

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I have just realized something and I made a major error---which I would not have made had I been a civil trial juror. For some reason, I thought the jury could render a liable verdict if they thought Simpson played any role in the murders. However, the more I think about it, they had to decided if it was more likely or not that he actually committed the murders. Have I got that right?

If so, then I would seriously consider your plan!

GreenIce,

You have it all wrong. The civil jury could not consider murder as it was a criminal charge. They could consider whether or not he was most likely responsible for the wrongful death of Mr. Ronald Goldman and the battery and oppression of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. The fact that the judge said, "This is basically a civil murder trial" is why I called it the civil trial a socio political production.

[martin II]

GreenIce,

You have it all wrong. The civil jury could not consider murder as it was a criminal charge. They could consider whether or not he was most likely responsible for the wrongful death of Mr. Ronald Goldman and the battery and oppression of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. The fact that the judge said, "This is basically a civil murder trial" is why I called it the civil trial a socio political production.

The civil verdict rules are not that easy for some that is why i believe that people believe oj was found guilty of murder in the civil trial.

[William Anthony]

The civil verdict rules are not that easy for some that is why i believe that people believe oj was found guilty of murder in the civil trial.

I think GreenIce knows better and was otherwise distracted when she posted it or she was being sarcastic, IMHO.

[GreenIce]

I am confused about something. Arnelle Simpson testified they enterd the house through the front door. But the detectives say that they entered through the back door by the pool?

Also, accept for MF, I thought all three of the detectives went to her room and then went with her to enter the house. Is that correct?

[bobaugust]

I am confused about something. Arnelle Simpson testified they enterd the house through the front door. But the detectives say that they entered through the back door by the pool?

Also, accept for MF, I thought all three of the detectives went to her room and then went with her to enter the house. Is that correct?

Phillips, Vannatter, and Lange all testified that Arnelle let them into her father’s house through the rear door of the house. Fuhrman testified that after the three detectives were in the house Kaelin led him to the same rear door and they entered the house. Kaelin testified that he saw Arnelle let the three detectives into the house using the rear door and he and Fuhrman followed them in using the same door.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

Phillips, Vannatter, and Lange all testified that Arnelle let them into her father’s house through the rear door of the house. Fuhrman testified that after the three detectives were in the house Kaelin led him to the same rear door and they entered the house. Kaelin testified that he saw Arnelle let the three detectives into the house using the rear door and he and Fuhrman followed them in using the same door.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

But Arnelle's testimony is they went through the front door, correct?

[martin II]

I am confused about something. Arnelle Simpson testified they enterd the house through the front door. But the detectives say that they entered through the back door by the pool?

Also, accept for MF, I thought all three of the detectives went to her room and then went with her to enter the house. Is that correct?

I believe Arnell let them in by the front door . other wise the alarm would go off if they entered by the rear door as the cops claim.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

But Arnelle's testimony is they went through the front door, correct?

i believe vanhatter and his guys lied about the back door. why i dont know.

[Hipcheck]

Vannatter, Lange, Phillips and Fuhrman all testified that Arrnell Simpson let them in thru the back door. Kateo Kaelin also testifed that Arnell let them i thru the rear door.

So why is Arnell lying when she said she let them in thru the front door?

Arnell reason for lying is because the alarm would have went off if set when they went thru the back door. Someone had to have deactivated the alarm system sometime after Kateo had set it around 12:30am.

Arnell didn't want anyone to know that the alarm system was not set when she took the detectives into the house.

And that is the reason Arnell lied.

[William Anthony]

i believe vanhatter and his guys lied about the back door. why i dont know.

No, have you not learned yet. They made human error and mistakes.:)

[martin II]

Vannatter, Lange, Phillips and Fuhrman all testified that Arrnell Simpson let them in thru the back door. Kateo Kaelin also testifed that Arnell let them i thru the rear door.

So why is Arnell lying when she said she let them in thru the front door?

Arnell reason for lying is because the alarm would have went off if set when they went thru the back door. Someone had to have deactivated the alarm system sometime after Kateo had set it around 12:30am.

Arnell didn't want anyone to know that the alarm system was not set when she took the detectives into the house.

And that is the reason Arnell lied.


I forgot oj did deactivate the alarm.

[martin II]

No, have you not learned yet. They made human error and mistakes.:)

Everyone in le has bad memory and that is expected after 4-5 hours on the job.

[martin II]

Vannatter, Lange, Phillips and Fuhrman all testified that Arrnell Simpson let them in thru the back door. Kateo Kaelin also testifed that Arnell let them i thru the rear door.

So why is Arnell lying when she said she let them in thru the front door?

Arnell reason for lying is because the alarm would have went off if set when they went thru the back door. Someone had to have deactivated the alarm system sometime after Kateo had set it around 12:30am.

Arnell didn't want anyone to know that the alarm system was not set when she took the detectives into the house.

And that is the reason Arnell lied.


The jury knew vanhatter and lang had lied in their testimony i doubt they believed them about entering the house because they were trying to prove a point.

[GreenIce]

i believe vanhatter and his guys lied about the back door. why i dont know.

Martin,

My only guess is to cover that both Vanatter and MF did not enter the house with her. I reading in criminal trial testimony, that the door they said the detectives said was used was nailed shut. It is very confusing, however.

[GreenIce]

Vannatter, Lange, Phillips and Fuhrman all testified that Arrnell Simpson let them in thru the back door. Kateo Kaelin also testifed that Arnell let them i thru the rear door.

So why is Arnell lying when she said she let them in thru the front door?

Arnell reason for lying is because the alarm would have went off if set when they went thru the back door. Someone had to have deactivated the alarm system sometime after Kateo had set it around 12:30am.

Arnell didn't want anyone to know that the alarm system was not set when she took the detectives into the house.

And that is the reason Arnell lied.

Hipcheck,

Arnelle would have no reason to lie. She knew the reason why she could not enter the back door. You have no proof or any evidence to suggest why she would lie about this.

However, you do have evidence that the 4 detectives have been less then truthful on several key points.

Do you really think Clark would have let this go if she thought Arnelle was lying about this? Judge Ito's ruling on the search warrant is proof enough the detectives' version of events can't be trusted.

IMO.

[fgump2]

Hipcheck,

Arnelle would have no reason to lie. She knew the reason why she could not enter the back door. You have no proof or any evidence to suggest why she would lie about this.

However, you do have evidence that the 4 detectives have been less then truthful on several key points.

Do you really think Clark would have let this go if she thought Arnelle was lying about this? Judge Ito's ruling on the search warrant is proof enough the detectives' version of events can't be trusted.

IMO.

I think the logical answer is that Anrelle lied. My understanding is that the 4 detecitives got their stories down on paper before they would have known that which door they entered made a difference. I could be wrong about this, I may do some research on this.

Also Kato backed up the 4 detectives. It is possible that the detectives were absent minded about it. But it would be strange for all four detectives to make the same memory mistake, and stranger yet for Kato to back them up on it.

Kato was declared a hostile witness, and slow motion pictures run after the trial showed that he was angered by some of Marcia Clark's questions; so it seems unlikely that he would have been lying to protect the detectives.
Most people thought that Kato was erratic and undependable. The detectives originally thought he might be on drugs. I don't think they would have invited him into a conspiricy; he had attachments to Orenthal, and seemed erratic.

As for the door being nailed shut - I doubt it. The defense people would have loved to have embarrass the detectives, and yet they didn't try to on this issue.

As for Clark not nailing Arnelle on this issue. The prosecution was disorganized. They often behaved like no one was in charge. They made a lot of mistakes. They should have entered the bronco chase, the farewell note, and a written version of the statement to the detectives.

One thing I have wondered about the statement to the detectivse, and the recording of the detective's radio communication with Simpson during the bronco chase (or whatever you call it). In both recordings there are some inaudible comments. I wonder if better computer technology, which is better at erasing static, could retrieve a few more words from these recordings. I doubt that there are more than a 10 to 20 or so inaudible words (since the words were inaudibile we can't get an accurate count). This might add some useful information about the case.

[fgump2]

GreenIce,

You have it all wrong. The civil jury could not consider murder as it was a criminal charge. They could consider whether or not he was most likely responsible for the wrongful death of Mr. Ronald Goldman and the battery and oppression of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. The fact that the judge said, "This is basically a civil murder trial" is why I called it the civil trial a socio political production.

there have been other civil suits about murder. I doubht any of them got anywhere near the publicity that this one did.

Years ago in Virginia a woman was murdered, and her daughter brought a civil suit against her husband (I don't think the accuser was the biological daughter of the accused). Would you call this a socio political production also?

There have been other civil suits about murder also. I heard about a case in which a guy lost a civil suit for killing is wife, and then was convicted of murdering her. Nobody called the civil suit a socio political production.

[martin II]

there have been other civil suits about murder. I doubht any of them got anywhere near the publicity that this one did.

Years ago in Virginia a woman was murdered, and her daughter brought a civil suit against her husband (I don't think the accuser was the biological daughter of the accused). Would you call this a socio political production also?

There have been other civil suits about murder also. I heard about a case in which a guy lost a civil suit for killing is wife, and then was convicted of murdering her. Nobody called the civil suit a socio political production.

Maby if you read the law on what charges are allowed in a civil trial you may have a different opinion than what you posted
Posting about trials you know about without links to prove your claim does not
help.

[martin II]

Martin,

My only guess is to cover that both Vanatter and MF did not enter the house with her. I reading in criminal trial testimony, that the door they said the detectives said was used was nailed shut. It is very confusing, however.

GI

Since none of the detectives made any written record of what they did at rockingham no one knows what they did until they testified in court and none of that could be checked by record because there was none.Plenty of time to get a story togeather.

[martin II]

Martin,

My only guess is to cover that both Vanatter and MF did not enter the house with her. I reading in criminal trial testimony, that the door they said the detectives said was used was nailed shut. It is very confusing, however.

i don't know about the door being nailed shut but i do believe the detectives lied for a reason. Kato would and did say what he was asked to say some of the time.

[William Anthony]

there have been other civil suits about murder. I doubht any of them got anywhere near the publicity that this one did.

Years ago in Virginia a woman was murdered, and her daughter brought a civil suit against her husband (I don't think the accuser was the biological daughter of the accused). Would you call this a socio political production also?

There have been other civil suits about murder also. I heard about a case in which a guy lost a civil suit for killing is wife, and then was convicted of murdering her. Nobody called the civil suit a socio political production.

Yes, if there have been other civil suits about the criminal charge of murder as you allege, then I would likewise call them socio political productions. If the civil suit was brought to prove the charge of murder, when the criminal trial failed to prove murder, then the civil trial was an abuse of the legal system and a socio political production. When one says legal or semantic hair splitting they are acknowledging, imho, that the socio political production was for an improper purpose.

[weezer]

there have been other civil suits about murder. I doubht any of them got anywhere near the publicity that this one did.

Years ago in Virginia a woman was murdered, and her daughter brought a civil suit against her husband (I don't think the accuser was the biological daughter of the accused). Would you call this a socio political production also?

There have been other civil suits about murder also. I heard about a case in which a guy lost a civil suit for killing is wife, and then was convicted of murdering her. Nobody called the civil suit a socio political production.

I would bet the NG's don't feel that way about all of the civil suits brought against LE. . .;)

[William Anthony]

I would bet the NG's don't feel that way about all of the civil suits brought against LE. . .;)

I cannot speak for an NG but, as a reasonable doubter and one who has studied law, since the civil suits were brought to try an alleged civil wrong, a tort, I would have no problem with them, unless, like in the Simpson socio political production, the judge said, "Basically, this is a civil suit to try LE for the crimes for which they were acquitted.

[tv]

I think the logical answer is that Anrelle lied. My understanding is that the 4 detecitives got their stories down on paper before they would have known that which door they entered made a difference. I could be wrong about this, I may do some research on this.

Also Kato backed up the 4 detectives. It is possible that the detectives were absent minded about it. But it would be strange for all four detectives to make the same memory mistake, and stranger yet for Kato to back them up on it.

Kato was declared a hostile witness, and slow motion pictures run after the trial showed that he was angered by some of Marcia Clark's questions; so it seems unlikely that he would have been lying to protect the detectives.
Most people thought that Kato was erratic and undependable. The detectives originally thought he might be on drugs. I don't think they would have invited him into a conspiricy; he had attachments to Orenthal, and seemed erratic.

As for the door being nailed shut - I doubt it. The defense people would have loved to have embarrass the detectives, and yet they didn't try to on this issue.

As for Clark not nailing Arnelle on this issue. The prosecution was disorganized. They often behaved like no one was in charge. They made a lot of mistakes. They should have entered the bronco chase, the farewell note, and a written version of the statement to the detectives.

One thing I have wondered about the statement to the detectivse, and the recording of the detective's radio communication with Simpson during the bronco chase (or whatever you call it). In both recordings there are some inaudible comments. I wonder if better computer technology, which is better at erasing static, could retrieve a few more words from these recordings. I doubt that there are more than a 10 to 20 or so inaudible words (since the words were inaudibile we can't get an accurate count). This might add some useful information about the case.

fg2, of course, Arnelle lied. The detectives had no reason to lie about which door Arnelle took them in. Arnelle had a very good reason to lie. Phillips, Lange and Vannatter all testified that they followed Arnelle in through the back door. Fuhrman testified he went in through the back door because it was standing open and as you posted Kato testified he walked in the back door. Arnelle lied.

[martin II]

there have been other civil suits about murder. I doubht any of them got anywhere near the publicity that this one did.

Years ago in Virginia a woman was murdered, and her daughter brought a civil suit against her husband (I don't think the accuser was the biological daughter of the accused). Would you call this a socio political production also?

There have been other civil suits about murder also. I heard about a case in which a guy lost a civil suit for killing is wife, and then was convicted of murdering her. Nobody called the civil suit a socio political production.
'OTHER CIVIL SUITS ABOUT MURDER'?

The oj civil suit was not about murder. The judge illegally made a commernt that it was to influence the jury. But the jury was never asked to find oj guilty of murder. i am sure you know this.

[martin II]

fg2, of course, Arnelle lied. The detectives had no reason to lie about which door Arnelle took them in. Arnelle had a very good reason to lie. Phillips, Lange and Vannatter all testified that they followed Arnelle in through the back door. Fuhrman testified he went in through the back door because it was standing open and as you posted Kato testified he walked in the back door. Arnelle lied.

Vanhatter lied to get the search warrant. So we know he would lie. We know from testimony what MF did on the stand.

[William Anthony]

fg2, of course, Arnelle lied. The detectives had no reason to lie about which door Arnelle took them in. Arnelle had a very good reason to lie. Phillips, Lange and Vannatter all testified that they followed Arnelle in through the back door. Fuhrman testified he went in through the back door because it was standing open and as you posted Kato testified he walked in the back door. Arnelle lied.

The beautiful Ms. Arnelle is accused of telling a lie, while the prosecution's witnesses only made human errors and mistakes but it was a prosecution witness, who was the only person charged with and convicted of telling lies under oath.

[tv]

there have been other civil suits about murder. I doubht any of them got anywhere near the publicity that this one did.

Years ago in Virginia a woman was murdered, and her daughter brought a civil suit against her husband (I don't think the accuser was the biological daughter of the accused). Would you call this a socio political production also?

There have been other civil suits about murder also. I heard about a case in which a guy lost a civil suit for killing is wife, and then was convicted of murdering her. Nobody called the civil suit a socio political production.

Simpson supporters say the verdict in the civil trial didn't mean he was found liable for killing them directly. They've said it could mean he did something that led to them being killed. I say nope! It means he stabbed and slashed them to death nearly decapitating the mother of his children in the process. Putting all the legal mumbo-jumbo aside -- that's what it means. I didn't see any evidence presented that he did anything to cause someone else to kill them but I saw a lot that proved he did it himself.

[William Anthony]

The verdict in the socio political production means that Simpson was liable for causing the wrongful death of Mr. RG and there is no such "them" in the finding of wrongful death, despite the displeasure this may bring to some. The verdict in the socio political production also, by virtue of the written interrogatories, means that Simpson committed battery and oppression on Ms.NBS and Mr. RG. There were no questions asked as to whether Simpson stabbed to death Ms.NBS and Mr. RG. Some may desire to put side what they call "legal mumbo-jumbo" so that they can find a false support for thier predisposed and unsupported conclusions, which is what I think.

[weezer]

Simpson supporters say the verdict in the civil trial didn't mean he was found liable for killing them directly. They've said it could mean he did something that led to them being killed. I say nope! It means he stabbed and slashed them to death nearly decapitating the mother of his children in the process. Putting all the legal mumbo-jumbo aside -- that's what it means. I didn't see any evidence presented that he did anything to cause someone else to kill them but I saw a lot that proved he did it himself.

:beer::beer:

[William Anthony]

Those, who are called Simpson supporters, are correct as to the meaning of the verdict in the socio political production.

[martin II]

Simpson supporters say the verdict in the civil trial didn't mean he was found liable for killing them directly. They've said it could mean he did something that led to them being killed. I say nope! It means he stabbed and slashed them to death nearly decapitating the mother of his children in the process. Putting all the legal mumbo-jumbo aside -- that's what it means. I didn't see any evidence presented that he did anything to cause someone else to kill them but I saw a lot that proved he did it himself.

tv
we have gone over the civil trial verdict before. we know the civil trial jurors options were for a verdict.murder WAS NOT one of their options. What some believe is what they believe but the verdict form speakes for itself.

[martin II]

Simpson supporters say the verdict in the civil trial didn't mean he was found liable for killing them directly. They've said it could mean he did something that led to them being killed. I say nope! It means he stabbed and slashed them to death nearly decapitating the mother of his children in the process. Putting all the legal mumbo-jumbo aside -- that's what it means. I didn't see any evidence presented that he did anything to cause someone else to kill them but I saw a lot that proved he did it himself.

The CJS set the rules for the jury not anyone here.

[William Anthony]

tv
we have gone over the civil trial verdict before. we know the civil trial jurors options were for a verdict.murder WAS NOT one of their options. What some believe is what they believe but the verdict form speakes for itself.

Res ipsa loquitor. :);):cool:

[Hipcheck]

Vanhatter lied to get the search warrant. So we know he would lie. We know from testimony what MF did on the stand.

Can you prove that Detective Vannatter lied when getting the search warrant and what were those lies?

[weezer]

Simpson supporters say the verdict in the civil trial didn't mean he was found liable for killing them directly. They've said it could mean he did something that led to them being killed. I say nope! It means he stabbed and slashed them to death nearly decapitating the mother of his children in the process. Putting all the legal mumbo-jumbo aside -- that's what it means. I didn't see any evidence presented that he did anything to cause someone else to kill them but I saw a lot that proved he did it himself.

Seems that most people thought the same way -- orenthal was found guilty for the murders.

"Despite being found not guilty in a criminal trial more than a year earlier, O.J. Simpson is found liable for the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

O.J. Simpson Found Liable for Murder in Civil Trial

DAVID BLOOM reporting:
Today, O.J. Simpson's lawyers arrived at court in a foul mood having lost their case and then in court became even angrier when lawyers for the victims' families suggested Simpson might be inflating his legal bills to make it appear he has less money than he actually does.

Crowd: (Chanting) Guilty, guilty, guilty.

BLOOM: O.J. Simpson left the courthouse last night betraying no emotion, branded a killer despite having been found not guilty of the murders just 16 months ago. For the anguished families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, this was justice.

Mr. FRED GOLDMAN: Our family is grateful for a verdict of responsibility, which is all we ever wanted. And we have it, thank God.

BLOOM: No reaction today from the Simpson camp, but retired Los Angeles police detective Tom Lange, angered by defense claims of incompetence and corruption, lashed out.

Mr. TOM LANGE: He shouldn't be a free man. He should be on death row right now, quite frankly.

BLOOM: But that's not what the criminal jury found. Why the split verdicts? One answer impossible to ignore is that the first jury which acquitted Simpson was mostly black, the second jury, mostly white.

Mr. ROY BLACK (Criminal Defense Attorney): I think it's taking a Pollyanna position to ignore the fact- -the influence that race had on these two verdicts.

BLOOM: But even one of Simpson's former lawyers, dream team member Barry Scheck, disagrees.

Mr. BARRY SCHECK (Criminal Defense Attorney): If we automatically say, `Oh, that's just a verdict of white people,' or, `Oh, that's just a verdict of black people,' without recognizing that there are different burdens of proof, and these were two different trials, then we're going to be in trouble.

BLOOM: In this civil trial, the plaintiffs only had to prove Simpson was probably the killer, not that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But Simpson's lawyers were handicapped, unfairly so, they said, when
Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki would not let the defense argue that someone else, drug dealers for example, stabbed Simpson's ex-wife and her friend. Fujisaki also precluded the testimony of former detective Mark Fuhrman. Because of those rulings and others, defense sources say Simpson's lawyers plan an appeal, and Roy Black believes they might win.

Mr. BLACK: While no one's gonna want to reverse this case and have trial number three, you can just imagine the sequel to this, but I think the appellate courts are gonna take this very seriously.

BLOOM: The punitive damage phase of the trial begins tomorrow. David Bloom, NBC News, Santa Monica."

[William Anthony]

Can you prove that Detective Vannatter lied when getting the search warrant and what were those lies?

Shall I move your post and my response to the issue of race in the case thread? Why is it that posters are allowed to call Blacks liars, which I pointed out and a poster then wanted to call a Caucasian, and even went as far as calling the magnificent one a liar until I pointed out what the magnificent one had actually said and no one asked for proof when the Blacks were called liars but now want proof? Who was the one person proven to be a liar?

[William Anthony]

Seems that most people thought the same way -- orenthal was found guilty for the murders.

"Despite being found not guilty in a criminal trial more than a year earlier, O.J. Simpson is found liable for the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. (A big lie and an impossibility).

O.J. Simpson Found Liable for Murder in Civil Trial (A big lie and an impossibility)

DAVID BLOOM reporting:
Today, O.J. Simpson's lawyers arrived at court in a foul mood having lost their case and then in court became even angrier when lawyers for the victims' families suggested Simpson might be inflating his legal bills to make it appear he has less money than he actually does.

Crowd: (Chanting) Guilty, guilty, guilty.

BLOOM: O.J. Simpson left the courthouse last night betraying no emotion, branded a killer despite having been found not guilty of the murders just 16 months ago. For the anguished families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, this was justice. (Branded a killer by whom?)

Mr. FRED GOLDMAN: Our family is grateful for a verdict of responsibility, which is all we ever wanted. And we have it, thank God.

BLOOM: No reaction today from the Simpson camp, but retired Los Angeles police detective Tom Lange, angered by defense claims of incompetence and corruption, lashed out.

Mr. TOM LANGE: He shouldn't be a free man. He should be on death row right now, quite frankly.

BLOOM: But that's not what the criminal jury found. Why the split verdicts? One answer impossible to ignore is that the first jury which acquitted Simpson was mostly black, the second jury, mostly white. (This should be on the race thread).

Mr. ROY BLACK (Criminal Defense Attorney): I think it's taking a Pollyanna position to ignore the fact- -the influence that race had on these two verdicts. (This should be on the race thread).


BLOOM: But even one of Simpson's former lawyers, dream team member Barry Scheck, disagrees.

Mr. BARRY SCHECK (Criminal Defense Attorney): If we automatically say, `Oh, that's just a verdict of white people,' or, `Oh, that's just a verdict of black people,' without recognizing that there are different burdens of proof, and these were two different trials, then we're going to be in trouble. (What role did the different burdens play and how important a factor was race?)

BLOOM: In this civil trial, the plaintiffs only had to prove Simpson was probably the killer (, not that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But Simpson's lawyers were handicapped, unfairly so, they said, when
Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki would not let the defense argue that someone else, drug dealers for example, stabbed Simpson's ex-wife and her friend. Fujisaki also precluded the testimony of former detective Mark Fuhrman. Because of those rulings and others, defense sources say Simpson's lawyers plan an appeal, and Roy Black believes they might win.

Mr. BLACK: While no one's gonna want to reverse this case and have trial number three, you can just imagine the sequel to this, but I think the appellate courts are gonna take this very seriously.

BLOOM: The punitive damage phase of the trial begins tomorrow. David Bloom, NBC News, Santa Monica."

David Bloom obviously did not understand that the civil trial should have been to show that Simpson was more likely than not responsible for battery and oppression on Ms.NBS and for battery and oppression and responsible for causing the wrongful death of Mr. RG? The fact that he wrote it was to find Simpson more or likely responsible for the killings is a perfect example of irresponsible journalism, IMHO.

[martin II]

What was the defense's theory?

The theory of the defense was when you find a certain amount of lying and evidence planting on the other side, you can't trust any of the evidence, so the mountain wasn't enough to convict if a few of the hills and valleys were corrupted. And it was summarized by our expert witness [Dr. Henry Lee], who said, "If you find a cockroach in a bowl of spaghetti, you don't look for another cockroach before you throw out the whole bowl of spaghetti." And the argument was, you couldn't trust anything these policemen said or did because we proved that they lied about certain things and planted at least some evidence.

[martin II]

Can you prove that Detective Vannatter lied when getting the search warrant and what were those lies?

we have discussed vanhatters lie about the search warrant not too long ago.
You have Two options. Read previous post on the issue or read testimony.
but he lied at least 3-4 times and the judge told the court he did.

[martin II]

Which evidence do you think was planted?

There is absolutely no doubt that the sock that was soaked in blood was planted. Why? First of all, the blood had EDTA on it, a chemical that's an anticoagulant that is not found in the human body; it's only found in tubes. So we were able to prove that the police had poured blood from the test tubes onto the sock.

Moreover, the splatter pattern on the sock was such that it was consistent only with blood having been poured on the sock, and not with blood having hit one side of the sock and then soaked through the leg in the middle and then hit the other side of the sock.

Third, there was a videotape of the house on the morning of the search which showed that the black socks were not on the white rug in the place where the police claimed they found them. So I think all the jurors concluded that the sock was planted. And once you conclude that the blood on the sock was planted, you begin to have doubts about all the rest of the evidence.

AD

[martin II]

Cochran told everybody about the lapd and how they operated. only a few listened.


Was the verdict intended to send a message to the LAPD?

Well, Johnnie Cochran's closing argument was, you have to teach a lesson to the police of Los Angeles. And it's interesting, because he was reviled for that, and I was, and many others were. And then the police scandal emerged in Los Angeles just a little while later. I got a number of public apologies on radio talk shows, from hosts and others saying: "You alerted us to this scandal before it happened. We could have stopped it. We wish we had listened to you."

AD

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Thanks for putting up AD's words, as he is a smart guy.:);):cool:

[Hipcheck]

Which evidence do you think was planted?

There is absolutely no doubt that the sock that was soaked in blood was planted. Why? First of all, the blood had EDTA on it, a chemical that's an anticoagulant that is not found in the human body; it's only found in tubes. So we were able to prove that the police had poured blood from the test tubes onto the sock.

Moreover, the splatter pattern on the sock was such that it was consistent only with blood having been poured on the sock, and not with blood having hit one side of the sock and then soaked through the leg in the middle and then hit the other side of the sock.

Third, there was a videotape of the house on the morning of the search which showed that the black socks were not on the white rug in the place where the police claimed they found them. So I think all the jurors concluded that the sock was planted. And once you conclude that the blood on the sock was planted, you begin to have doubts about all the rest of the evidence.

AD

I don't believe any evidence had been planted. I don't believe the sock was planted. I don't believe the glove at Rockingham had been planted. I don't believe any blood had been planted.

Vannatter made an assumption that O.J.'s trip to Chicago was not planned because of his conversation he had with Arnell. He never talked to O.J. while he was in Chicago so he didn't know he agreed to return. Both times he made the wrong assumption. Those were not lies on his part.

Arnell said she went into the house thru the front door. Vannatter, Lange, Phillps, Furhman and Kaelin said they went in thru the back door.

Arnell is either lying or mistaken. The police reports would show what door the detectives said was used. Even Kato said they went in thru the back door.

[weezer]

I don't believe any evidence had been planted. I don't believe the sock was planted. I don't believe the glove at Rockingham had been planted. I don't believe any blood had been planted.

Vannatter made an assumption that O.J.'s trip to Chicago was not planned because of his conversation he had with Arnell. He never talked to O.J. while he was in Chicago so he didn't know he agreed to return. Both times he made the wrong assumption. Those were not lies on his part.

Arnell said she went into the house thru the front door. Vannatter, Lange, Phillps, Furhman and Kaelin said they went in thru the back door.

Arnell is either lying or mistaken. The police reports would show what door the detectives said was used. Even Kato said they went in thru the back door.

I agree with you -- there is and has never been credible evidence of planting by LE. The judges in both trials said there was no evidence to support the defense theory.

arnelle and orenthal lied -- they are the two people with the most to lose if the truth was told. not LE and not kato.

[tv]

I don't believe any evidence had been planted. I don't believe the sock was planted. I don't believe the glove at Rockingham had been planted. I don't believe any blood had been planted.

Vannatter made an assumption that O.J.'s trip to Chicago was not planned because of his conversation he had with Arnell. He never talked to O.J. while he was in Chicago so he didn't know he agreed to return. Both times he made the wrong assumption. Those were not lies on his part.

Arnell said she went into the house thru the front door. Vannatter, Lange, Phillps, Furhman and Kaelin said they went in thru the back door.

Arnell is either lying or mistaken. The police reports would show what door the detectives said was used. Even Kato said they went in thru the back door.

Arnelle lied. She had a reason to lie about the door -- the detectives didn't. The sock wasn't planted. It had already been collected when Willie Ford videoed the bedroom. This is very clear from the testimony of Willie Ford. The defense had to twist the facts in order to give an explanation for all the evidence pointing to their client; otherwise, OJ Simpson is a murderer.

[William Anthony]

I agree with you -- there is and has never been credible evidence of planting by LE. The judges in both trials said there was no evidence to support the defense theory.

arnelle and orenthal lied -- they are the two people with the most to lose if the truth was told. not LE and not kato.

I see. AD, whose profession it is to understand and interpret evidence, says there poof, more than 'credible evidence', and, who you say is smart, you now say you are smarter than he.;) Neither judge in either trial said there was no evidence to support the defense theory.

You claim two Blacks lied-but the only person proven to have lied was a Caucasian. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I don't believe any evidence had been planted. I don't believe the sock was planted. I don't believe the glove at Rockingham had been planted. I don't believe any blood had been planted.

Vannatter made an assumption that O.J.'s trip to Chicago was not planned because of his conversation he had with Arnell. He never talked to O.J. while he was in Chicago so he didn't know he agreed to return. Both times he made the wrong assumption. Those were not lies on his part.

Arnell said she went into the house thru the front door. Vannatter, Lange, Phillps, Furhman and Kaelin said they went in thru the back door.

Arnell is either lying or mistaken. The police reports would show what door the detectives said was used. Even Kato said they went in thru the back door.

The beautiful Ms. Arnelle lied but others made human errors, mistakes and assumptions. ;)

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

But Arnelle's testimony is they went through the front door, correct?

You are correct as to what Arnelle testified she did. She lied to the court, impeached by the testimony from four detectives and Kato Kaelin.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

i believe vanhatter and his guys lied about the back door. why i dont know.

I see, despite the evidence to the contrary you would rather believe that Arnelle was telling the truth and five other witnesses who impeached her testimony were for some unknown reason lying about a seemingly minor detail that at the time was an innocuous fact.

bobaugust

[martin II]

tv

vamhatter was in the kitchen with Arnell,lang and phillips when C athy R told them oj was on a planned trip to chicago and gave then his nimber for their talk to oj in chacago.
To say vanhatter made a assunption about ojs trip is just NOT TURE
When Vanhatter and Clarke wrote the warrant request vanhatter knew ojs trip was planned and he went straight to the judge and lied right out of his face.Ito told the court he lied.

[martin II]

ABUSE MISTAKE--PROSECUTION.

Then why didn't the prosecution's emphasis on domestic violence fly?

The prosecution made a terrible mistake in how it used domestic violence. What it did is [make] the first weeks in the trial all about domestic violence. They were trying to create the impression that if you have beaten your wife or threatened her, you necessarily must have killed her. Obviously that doesn't follow, and the jury didn't fall for that. The better way of trying the case would have been to start with the dead bodies and work backwards, not turn it into a case about motive, but turn into a case more about the physical evidence.

Then why didn't they?

I think because they had an agenda, and the agenda was to try and show the public that the people of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles [district] attorney ... cares deeply about spousal abuse, and that was a mistake. There are many spousal abusers and very few murderers.

[William Anthony]

You are correct as to what Arnelle testified she did. She lied to the court, impeached by the testimony from four detectives and Kato Kaelin.

bobaugust

Are you sure that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle did not make human errors and mistakes?;) Who was the only person convicted of telling a lie in the cases, smile, wink, cool?

[William Anthony]

ABUSE MISTAKE--PROSECUTION.

Then why didn't the prosecution's emphasis on domestic violence fly?

The prosecution made a terrible mistake in how it used domestic violence. What it did is [make] the first weeks in the trial all about domestic violence. They were trying to create the impression that if you have beaten your wife or threatened her, you necessarily must have killed her. Obviously that doesn't follow, and the jury didn't fall for that. The better way of trying the case would have been to start with the dead bodies and work backwards, not turn it into a case about motive, but turn into a case more about the physical evidence.

Then why didn't they?

I think because they had an agenda, and the agenda was to try and show the public that the people of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles [district] attorney ... cares deeply about spousal abuse, and that was a mistake. There are many spousal abusers and very few murderers.

The prosecution tried to sell ocean front property in the desert but the jury was too sophisticated and educated.:);):cool:

[martin II]

Why was the country so drawn to this particular case?

The case was all-consuming. There were the trials; there were the meta-trials; there were the para-trials; there were the analyses of the trials. Everybody was consumed. On the day the verdict came down, the Supreme Court justices had notes passed to them. People lost days, hours of work. This was the most watched event in the history of television. And why? Why? Why was it so consuming? I could never understand that. To me it was just another murder case. I've had many in my career. This was not the most interesting; it was not the most important. And yet the public was just consumed with this case. ...

Everything came together -- race, celebrity, beauty, wealth, police perjury, the slow chase of the car, the media focus, tape recordings. It was the perfect storm, and it produced the perfect series of hurricanes, cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis. It was just everything coming together.

AD

[bobaugust]

tv

vamhatter was in the kitchen with Arnell,lang and phillips when C athy R told them oj was on a planned trip to chicago and gave then his nimber for their talk to oj in chacago.
To say vanhatter made a assunption about ojs trip is just NOT TURE
When Vanhatter and Clarke wrote the warrant request vanhatter knew ojs trip was planned and he went straight to the judge and lied right out of his face.Ito told the court he lied.

Support your claim that Vannatter was in the kitchen with Arnelle, Phillips and Lange.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Are you sure that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle did not make human errors and mistakes?;) Who was the only person convicted of telling a lie in the cases, smile, wink, cool?

Witnesses who were mistaken admitted they were mistaken.

[William Anthony]

Witnesses who were mistaken admitted they were mistaken.

As usual, we see things differently. Witnesses that were trapped claimed to have been mistaken. I am still amazed at the witnesses and lawyers in this case you call liars and the ones you say made human errors and mistakes. DF said when he said I he meant we and MF said when he said them, when specifically asked about one seeing one glove and not asked about a cap, he was talking about one glove. MF said when he said he saw blood in the Bronco, he meant he did not see blood in the Bronco.

[martin II]

I see, despite the evidence to the contrary you would rather believe that Arnelle was telling the truth and five other witnesses who impeached her testimony were for some unknown reason lying about a seemingly minor detail that at the time was an innocuous fact.

bobaugust

the cops had a hidden agenda for telling that lie. all of them.

[martin II]

Witnesses who were mistaken admitted they were mistaken.

Prosecution witnesses that were caught in lies were caught.

[martin II]

Support your claim that Vannatter was in the kitchen with Arnelle, Phillips and Lange.

bobaugust

I donot believe you are trying to suggest the VAnhatter did not know oj was on a well planned trip to Hertz gold tournament in Chicago when he asked the judge for the warrant.Ito said he had played fast and loose with the truth. So it seems that everyone knew he lied but you.

[Hipcheck]

Support your claim that Vannatter was in the kitchen with Arnelle, Phillips and Lange.

bobaugust

Bob

He can't and won't supply anything that supports his claim so I wouldn't be holdng my breath waiting.

[martin II]

Why vanhatter got by with the lie about the search warrant.



But if the evidence they had collected at the estate [was] thrown out because the police didn't have a warrant, would the prosecution still have had a case against Simpson?

There is no elected judge in the state of California who would have thrown out the bloody glove, even though the law required them to do so. There isn't an honest judge in the state of California who wants to be re-elected or promoted who would have thrown out the major piece of evidence in the O.J. Simpson case. That would have been the right thing to do, but it never would have occurred to a political judge -- and judges are by their nature political -- to become the worst villain in California history; namely, the man or woman responsible for freeing a guilty murderer.

[martin II]

Witnesses who were mistaken admitted they were mistaken.

BOB
i realize you are trying but your argument is weak.

[martin II]

Bob

He can't and won't supply anything that supports his claim so I wouldn't be holdng my breath waiting.

You can be quite comical sometines.

OK where was vanhatter when all the detectives found out that oj was on a planned trip to chicago?

[martin II]

Did the television audience see the same trial as the jury?

You didn't, and I think people need to be reminded of that. The trial the jury saw is not the trial that you saw on television. The people watching television actually saw more than the jury did. You saw all of the commentary. You saw all of the interviews of other people, stuff that we decided the jury shouldn't hear because it's not relevant evidence, or its prejudicial impact might outweigh its probative value. So the television audience was being affected by things that were not evidence in the trial.

And the jury saw some things that the television audience didn't see. I thought the jurors were enormously impressed by the jury view, by going to the scene, by walking into O.J.'s house. I know I was, the first time I walked into that house and saw that it was completely carpeted in white carpet, and the prosecution's trying to portray this blood-drenched murderer going up the steps to the bedroom and taking a shower. There wasn't one spot of blood found on any of the carpet anywhere. I think the jury was impressed when they saw the house and that it didn't fit the image that the prosecution was trying to present of how this thing happened.

GU

[William Anthony]

Why vanhatter got by with the lie about the search warrant.



But if the evidence they had collected at the estate [was] thrown out because the police didn't have a warrant, would the prosecution still have had a case against Simpson?

There is no elected judge in the state of California who would have thrown out the bloody glove, even though the law required them to do so. There isn't an honest judge in the state of California who wants to be re-elected or promoted who would have thrown out the major piece of evidence in the O.J. Simpson case. That would have been the right thing to do, but it never would have occurred to a political judge -- and judges are by their nature political -- to become the worst villain in California history; namely, the man or woman responsible for freeing a guilty murderer.

March 20th

"THE COURT: THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO HEAR. THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE STATEMENTS LONG AGO THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE TRUE. THOSE TWO, CORRECT?

MR. SHAPIRO: CORRECT. "

[William Anthony]

Bob

He can't and won't supply anything that supports his claim so I wouldn't be holdng my breath waiting.

March 16th,

"Q: OKAY. SO YOU LOOKED INSIDE THE MAID'S QUARTERS AND EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE OKAY?

A: IN ORDER, YES.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: AT THAT POINT, I CAME BACK TO THE KITCHEN. SHE HAD -- I BELIEVE SHE HAD ALREADY WALKED OUT OF THE UTILITY ROOM BACK INTO THE KITCHEN AND WAS CONVERSING WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. I OVERHEARD HER TELL DETECTIVE PHILLIPS THAT SHE COULD MAKE A PHONE CALL I BELIEVE TO HER FATHER'S SECRETARY AND SHE COULD FIND OUT WHERE HER FATHER WAS, AND SHE STARTED MAKING A PHONE CALL.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO AT THAT POINT?

A: I WANTED TO INSPECT THE BOTTOM FLOOR OF THE HOME TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO ONE DOWN OR INJURED IN THE HOME. I STARTED WALKING BACK TO THE BAR AREA TO LOOK AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE RESIDENCE, AND AS I WAS EXITING THE KITCHEN, I WAS STOPPED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT THAT TIME?

A: I DID. "

There you have it.

[GreenIce]

The beautiful Ms. Arnelle is accused of telling a lie, while the prosecution's witnesses only made human errors and mistakes but it was a prosecution witness, who was the only person charged with and convicted of telling lies under oath.

William,

I have read Kato's testimony, no where, in the criminal trial does he say he enters the back door. He does say that he was following everyone and that Arnelle was leading the way with the key.

Arnelle had no reason to lie, nor did she have a reason to suddenly forget for the key pad was.

I have figured out another reason why Clark declared Kato a hostile witness. Not only did make her angry regarding his refusal to testify at the Grand Jury without a lawyer, but he also saw pictures of OJ's cut finger on her desk. Clark tried to make it seem like he was trying to pull something and that he had business looking at those photos.

IMO, the fact that Clark did not ask Kato if he saw the cut on the index finger is very telling. When Robert Shapiro showed him the picture of the cut finger, he said, many times, that he did not see that cut on his finger that night. He did see it when he saw OJ later.

I have not found out where Phillips said what door he entered the house.

However, bottom line is they had no reason to enter the house or continue to ask questions where Simpson was. They were told, all of them that OJ was out of town. That should have been the end of it. IMO, when it was obvious that Arnelle and Kato told them OJ was out of town, that is when panic kicked in, Kato saved them by telling MF about the thumps.

Have you ever read VA's grand jury testimony? Clear as mudd. He never answers a question directy, IMO, on matters that should have been very simple to answer. He should be on "Dancing with the Stars", IMO.

[GreenIce]

ABUSE MISTAKE--PROSECUTION.

Then why didn't the prosecution's emphasis on domestic violence fly?

The prosecution made a terrible mistake in how it used domestic violence. What it did is [make] the first weeks in the trial all about domestic violence. They were trying to create the impression that if you have beaten your wife or threatened her, you necessarily must have killed her. Obviously that doesn't follow, and the jury didn't fall for that. The better way of trying the case would have been to start with the dead bodies and work backwards, not turn it into a case about motive, but turn into a case more about the physical evidence.

Then why didn't they?

I think because they had an agenda, and the agenda was to try and show the public that the people of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles [district] attorney ... cares deeply about spousal abuse, and that was a mistake. There are many spousal abusers and very few murderers.

Martin,

I believe the DA's had an agenda, but it wasn't about how much they cared about domestic violence. They knew they had a weak evidence for the motive but used it anyway. IMO, they went to DV to paint Simpson as a bad man as well as keeping Nicole's and Ron's personal life out of the trial.

IMO, a crime of passion motive would have been the best, but then again, you opened the door to Nicole's and Ron's personal life. They wanted no part of that. IMO.

[GreenIce]

You are correct as to what Arnelle testified she did. She lied to the court, impeached by the testimony from four detectives and Kato Kaelin.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I can't find where Kato said that he entered the back door.

Also, all four of those detectives have lied in this case. All four of those detectives, at one time or another impeached each other. Whatever comes out of their mouth can't be trusted. IMO. You have no evidence that Arnelle lied or that she had motive to lie. However, the list could go on for a very long time why the 4 detectives lied in this case.

[martin II]

Martin,

I believe the DA's had an agenda, but it wasn't about how much they cared about domestic violence. They knew they had a weak evidence for the motive but used it anyway. IMO, they went to DV to paint Simpson as a bad man as well as keeping Nicole's and Ron's personal life out of the trial.

IMO, a crime of passion motive would have been the best, but then again, you opened the door to Nicole's and Ron's personal life. They wanted no part of that. IMO.

I AGREE

Rons and Nicoles like style would have opened the door to other killers and the prosecution did not want to go there.

Remember Shaperio said the defence had a lot on Nicole that they held back waiting for the prosecution to open the door and oj did not want them to use it.

[GreenIce]

Vannatter, Lange, Phillips and Fuhrman all testified that Arrnell Simpson let them in thru the back door. Kateo Kaelin also testifed that Arnell let them i thru the rear door.

So why is Arnell lying when she said she let them in thru the front door?

Arnell reason for lying is because the alarm would have went off if set when they went thru the back door. Someone had to have deactivated the alarm system sometime after Kateo had set it around 12:30am.

Arnell didn't want anyone to know that the alarm system was not set when she took the detectives into the house.

And that is the reason Arnell lied.

Hipcheck,

Arnelle had no to reason to lie about anything. It is obvious that when the detectives went to her door, she had no idea what was going on. She knew they were trying to get a hold of her father but that was all she knew. She was told about the murders after she let them, I think.

Also, the very fact that the police who were so concerned about their danager inside the house, let this young woman open the door and walk in first. Now that was a classy move on their part wasn't it?

What if it was a blood bath inside the home? What if her father was hanging from the rafters or GiGi had her throat cut? Their actions never matched their reasons on why they wanted inside the house so bad.

[martin II]

march 20th

"the court: That's not what they are going to hear. They're going to hear that detective vannatter made statements long ago that turned out not to be true. Those two, correct?

Mr. Shapiro: Correct. "

hipcheck

did you get that?

[martin II]

Martin,

I believe the DA's had an agenda, but it wasn't about how much they cared about domestic violence. They knew they had a weak evidence for the motive but used it anyway. IMO, they went to DV to paint Simpson as a bad man as well as keeping Nicole's and Ron's personal life out of the trial.

IMO, a crime of passion motive would have been the best, but then again, you opened the door to Nicole's and Ron's personal life. They wanted no part of that. IMO.

GU said the prosecution tried to give the impression they cared about abuse.
But as AD said there are many cases of abuse but not many murders.

[GreenIce]

GU said the prosecution tried to give the impression they cared about abuse.
But as AD said there are many cases of abuse but not many murders.

Martin,

What is interesting is that in Clark's book, she said that she did not believe, at first, that this was a domestic violence case. She said that she ignored the DA's DV expert, Scott Gordon. I think after she weighed all her options, it "suddenly" occurred to her that this was a DV case.

MF says this was not a DV case and it was a crime passion. I know you haven't read his book but what I like about it, he does support some of the defense's arguements. Of course it is only to make himself look better but I enjoy those parts in his book.

[William Anthony]

William,

I have read Kato's testimony, no where, in the criminal trial does he say he enters the back door. He does say that he was following everyone and that Arnelle was leading the way with the key.

Arnelle had no reason to lie, nor did she have a reason to suddenly forget for the key pad was.

I have figured out another reason why Clark declared Kato a hostile witness. Not only did make her angry regarding his refusal to testify at the Grand Jury without a lawyer, but he also saw pictures of OJ's cut finger on her desk. Clark tried to make it seem like he was trying to pull something and that he had business looking at those photos.

IMO, the fact that Clark did not ask Kato if he saw the cut on the index finger is very telling. When Robert Shapiro showed him the picture of the cut finger, he said, many times, that he did not see that cut on his finger that night. He did see it when he saw OJ later.

I have not found out where Phillips said what door he entered the house.

However, bottom line is they had no reason to enter the house or continue to ask questions where Simpson was. They were told, all of them that OJ was out of town. That should have been the end of it. IMO, when it was obvious that Arnelle and Kato told them OJ was out of town, that is when panic kicked in, Kato saved them by telling MF about the thumps.

Have you ever read VA's grand jury testimony? Clear as mudd. He never answers a question directy, IMO, on matters that should have been very simple to answer. He should be on "Dancing with the Stars", IMO.

GreenIce,

he should have been on Dancing with the Stars, paired with MF, and the name of their team should have been tiptoe through the two lips.:biggrin:

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

he should have been on Dancing with the Stars, paired with MF, and the name of their team should have been tiptoe through the two lips.:biggrin:

William,

This very, very clever! :)

[GreenIce]

I AGREE

Rons and Nicoles like style would have opened the door to other killers and the prosecution did not want to go there.

Remember Shaperio said the defence had a lot on Nicole that they held back waiting for the prosecution to open the door and oj did not want them to use it.

Martin,

IMO, the defense won the case during the DA's case in chief. People forget the DA's dragged the trial out as long as possible and by the time the defense put on their case, they were down to 3 alternates, I think.

The DA's were not going to open any doors because they knew the defense was going to nail them shut as well.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the defense won the case during the DA's case in chief. People forget the DA's dragged the trial out as long as possible and by the time the defense put on their case, they were down to 3 alternates, I think.

The DA's were not going to open any doors because they knew the defense was going to nail them shut as well.

Based on the time the prosecution dragged out the testimony by their experts on DNA it seems they were trying to understand it themselves.

[martin II]

GreenIce,

he should have been on Dancing with the Stars, paired with MF, and the name of their team should have been tiptoe through the two lips.:biggrin:

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

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the defense won the case during the DA's case in chief. People forget the DA's dragged the trial out as long as possible and by the time the defense put on their case, they were down to 3 alternates, I think.

The DA's were not going to open any doors because they knew the defense was going to nail them shut as well.

Cochran and Sheck were just waiting on the prosecution to open even one door. It looked as if the defence had the prosecution checkmated.

[martin II]

william

Even the CA legislature was pissed with the verdict. I wonder if they write new laws everytime they don't like a verdict? They made it easy for the civil plainrtiffs to talk about abuse to get oj.


The law has changed.

Some of the law changed, yes. The legislature reacted to the public outcry over the verdict by changing the evidence code so that evidence that was kept out of the O.J. trial would be admitted in future trials. They enacted new hearsay exceptions. They enacted new rules with respect to domestic violence cases now that let everything in; all prior incidents are now going to be admissible. So the law has changed quite dramatically.

GU

[GreenIce]

Based on the time the prosecution dragged out the testimony by their experts on DNA it seems they were trying to understand it themselves.

Martin,

I disagree with you. I think the DA experts knew DNA only too well. Rock Harmon, after the trial, on Geraldo, did say that EDTA was found in the samples. Which may explain why he did not take Dr. Reiders as a witness. (It was the same show that he talked about the notes passed between Clark and Darden--just in case any one asks:))

The DA's knew the DNA evidence was going to be very easy to undertand, however, they were hoping the jury would not understand the DNA counts, would not ask if EDTA was found on these samples, then shouldn't they have been found in all of them.

IMO, the DA's made a huge mistake by asking such questions or making such remarks as Goldberg and Harmon made. To ask an expert witness if someone's blood can turn into someone's blood was a very insulting question. Does anyone really believe that the blood samples that I believe were tampered with, would have been switched with someone else's?

Most people don't understand that because of Fung and Mozzola, there is no way to prove where the swatches came from. The wet transfers and the missing initials really sunk the DNA case.

IMO, Dr. Cotton's testimony was a waste of time.

[martin II]

william GI
this is interesting.


What was your jury strategy?

Well, the jury-consultant polling suggested that minority women had a different attitude about domestic violence than white women. This suggested to us that the conventional wisdom that you don't want women on a jury where one of the issues is domestic violence wasn't necessarily true; that we wouldn't necessarily have to be afraid that minority women would come in with an attitude prejudging or prejudiced against someone who was accused of domestic violence.

That turned out to be true.

Yes, it did.

GU

[martin II]

Martin,

I disagree with you. I think the DA experts knew DNA only too well. Rock Harmon, after the trial, on Geraldo, did say that EDTA was found in the samples. Which may explain why he did not take Dr. Reiders as a witness. (It was the same show that he talked about the notes passed between Clark and Darden--just in case any one asks:))

The DA's knew the DNA evidence was going to be very easy to undertand, however, they were hoping the jury would not understand the DNA counts, would not ask if EDTA was found on these samples, then shouldn't they have been found in all of them.

IMO, the DA's made a huge mistake by asking such questions or making such remarks as Goldberg and Harmon made. To ask an expert witness if someone's blood can turn into someone's blood was a very insulting question. Does anyone really believe that the blood samples that I believe were tampered with, would have been switched with someone else's?

Most people don't understand that because of Fung and Mozzola, there is no way to prove where the swatches came from. The wet transfers and the missing initials really sunk the DNA case.

IMO, Dr. Cotton's testimony was a waste of time.

gi

very interesting post which i agree with.

[GreenIce]

Cochran and Sheck were just waiting on the prosecution to open even one door. It looked as if the defence had the prosecution checkmated.

Martin,

IMO, I think the defense knew that any door the DA's opened, the Judge would have closed them for it. It is obvious that Judge Ito, IMO, was sitting at the DA's table.

I was really shocked how both Darden and Clark went after Ito in their books. Judge Ito pulled their bacon out of the fire and they should have manned up and put the blame any where but on him.

Judge Ito made some rulings that clearing were giving the DA's and the LAPD the benefit of the doubt rather then the defendant. AGain, IMO.

[GreenIce]

william GI
this is interesting.


What was your jury strategy?

Well, the jury-consultant polling suggested that minority women had a different attitude about domestic violence than white women. This suggested to us that the conventional wisdom that you don't want women on a jury where one of the issues is domestic violence wasn't necessarily true; that we wouldn't necessarily have to be afraid that minority women would come in with an attitude prejudging or prejudiced against someone who was accused of domestic violence.

That turned out to be true.

Yes, it did.

GU

Martin,

Is this a quote from Greta Van Sustern? And who was she asking this or saying this to?

[martin II]

Martin,

I disagree with you. I think the DA experts knew DNA only too well. Rock Harmon, after the trial, on Geraldo, did say that EDTA was found in the samples. Which may explain why he did not take Dr. Reiders as a witness. (It was the same show that he talked about the notes passed between Clark and Darden--just in case any one asks:))

The DA's knew the DNA evidence was going to be very easy to undertand, however, they were hoping the jury would not understand the DNA counts, would not ask if EDTA was found on these samples, then shouldn't they have been found in all of them.

IMO, the DA's made a huge mistake by asking such questions or making such remarks as Goldberg and Harmon made. To ask an expert witness if someone's blood can turn into someone's blood was a very insulting question. Does anyone really believe that the blood samples that I believe were tampered with, would have been switched with someone else's?

Most people don't understand that because of Fung and Mozzola, there is no way to prove where the swatches came from. The wet transfers and the missing initials really sunk the DNA case.

IMO, Dr. Cotton's testimony was a waste of time.


Barry Scheck ate her lunch. He got her to admit that she did not know how the blood samples the prosecution gave her were collected.

[martin II]

Martin,

Is this a quote from Greta Van Sustern? And who was she asking this or saying this to?

NO

GU is Greg Ulman defense lawyer.

Good night all.

[GreenIce]

Barry Scheck ate her lunch. He got her to admit that she did not know how the blood samples the prosecution gave her were collected.

Martin,

He didn't just each her lunch, IMO, he made her give him her lunch money!

I think it hurt Dr. Cotten that she came across as a advocate rather then an expert witness. I don't think any juror expected her to say that it was someone else's blood.

In Jeff Toobin's book, he said that the LAPD sent out certain blood samples to Cellmark and that this was done unknown to the DA's. If this is true, then, IMO, it goes against the LAPD again.

[GreenIce]

william GI
this is interesting.


What was your jury strategy?

Well, the jury-consultant polling suggested that minority women had a different attitude about domestic violence than white women. This suggested to us that the conventional wisdom that you don't want women on a jury where one of the issues is domestic violence wasn't necessarily true; that we wouldn't necessarily have to be afraid that minority women would come in with an attitude prejudging or prejudiced against someone who was accused of domestic violence.

That turned out to be true.

Yes, it did.

GU

Martin,

Believe it or not, I have a problem with this, because it is not taking into consideration the evidence of DV in this case. The DA's, IMO, only had one DV incident and that happened when both were drunk and it happened 5 years before.

The other incidents they called DV, IMO, were not DV incidents. Beating up a car is not cool but, IMO, it does qualify as a DV incident. In the 1993 tape, Simpson ranted and raved but never even approached Nicole. IMO, it would be rare to find a couple who has not had a major fight with their partner and have not kicked, slammed doors and used profanity during this. It just doesn't not add up to DV, IMO. The incident in the bar, well even if he did say what he did say, only proves he is a jerk when he drinks.

Also, another factor, Robert Shapiro asked Denise if the guy she was with, would he give the same version of events. And Denise clearly back away from this.

IMO, if there was another incident of Simpson getting physical with Nicole, the jury would have given much more weight to the DV motive.

I would think that the jury consultant did know evidence the DA's had DV and that is how she was able to make this finding. Again, IMO.

[socaldiva]

I agree with you -- there is and has never been credible evidence of planting by LE. The judges in both trials said there was no evidence to support the defense theory.

arnelle and orenthal lied -- they are the two people with the most to lose if the truth was told. not LE and not kato.

Ita. Why would LE want to frame an "innocent" Simpson & let the perp run free? Makes absolutely no sense. Also, why so many lies from Arnelle & Simpson if he was so "innocent"?

[martin II]

Martin,

He didn't just each her lunch, IMO, he made her give him her lunch money!

I think it hurt Dr. Cotten that she came across as a advocate rather then an expert witness. I don't think any juror expected her to say that it was someone else's blood.

In Jeff Toobin's book, he said that the LAPD sent out certain blood samples to Cellmark and that this was done unknown to the DA's. If this is true, then, IMO, it goes against the LAPD again.

When Cotton said she cdid not know how the samples were collected that allowed the jury to think about the defence claims of collection problems.
Also in one part of her test Scheck got her to say she was giving her opinion on what the results said. don't remember exactly what part of the test it was about.But it went against her.

[GreenIce]

Ita. Why would LE want to frame an "innocent" Simpson & let the perp run free? Makes absolutely no sense. Also, why so many lies from Arnelle & Simpson if he was so "innocent"?

Socaldiva,

I think NG's have been perfectly clear on this, we all have posted that we believe the detectives that investigated this case believed Simpson was guilty--even MF.

Please list the lies Arnelle told and what is your "evidence" to support these claims.

Please note, I asked about Arnelle only.

BTW, if you believe Arnelle is lying, then why haven't charges been brought against her? There is evidence to suggest that at least one other person was also involved, so why not go that person?

[GreenIce]

When Cotton said she cdid not know how the samples were collected that allowed the jury to think about the defence claims of collection problems.
Also in one part of her test Scheck got her to say she was giving her opinion on what the results said. don't remember exactly what part of the test it was about.But it went against her.

Martin,

IIRC, what her was the data base, her results were based on 200 African-Americans. I think that was the number, Joe Bosco's book talks about this.

Also, there was the problem that Dr. Gerdes found in their samples. Remember that post about alles consistent with Simpson's to be found in the reference samples of Nicole and Ron? Well this was found in Cellmark's results. Like the defense claimed, the samples were already contaminated before they got to Cellmark.

[Hipcheck]

hipcheck

did you get that?

Those were Vannatter's assumptions which turned out not to be true but they were not lies.

Vannatter thought those assumptions were true which means they were not lies.

Nice try.

[GreenIce]

Those were Vannatter's assumptions which turned out not to be true but they were not lies.

Vannatter thought those assumptions were true which means they were not lies.

Nice try.

Hipcheck,

Vanatter was too experienced to make these assumptions. Also, on key issues, he and MF give two versions of key events. Both of them can't be telling the truth.

It is clear that they knew from Kato and Arnelle that OJ was out of town. It is also clear that Simpson was the prime suspect and knew about at least two prior DV calls regarding the Simpsons. IMO, they most likey knew about all three of them, but I will give them a pass on the 1993 incident.

BTW, Judge Ito did cite him for reckless disregard of the truth--and not because he wanted to. He was given no choice.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

A little tibit for you. Park did testify that he thought Simpson that he did describe the person he saw wearing an overcoat. IMO, it appears that he was pretty postive that he saw a black coat.

Also, in the grand jury testimony, no detective was shown any pictures or asked about any blood on the back gate.

In the prelim hearing, Vanatter testifies that he saw a small spec of blood on the back gate that he thought was blood. So how did he miss the others?

He also testifies about seeing blood on the turnstile on the back gate. Didn't MF say it was a blood fingerprint?

[bobaugust]

March 16th,

"Q: OKAY. SO YOU LOOKED INSIDE THE MAID'S QUARTERS AND EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE OKAY?

A: IN ORDER, YES.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: AT THAT POINT, I CAME BACK TO THE KITCHEN. SHE HAD -- I BELIEVE SHE HAD ALREADY WALKED OUT OF THE UTILITY ROOM BACK INTO THE KITCHEN AND WAS CONVERSING WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. I OVERHEARD HER TELL DETECTIVE PHILLIPS THAT SHE COULD MAKE A PHONE CALL I BELIEVE TO HER FATHER'S SECRETARY AND SHE COULD FIND OUT WHERE HER FATHER WAS, AND SHE STARTED MAKING A PHONE CALL.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO AT THAT POINT?

A: I WANTED TO INSPECT THE BOTTOM FLOOR OF THE HOME TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO ONE DOWN OR INJURED IN THE HOME. I STARTED WALKING BACK TO THE BAR AREA TO LOOK AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE RESIDENCE, AND AS I WAS EXITING THE KITCHEN, I WAS STOPPED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT THAT TIME?

A: I DID. "

There you have it.

Thank you, the testimony you posted contradicts Martin’s claim that Vannatter was in the kitchen with Arnelle, Lange and Phillips when Randa told them Simpson was on a planned trip to Chicago.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I can't find where Kato said that he entered the back door.

Also, all four of those detectives have lied in this case. All four of those detectives, at one time or another impeached each other. Whatever comes out of their mouth can't be trusted. IMO. You have no evidence that Arnelle lied or that she had motive to lie. However, the list could go on for a very long time why the 4 detectives lied in this case.

MARCH 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q OKAY. HOW LONG DID YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN LAST, SIR?
A I THINK ABOUT FIVE MINUTES INSIDE THE ROOM.
Q IS THAT AN ESTIMATE YOU'RE GIVING US?
A ESTIMATE, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
Q AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I FOLLOWED -- WHATEVER THEY TOLD ME TO DO I DID. SO WE ALL WENT OUTSIDE.
Q OKAY. DID HE TELL YOU TO COME OUTSIDE?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.
Q WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, DID YOU ENTER BEFORE OR AFTER
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A I THINK IT WAS BEFORE.
Q OKAY. YOU WERE AHEAD OF HIM?
A I WAS AHEAD OF HIM.
Q AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?
A WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

As usual, we see things differently. Witnesses that were trapped claimed to have been mistaken. I am still amazed at the witnesses and lawyers in this case you call liars and the ones you say made human errors and mistakes. DF said when he said I he meant we and MF said when he said them, when specifically asked about one seeing one glove and not asked about a cap, he was talking about one glove. MF said when he said he saw blood in the Bronco, he meant he did not see blood in the Bronco.

The fact is that the evidence in this case is that there was one glove and a hat under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet when the police arrived at Bundy. That is what every witness who saw that evidence testified to seeing including Mark Fuhrman. On cross examination in the preliminary hearing when Uelmen asked Fuhrman when did he first observe it (the glove) Fuhrman responded that he noticed the glove from outside the fence and then went on to explain he could see them (the glove and the hat) at the feet of the male victim.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William,

This very, very clever! :)

Thank you very much.

[GreenIce]

Thank you, the testimony you posted contradicts Martin’s claim that Vannatter was in the kitchen with Arnelle, Lange and Phillips when Randa told them Simpson was on a planned trip to Chicago.

bobaugust

Bob,

First, Arnelle told the detectives, like Kato did that he was out of town. She did not know where, as in what city he was in, but she knew he was out of town but she did know who to call to find exactly where he was. This is supported by her telling the police who knew this information as well as getting her phone book.

Vanatter's testimony is flawed on this because he is not only say that he did not complete his search of the first floor for bodies but MF told him had to stop searching and talk to Kato---and apparently he did.

Also, you can't, under any circumstances explain why his talking to Kato was more important then completing his search. Nor can you explain why they let Arnelle walk into the house first.

Arnelle had no reason to lie, however, I do believe she had reasons to be mistaken. And there is a difference between making a mistake and lying. IMO.

[William Anthony]

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

Thank you very much.

[William Anthony]

william

Even the CA legislature was pissed with the verdict. I wonder if they write new laws everytime they don't like a verdict? They made it easy for the civil plainrtiffs to talk about abuse to get oj.


The law has changed.

Some of the law changed, yes. The legislature reacted to the public outcry over the verdict by changing the evidence code so that evidence that was kept out of the O.J. trial would be admitted in future trials. They enacted new hearsay exceptions. They enacted new rules with respect to domestic violence cases now that let everything in; all prior incidents are now going to be admissible. So the law has changed quite dramatically.

GU

Yes, it seems the public impacted the politicians.

[William Anthony]

william GI
this is interesting.


What was your jury strategy?

Well, the jury-consultant polling suggested that minority women had a different attitude about domestic violence than white women. This suggested to us that the conventional wisdom that you don't want women on a jury where one of the issues is domestic violence wasn't necessarily true; that we wouldn't necessarily have to be afraid that minority women would come in with an attitude prejudging or prejudiced against someone who was accused of domestic violence.

That turned out to be true.

Yes, it did.

GU

Race was an issue from the beginning.

[William Anthony]

Socaldiva,

I think NG's have been perfectly clear on this, we all have posted that we believe the detectives that investigated this case believed Simpson was guilty--even MF.

Please list the lies Arnelle told and what is your "evidence" to support these claims.

Please note, I asked about Arnelle only.

BTW, if you believe Arnelle is lying, then why haven't charges been brought against her? There is evidence to suggest that at least one other person was also involved, so why not go that person?

The beautiful Ms. Arnelle is far too beautiful to have anything more egregious than a mistake come from her lips. Did we ever get an instruction on the bashing of Simpson's family?

[William Anthony]

Those were Vannatter's assumptions which turned out not to be true but they were not lies.

Vannatter thought those assumptions were true which means they were not lies.

Nice try.

That is not what the judge said nor what he said the jury would hear. :);):cool:

[GreenIce]

Race was an issue from the beginning.

William,

I do wish GU did explain or give more details why this is.

[William Anthony]

Thank you, the testimony you posted contradicts Martin’s claim that Vannatter was in the kitchen with Arnelle, Lange and Phillips when Randa told them Simpson was on a planned trip to Chicago.

bobaugust

As usual we read things differently. I tend to stick to what the testimony/evidence was. Vannatter had not left the kitchen but was exiting the kitchen when MF stopped him, (not had exited), which was after the beautiful Ms. Arnelle had called Ms. Randa. Therefore, it supports Martin's claim. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

William,

I do wish GU did explain or give more details why this is.

I think it would be interesting to get a professional's take on that.

[GreenIce]

I think it would be interesting to get a professional's take on that.

Martin,

The only reason that I can think of is if there is no physcial contact or threats either verbal or movements, such as getting in the other person's face, then that is not considered DV. I also wonder if drink plays a role in this. I think there is enough evidence to suggest that drink did play a large role in at least two incidents. Again, IMO.

In GU's book he says that before the tapes were played, around 60 percent of Americans believed he was not guilty, once the tapes were played, that is when they noticed a huge difference between the races and those numbers really didn't change significantly as the trial went on.

[GreenIce]

That is not what the judge said nor what he said the jury would hear. :);):cool:

William,

One more thing, even if Vanatter is telling the truth about when he learned that the trip was planned, it was still a few hours before he wrote the search warrant. IMO, he did not have to lie on the search warrant.

IMO, it is clear that VA was trying to protect the search warrant and he was trying to take MF out of the case. That glove had to baffle the three other detectives.

[William Anthony]

William,

One more thing, even if Vanatter is telling the truth about when he learned that the trip was planned, it was still a few hours before he wrote the search warrant. IMO, he did not have to lie on the search warrant.

IMO, it is clear that VA was trying to protect the search warrant and he was trying to take MF out of the case. That glove had to baffle the three other detectives.

Did Vannatter ever admit that he made mistakes and what does that mean in regard to a recent definition of a liar?

[GreenIce]

Did Vannatter ever admit that he made mistakes and what does that mean in regard to a recent definition of a liar?

William,

I don't think VA admitted that made specific mistakes---he couldn't. The only thing he could say and did say that he would have done things differently. I don't think he was pressed by defense as to what he would have done differently. IMO, it was to their benefit to leave it as it was.

I think it was obvious to the jury that VA was taking a lot of hits for the home team and that he was "Old School", he was protecting the search warrant and the evidence found at Rockingham.

[GreenIce]

The fact is that the evidence in this case is that there was one glove and a hat under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet when the police arrived at Bundy. That is what every witness who saw that evidence testified to seeing including Mark Fuhrman. On cross examination in the preliminary hearing when Uelmen asked Fuhrman when did he first observe it (the glove) Fuhrman responded that he noticed the glove from outside the fence and then went on to explain he could see them (the glove and the hat) at the feet of the male victim.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

MF said he saw a ski mask. That alones proves where his mind was and realized that a ski mask sounded more sinister and therefore he could have used that to support his reasons on why he went to Rockingham well before the official time.

The other problem you have is the picture of him pointing at the glove. It makes no sense why they would lie about this photo unless they were trying to prove that MF was never alone near the bodies.

The uniforms were there to secure the area, it was not their job to search for other evidence. In fact, I find it strange that none of these other officers were asked if they did search for another glove and where did they search. IMO, it is obvious that the glove was not pulled off in a struggle as well as the hat was not pulled off in a struggle.

If the killer discarded or took off one glove, why would he leave wearing one glove? No matter how you look at it or how many times you say it, just because the other officers did not see something they were not looking for, doesn't mean that it was not there.

It also does not mean because one glove was found inside the killing cage that the other glove would have had to have been left there or it would have been in a place that made it impossible to miss, by anyone.

And before you go after the photographer, please explain to me what crime MF committed to pointing out evidence that was very difficult see because of the darkness of the area? What does it matter when that photo was taken? Weren't both men doing their jobs? The more you try to say that the picture was taken much later, the more you implicate MF and the more you implicate the DA's and the detectives knowing something was wrong with the glove found at Rockingham. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I don't think VA admitted that made specific mistakes---he couldn't. The only thing he could say and did say that he would have done things differently. I don't think he was pressed by defense as to what he would have done differently. IMO, it was to their benefit to leave it as it was.

I think it was obvious to the jury that VA was taking a lot of hits for the home team and that he was "Old School", he was protecting the search warrant and the evidence found at Rockingham.

GreenIce,

I should have asked that question of bobaugust. If he couldn't admit he made mistakes or claim to have made a mistake, does that mean he is a liar.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I should have asked that question of bobaugust. If he couldn't admit he made mistakes or claim to have made a mistake, does that mean he is a liar.

William,

IMO, the key word is "could". I think VA knew he could not have told the truth or admit that he learned the truth before he wrote the search warrant. I can see no reason why he did not correct this in the search warrant. Also, his comments that the glove was found while securing the property makes no sense---unless he insists that he knew about the thumps from MF and not Kato.

[martin II]

As usual we read things differently. I tend to stick to what the testimony/evidence was. Vannatter had not left the kitchen but was exiting the kitchen when MF stopped him, (not had exited), which was after the beautiful Ms. Arnelle had called Ms. Randa. Therefore, it supports Martin's claim. :);):cool:

ok
i may be wrong about vanhatter being in the kitchen but he was the lead dfetective and there is no way the other detectives did not tell him about having located oj and knew why he was there and the trip was planned well in advance by CR
NOW

[martin II]

William,

IMO, the key word is "could". I think VA knew he could not have told the truth or admit that he learned the truth before he wrote the search warrant. I can see no reason why he did not correct this in the search warrant. Also, his comments that the glove was found while securing the property makes no sense---unless he insists that he knew about the thumps from MF and not Kato.

cops lie on search warrants to get evidence.Vanhatter lied to get the search warrant because that is what he usually does.imo

[William Anthony]

The fact is that the evidence in this case is that there was one glove and a hat under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet when the police arrived at Bundy. (Correction, the evidence is that officers claimed to have seen only one glove, save MF) That is what every witness who saw that evidence testified to seeing including Mark Fuhrman. On cross examination in the preliminary hearing when Uelmen asked Fuhrman when did he first observe it (the glove) Fuhrman responded that he noticed the glove from outside the fence and then went on to explain he could see them (the glove and the hat) at the feet of the male victim.

bobaugust

You may feel free to buy the explanation of a convicted perjurer and, for some other reason, call others liars but pardon me if I disagree with your assessment.

[William Anthony]

ok
i may be wrong about vanhatter being in the kitchen but he was the lead dfetective and there is no way the other detectives did not tell him about having located oj and knew why he was there and the trip was planned well in advance by CR
NOW

Vannnatter was in the kitchen, according to his testimony. I think your point has been supported. Vannatter did not say he"had exited" the kitchen but "was exiting when he was stopped."

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

Vanatter was too experienced to make these assumptions. Also, on key issues, he and MF give two versions of key events. Both of them can't be telling the truth.

It is clear that they knew from Kato and Arnelle that OJ was out of town. It is also clear that Simpson was the prime suspect and knew about at least two prior DV calls regarding the Simpsons. IMO, they most likey knew about all three of them, but I will give them a pass on the 1993 incident.

BTW, Judge Ito did cite him for reckless disregard of the truth--and not because he wanted to. He was given no choice.

assumptions was borrowed from another poster.

Don/t forget Clarke helped vanhatter write the warrant request and i am sure someone told her where oj was and about the call to CR

[martin II]

Vannnatter was in the kitchen, according to his testimony. I think your point has been supported. Vannatter did not say he"had exited" the kitchen but "was exiting when he was stopped."

THANKS

This is a silly attempt by some to try to protect vanhatter's untruth.If the lead detective was not told by the other detectives that CR had told them what they needed to know and given them the answer they claimed to have been looking for when they illegally entered his property, then something wrong with they way they were operating.

[William Anthony]

THANKS

This is a silly attempt by some to try to protect vanhatter's untruth.If the lead detective was not told by the other detectives that CR had told them what they needed to know and given them the answer they claimed to have been looking for when they illegally entered his property, then something wrong with they way they were operating.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[GreenIce]

assumptions was borrowed from another poster.

Don/t forget Clarke helped vanhatter write the warrant request and i am sure someone told her where oj was and about the call to CR

Martin,

IMO, I think Clark and Vanatter knew they to had to attempt to discredit Arnelle. I think Clark was wise enough not suggest that Arnelle was lying, only that she got very little sleep and that she knew something terrible had happened and did not know what it was.

In MF's book, he says that he noticed a door was open and that he escorted Kalin inside. It appears to me, he did in fact enter the front door because he said he followed the voices and sat Kato in a bar area. I would like to know how could he see that the front door had been opened.

Had he said that he saw the detectives following Arnelle to the front of the house, then I would say that it is reasonable to believe that the front door was opened and he did not have see that the door was open.

In my mind, I have the back door leading into the kitchen or ultililty area. I don't remember seeing any pictures inside Simpson's house that showed the lay out of it.

[GreenIce]

From Marcia Clark in the prelim hearing:

Instead, what they do is they ask him if
20 there's other persons on the property. And where do
21 they go? He directs them to Arnelle Simpson's
22 quarters, apparently further down that pathway.
23 Now, Arnelle Simpson testified the officers
24 didn't ask her whether there was anyone hurt or injured
25 or a suicide or something like that going on. But what
26 did Arnelle Simpson tell us?
27 She told us that while she was walking into
28 that house, taking a path to the front door and opening
0010
01 it with a key, the officers asked her about the live-in
02 maid.

It is clear that Arnelle is tell the truth about which door was entered and the 4 detectives are not telling the truth.

Again, thank you MC!!!!!

[tv]

Ita. Why would LE want to frame an "innocent" Simpson & let the perp run free? Makes absolutely no sense. Also, why so many lies from Arnelle & Simpson if he was so "innocent"?

LE had absolutely no reason to frame Simpson for the murders. Why would they do this? Why would so many people jeopardize their careers to frame one man -- for what reason? If you plant evidence or testify falsely in a capital case in California, under some circumstances, you can get the death penalty. Why would Mark Fuhrman or any other officer risk his entire career and his life to frame a black man just because he had been married to a white woman? That is simply too preposterous to be believable.

[William Anthony]

To try to rationalize the actions of anyone, who said an entire race of people should be gathered together and burned and, who, like some before him thought that Black men and Caucasian women, who entered into a relationship were disgusting and he would stop them and later find a reason for stopping them, is the highest form of denial and a complete barrier to self-evaluation, IMHO. To say that these people act in a normal manner or care about being caught denies the fact that interracial marriages were considered a crime, until the United States Supreme Court interceded. While I have no idea how a racist feels or acts, I will leave it to those, who think they do, to opine what is rational for a racist.

[tv]

A poster (not sure who) has claimed that Nicole asked Simpson to keep an eye on her or something to that effect. I've never seen a credible link to that claim but if that's so why would Simpson say this in his initial interview with Vannatter and Lange?

PV: Did Nicole mention that she'd been getting any threats lately to you?Anything she was concerned about or the kids' safety?

OJS: To her?

PV: Yes.

OJS: From?

PV: From anybody?

OJS: No, not at all.

[GreenIce]

From TV Dinner:

"LE had absolutely no reason to frame Simpson for the murders. Why would they do this? Why would so many people jeopardize their careers to frame one man -- for what reason? If you plant evidence or testify falsely in a capital case in California, under some circumstances, you can get the death penalty. Why would Mark Fuhrman or any other officer risk his entire career and his life to frame a black man just because he had been married to a white woman? That is simply too preposterous to be believable."

Martin and William,

In reading TV's post, isn't it fair to say that 3 detectives did risk, if not their careers, but their cherished credibility on Mark Fuhrman? Isn't it also fair to say that the risks these three detectives took to protect MF also had a negative impact on the Judge and the DA's?

Isn't also fair to say that in order to a cop to be afraid to break these laws, they would have to be afraid of the probability of being caught? That they would have to fear the consequences?

I can't think of one police officer who ever received the death penality for tampering with evidence. IMO, the only way this could happen would be if other officers testified they saw this happen. However, the question would also be raised if you saw this happen, then why wasn't it reported right away?

Isn't it also fair to say that for a police officer to suspect another police officer of tampering or planting evidence, he or she needs to have witness this or to provide a name of a witness who would tell the truth?

Also, I think it has been established that while MF is a rabid racist, he had stronger motives then racism to plant the glove. Isn't also fair to say that MF's racism has nothing to do with the fact that the spouse or ex is always a prime suspect and that in this case, he had every reason to believe that Simpson had committed this crime?

Isn't also fair to say that Vanatter was quite visable and any move that he made that caused controversy, he made sure he was focus and did not involve any of the detectives. Perfect example, we only see him walking the blood vial, we don't see his partner any where near him. And to the best of my knowledge, I don't think Lange ever testified that he knew what VA was doing with the blood vial. I don't recall if VA ever told Lange he was taking the blood vial to Dennis Fung at Rockingham. I could be wrong but I don't remember it.

I think what is fair to post that Ron Phillips knew about MF and the tapes and he gave MF an order not to talk to LHM. What did MF, everything that his supervisor told him not to do.

What is troubling is that Phillips never went to the DA's about this and should have. I don't think Phillips would have been ignored because he knew there were tapes. MC could attack any witness who came into court about their dealings with MF but she could not attack the tapes, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

In reading Arnelle's testimony, it appears that they may have entered the house through a side door. Clark tried very hard to say it was in the back or the rear of the house but Arnelle did not stray from what door she entered.

Also, it appears to me that Phillips may also have testified to this same door.
However, I think he makes a mistake when talking about the French doors and the one next to it because here is Arnelle's re-direct on this issue:

MR. COCHRAN: And so that we're clear, with regard to those doors, if you're inside the house in the family room or in one of those rooms and you want to go out the door that's adjacent to or the door that faces toward the pool, can you get out the house and go out that door?

MS. SIMPSON: One of them, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And do you recall whether or not there's a lock on the inside of the door?

MS. SIMPSON: On two of the French doors, there are top locks.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you said "Top locks," are they high up?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And with regard to those doors, you said something about those doors having been nailed shut?

MS. SIMPSON: And then the other doors, there's a sitting area that those doors are nailed shut.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And they're nailed shut now?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Were they nailed shut back then?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: To the best of your recollection?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Why are they shut?

MS. SIMPSON: They were done because that is the door that my sister Erin went through when she drowned in the pool.

MR. COCHRAN: So they've been shut since then or nailed shut since then?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes. Yes.

Arnelle never waviered on her testimony. If it was a side door they entered, then MF could have seen it open. I think.

Very confusing.

However, it was Clark that kept using the "rear door" the door in the back of the house. It appears to me it was a side door.

I think if watch Arnelle's testimony, where she is point out the doors and the path she took, it would be much clearer.

[William Anthony]

From TV Dinner:

"LE had absolutely no reason to frame Simpson for the murders. Why would they do this? Why would so many people jeopardize their careers to frame one man -- for what reason? If you plant evidence or testify falsely in a capital case in California, under some circumstances, you can get the death penalty. Why would Mark Fuhrman or any other officer risk his entire career and his life to frame a black man just because he had been married to a white woman? That is simply too preposterous to be believable."

Martin and William,

In reading TV's post, isn't it fair to say that 3 detectives did risk, if not their careers, but their cherished credibility on Mark Fuhrman? Isn't it also fair to say that the risks these three detectives took to protect MF also had a negative impact on the Judge and the DA's?

Isn't also fair to say that in order to a cop to be afraid to break these laws, they would have to be afraid of the probability of being caught? That they would have to fear the consequences?

I can't think of one police officer who ever received the death penality for tampering with evidence. IMO, the only way this could happen would be if other officers testified they saw this happen. However, the question would also be raised if you saw this happen, then why wasn't it reported right away?

Isn't it also fair to say that for a police officer to suspect another police officer of tampering or planting evidence, he or she needs to have witness this or to provide a name of a witness who would tell the truth?

Also, I think it has been established that while MF is a rabid racist, he had stronger motives then racism to plant the glove. Isn't also fair to say that MF's racism has nothing to do with the fact that the spouse or ex is always a prime suspect and that in this case, he had every reason to believe that Simpson had committed this crime?

Isn't also fair to say that Vanatter was quite visable and any move that he made that caused controversy, he made sure he was focus and did not involve any of the detectives. Perfect example, we only see him walking the blood vial, we don't see his partner any where near him. And to the best of my knowledge, I don't think Lange ever testified that he knew what VA was doing with the blood vial. I don't recall if VA ever told Lange he was taking the blood vial to Dennis Fung at Rockingham. I could be wrong but I don't remember it.

I think what is fair to post that Ron Phillips knew about MF and the tapes and he gave MF an order not to talk to LHM. What did MF, everything that his supervisor told him not to do.

What is troubling is that Phillips never went to the DA's about this and should have. I don't think Phillips would have been ignored because he knew there were tapes. MC could attack any witness who came into court about their dealings with MF but she could not attack the tapes, IMO.

GreenIce,

I agree with the assertion that the racist MF had more than one reason to plant evidence, if that is what he did, which I believe. My point was more about someone thinking that a racist would act rational, when to me the concept of racism is irrational. However, this does not mean that others can't identify racism with acting rational.

[weezer]

A poster (not sure who) has claimed that Nicole asked Simpson to keep an eye on her or something to that effect. I've never seen a credible link to that claim but if that's so why would Simpson say this in his initial interview with Vannatter and Lange?

PV: Did Nicole mention that she'd been getting any threats lately to you?Anything she was concerned about or the kids' safety?

OJS: To her?

PV: Yes.

OJS: From?

PV: From anybody?

OJS: No, not at all.

I've never understood how anyone could have accepted and/or believed that Nicole would have gone to orenthal -- especially when she was writing in her diary about the threats/abuse and telling her mother about him stalking her.

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

In reading Arnelle's testimony, it appears that they may have entered the house through a side door. Clark tried very hard to say it was in the back or the rear of the house but Arnelle did not stray from what door she entered.

Also, it appears to me that Phillips may also have testified to this same door.
However, I think he makes a mistake when talking about the French doors and the one next to it because here is Arnelle's re-direct on this issue:

MR. COCHRAN: And so that we're clear, with regard to those doors, if you're inside the house in the family room or in one of those rooms and you want to go out the door that's adjacent to or the door that faces toward the pool, can you get out the house and go out that door?

MS. SIMPSON: One of them, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And do you recall whether or not there's a lock on the inside of the door?

MS. SIMPSON: On two of the French doors, there are top locks.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you said "Top locks," are they high up?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And with regard to those doors, you said something about those doors having been nailed shut?

MS. SIMPSON: And then the other doors, there's a sitting area that those doors are nailed shut.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And they're nailed shut now?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Were they nailed shut back then?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: To the best of your recollection?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Why are they shut?

MS. SIMPSON: They were done because that is the door that my sister Erin went through when she drowned in the pool.

MR. COCHRAN: So they've been shut since then or nailed shut since then?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes. Yes.

Arnelle never waviered on her testimony. If it was a side door they entered, then MF could have seen it open. I think.

Very confusing.

However, it was Clark that kept using the "rear door" the door in the back of the house. It appears to me it was a side door.

I think if watch Arnelle's testimony, where she is point out the doors and the path she took, it would be much clearer.

GreenIce,

Clark was very clever in wording her questions, as Kato testified he ran down the Ashford or northern pathway and Clark, in order to fit Park's testimony, followed up with when Kato walked down the pathway, which misstated his original testimony.

[tv]

I've never understood how anyone could have accepted and/or believed that Nicole would have gone to orenthal -- especially when she was writing in her diary about the threats/abuse and telling her mother about him stalking her.

It's something I've never understood either. The only person bothering her or stalking her was OJ Simpson. Nicole asking her stalker to watch out for her would be totally irrational. I don't think anyone really accepts or believes it -- it's just another way to martyr OJ Simpson and make Nicole appear unable to handle her own life without the guidance and control of her abuser.

[weezer]

It's something I've never understood either. The only person bothering her or stalking her was OJ Simpson. Nicole asking her stalker to watch out for her would be totally irrational. I don't think anyone really accepts or believes it -- it's just another way to martyr OJ Simpson and make Nicole appear unable to handle her own life without the guidance and control of her abuser.

or maybe put him in charge? a common thread that ran through the testimony was that orenthal was very controlling --

[William Anthony]

I have had women make up stories about me after we have broken up. This may not be suitable for all ears. A guy approached me in the bar asking me whether I was the type to jump out of the bushes on a guy. He then told me he was with one of my exes. I assured him that he had nothing to worry about and it was obvious to me she had implanted that in his head. A few months later I saw him again and asked if they were still together. He told me no, because she had moved into his home where his brother and his other male friends, none of whom worked, had also moved. The guy that owned the home worked. He told me that when he went to work she was involved with his house guests. I told him she has told me she was like that. He asked me why I had not told him. I told him I thought she had as she had me. Hell hath no fury...

[socaldiva]

LE had absolutely no reason to frame Simpson for the murders. Why would they do this? Why would so many people jeopardize their careers to frame one man -- for what reason? If you plant evidence or testify falsely in a capital case in California, under some circumstances, you can get the death penalty. Why would Mark Fuhrman or any other officer risk his entire career and his life to frame a black man just because he had been married to a white woman? That is simply too preposterous to be believable.

Leading up to the murders, LE had always treated Simpson well & given him special treatment imo. Who else do they let re-enter their home alone to change their clothes, only to have him speed off in his car? That's just one example.

[William Anthony]

Were those the same officers involved in the incident in which simpson sped away that responded on June 12th?

[martin II]

From TV Dinner:

"LE had absolutely no reason to frame Simpson for the murders. Why would they do this? Why would so many people jeopardize their careers to frame one man -- for what reason? If you plant evidence or testify falsely in a capital case in California, under some circumstances, you can get the death penalty. Why would Mark Fuhrman or any other officer risk his entire career and his life to frame a black man just because he had been married to a white woman? That is simply too preposterous to be believable."

Martin and William,

In reading TV's post, isn't it fair to say that 3 detectives did risk, if not their careers, but their cherished credibility on Mark Fuhrman? Isn't it also fair to say that the risks these three detectives took to protect MF also had a negative impact on the Judge and the DA's?

Isn't also fair to say that in order to a cop to be afraid to break these laws, they would have to be afraid of the probability of being caught? That they would have to fear the consequences?

I can't think of one police officer who ever received the death penality for tampering with evidence. IMO, the only way this could happen would be if other officers testified they saw this happen. However, the question would also be raised if you saw this happen, then why wasn't it reported right away?

Isn't it also fair to say that for a police officer to suspect another police officer of tampering or planting evidence, he or she needs to have witness this or to provide a name of a witness who would tell the truth?

Also, I think it has been established that while MF is a rabid racist, he had stronger motives then racism to plant the glove. Isn't also fair to say that MF's racism has nothing to do with the fact that the spouse or ex is always a prime suspect and that in this case, he had every reason to believe that Simpson had committed this crime?

Isn't also fair to say that Vanatter was quite visable and any move that he made that caused controversy, he made sure he was focus and did not involve any of the detectives. Perfect example, we only see him walking the blood vial, we don't see his partner any where near him. And to the best of my knowledge, I don't think Lange ever testified that he knew what VA was doing with the blood vial. I don't recall if VA ever told Lange he was taking the blood vial to Dennis Fung at Rockingham. I could be wrong but I don't remember it.

I think what is fair to post that Ron Phillips knew about MF and the tapes and he gave MF an order not to talk to LHM. What did MF, everything that his supervisor told him not to do.

What is troubling is that Phillips never went to the DA's about this and should have. I don't think Phillips would have been ignored because he knew there were tapes. MC could attack any witness who came into court about their dealings with MF but she could not attack the tapes, IMO.

The Rampart operation that was going on in the LAPD during the oj trial and came to light after the trial proved that le do exactly what Furhman claimed he did.That they abuse citizens,frame citizens,steal money and lie in their testimony. So some do risk their careers, some do risk going to jail as some did in the Rampart case.People do take risk when their objectives seem to be that impoortant to them or the reward is what they seek.

Vanhatter took big risk when he lied about the search warrant. he had no way of knowing if the judge would have tossed the Rockingham evidence and left the prosecution empty handed. Yet he took that chance because his motive out weighed the chance.imo

[weezer]

Leading up to the murders, LE had always treated Simpson well & given him special treatment imo. Who else do they let re-enter their home alone to change their clothes, only to have him speed off in his car? That's just one example.

he certainly believed he was above the law. I remember part of his testimony was that he considered the domestic abuse as a 'family' matter and not a police matter. :eek:

[martin II]

It's something I've never understood either. The only person bothering her or stalking her was OJ Simpson. Nicole asking her stalker to watch out for her would be totally irrational. I don't think anyone really accepts or believes it -- it's just another way to martyr OJ Simpson and make Nicole appear unable to handle her own life without the guidance and control of her abuser.

I think it was Cora that testified that Nicole asked oj to keep a eye on her because of the stalking and phone calls she had received from some man.
This man was eventually caught.imo

[William Anthony]

There are many ways to show that one feels he/she is above the law.

[martin II]

Leading up to the murders, LE had always treated Simpson well & given him special treatment imo. Who else do they let re-enter their home alone to change their clothes, only to have him speed off in his car? That's just one example.

When did this happen?

[martin II]

he certainly believed he was above the law. I remember part of his testimony was that he considered the domestic abuse as a 'family' matter and not a police matter. :eek:

The police seemed to be abusing oj hopitality by the way they were using his tennis court and hot tub and bringing others to get autographs. He could not get rid of Shipp.

[William Anthony]

Deepwater,

I would like to make all aware of the edta added to the recent instructions on banning and timeouts. I have a problem, because if we speak our opinion of someone it may be considered bashing, especially with someone like MF, who was bashed by both sides in the trial. I don't think that having a negative opinion of someone and stating why you hold that opinion is bashing. I am asking for clarification.

[William Anthony]

The police seemed to be abusing oj hopitality by the way they were using his tennis court and hot tub and bringing others to get autographs. He could not get rid of Shipp.

Do you think that doing the things you have mentioned in your posts, if done while on duty, is acting above the law? Do you think that arbitrarily deciding who gets arrested is acting above the law?

[martin II]

Martin and William,

In reading Arnelle's testimony, it appears that they may have entered the house through a side door. Clark tried very hard to say it was in the back or the rear of the house but Arnelle did not stray from what door she entered.

Also, it appears to me that Phillips may also have testified to this same door.
However, I think he makes a mistake when talking about the French doors and the one next to it because here is Arnelle's re-direct on this issue:

MR. COCHRAN: And so that we're clear, with regard to those doors, if you're inside the house in the family room or in one of those rooms and you want to go out the door that's adjacent to or the door that faces toward the pool, can you get out the house and go out that door?

MS. SIMPSON: One of them, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And do you recall whether or not there's a lock on the inside of the door?

MS. SIMPSON: On two of the French doors, there are top locks.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you said "Top locks," are they high up?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And with regard to those doors, you said something about those doors having been nailed shut?

MS. SIMPSON: And then the other doors, there's a sitting area that those doors are nailed shut.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And they're nailed shut now?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Were they nailed shut back then?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: To the best of your recollection?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Why are they shut?

MS. SIMPSON: They were done because that is the door that my sister Erin went through when she drowned in the pool.

MR. COCHRAN: So they've been shut since then or nailed shut since then?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes. Yes.

Arnelle never waviered on her testimony. If it was a side door they entered, then MF could have seen it open. I think.

Very confusing.

However, it was Clark that kept using the "rear door" the door in the back of the house. It appears to me it was a side door.

I think if watch Arnelle's testimony, where she is point out the doors and the path she took, it would be much clearer.

There were two french doors leading into the livingroom from the pool area and three doors leading from the pool to the family room area. We have no way of knowing which door was nailed shut because all led to the pool.

One can get to the wet bar from the front door and a back door.

[martin II]

Do you think that doing the things you have mentioned in your posts, if done while on duty, is acting above the law? Do you think that arbitrarily deciding who gets arrested is acting above the law?

Sure it was acting above the law and they were on duty.Ms Bell said that Furhman visited her house twice in uniform.The second time she told him he was not welcome before he could get to the door and he was again in uniform.I am sure that was acting above the law.

[martin II]

Do you think that doing the things you have mentioned in your posts, if done while on duty, is acting above the law? Do you think that arbitrarily deciding who gets arrested is acting above the law?

In the Rampart case one cop was accused of contract killing of BIGGIE SMALLS in los vegas.

[Hotwater]

Deepwater,

I would like to make all aware of the edta added to the recent instructions on banning and timeouts. I have a problem, because if we speak our opinion of someone it may be considered bashing, especially with someone like MF, who was bashed by both sides in the trial. I don't think that having a negative opinion of someone and stating why you hold that opinion is bashing. I am asking for clarification.

I see no problem with you expressing your opinions about someone in the case. What we don't want to see is,

Name calling
Use of foul language
Making it personal i.e., getting angry at someone because they don't agree with your opinion.

Does this help?

Hotwater

[martin II]

dEEPWATER
I have a question
Is it true that trutv will close in November? If you know.If this is true does it impact on the message boards?

[William Anthony]

I see no problem with you expressing your opinions about someone in the case. What we don't want to see is,

Name calling
Use of foul language
Making it personal i.e., getting angry at someone because they don't agree with your opinion.

Does this help?

Hotwater

Yes, and thank you very much.

[martin II]

I see no problem with you expressing your opinions about someone in the case. What we don't want to see is,

Name calling
Use of foul language
Making it personal i.e., getting angry at someone because they don't agree with your opinion.

Does this help?

Hotwater

I think that making negative comments about peoples personal life on a public message board should be ot as their personal life did not impact on the case.

[Hotwater]

dEEPWATER
I have a question
Is it true that trutv will close in November? If you know.If this is true does it impact on the message boards?

Martin,

I'm not Deepwater but I can certainly check into the matter if you like?

If you're referring to "Insession" shutting down it's New York division here's the information on it and from my understanding it will not affect the message board.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/courttvtrutv/trutvs_in_session_shuts_down_119687.asp

Hotwater

[martin II]

Martin,

I'm not Deepwater but I can certainly check into the matter if you like?

If you're referring to "Insession" shutting down it's New York division here's the information on it and from my understanding it will not affect the message board.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/courttvtrutv/trutvs_in_session_shuts_down_119687.asp

Hotwater

I apologize for my error.
thanks.

[William Anthony]

Sure it was acting above the law and they were on duty.Ms Bell said that Furhman visited her house twice in uniform.The second time she told him he was not welcome before he could get to the door and he was again in uniform.I am sure that was acting above the law.

That's how I see it. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

"Q: OKAY. "QUESTION: HOW FAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU WERE FROM WHERE THE BODIES WERE LOCATED? "ANSWER: I WAS DIRECTLY ABOVE THE FEMALE VICTIM WHICH WAS PROBABLY THREE FEET. THE MALE VICTIM WOULD HAVE BEEN TEN FEET, TWELVE FEET. "QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT YOU FIRST OBSERVED THE GLOVE THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT? "ANSWER: NOT FIRST, NO. "QUESTION: WHEN DID YOU FIRST OBSERVE IT? "ANSWER: WE HAD FLASHLIGHTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FEMALE VICTIM. WE LOOKED AT THE MALE VICTIM. I NOTICED THE GLOVE WHEN I WALKED AROUND TO THE -- AFTER I EXITED THE RESIDENCE THE FIRST TIME AND WALKED AROUND TO THE SIDE OR THE NORTH SIDE, NORTH PERIMETER OF BUNDY OF 875 BUNDY, THERE IS AN IRON FENCE AND THROUGH THAT IRON FENCE YOU CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO THE MALE VICTIM, AND LOOKING THERE I COULD SEE THEM AT HIS FEET." DID YOU USE THE WORD "THEM" IN YOUR ANSWER ON JULY 5TH?

A: YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

Q: AND WAS THE LAST ITEM TO WHICH "THEM" COULD HAVE APPLIED IN YOUR NARRATIVE THE WORD "GLOVE"?

A: SINGULAR, YES. (Them is plural. It is singular) :);):cool:

Q: I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?

A: "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

Q: SHOW ME ANYWHERE ON THAT PAGE WHERE THE KNIT CAP IS MENTIONED? CAN YOU?

A: THAT PAGE, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ON THE PRIOR PAGE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ABOUT THE KNIT CAP?

A: DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT THAT PRIOR PAGE?

Q: SURE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT. 63.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I DO NOT. "

[bobaugust]

As usual we read things differently. I tend to stick to what the testimony/evidence was. Vannatter had not left the kitchen but was exiting the kitchen when MF stopped him, (not had exited), which was after the beautiful Ms. Arnelle had called Ms. Randa. Therefore, it supports Martin's claim. :);):cool:

You have quite an imagination. The evidence is that when Arnelle called Cathy Randa there were two officers in the kitchen with her, Phillips and Lange. Vannatter was not in the kitchen when Arnelle was speaking to Cathy Randa.

July 10, 1995 Arnelle Simpson

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at this point in your kitchen area there, tell the jury who all was present.
MS. SIMPSON: Lange and Phillips.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. At this point you didn't see Vannatter or Fuhrman; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. What did you next see happen with regard to the kitchen area and the phones therein?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I called Cathy and told Cathy that I had some--some really bad news and then I--umm, I started to cry and I handed the phone over to I believe Lange and then they had a conversation.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So when you say "They," you mean Detective Lange and Miss Cathy Randa had a phone conversation?
MS. SIMPSON: And Cathy Randa.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

MF said he saw a ski mask. That alones proves where his mind was and realized that a ski mask sounded more sinister and therefore he could have used that to support his reasons on why he went to Rockingham well before the official time.

The other problem you have is the picture of him pointing at the glove. It makes no sense why they would lie about this photo unless they were trying to prove that MF was never alone near the bodies.

The uniforms were there to secure the area, it was not their job to search for other evidence. In fact, I find it strange that none of these other officers were asked if they did search for another glove and where did they search. IMO, it is obvious that the glove was not pulled off in a struggle as well as the hat was not pulled off in a struggle.

If the killer discarded or took off one glove, why would he leave wearing one glove? No matter how you look at it or how many times you say it, just because the other officers did not see something they were not looking for, doesn't mean that it was not there.

It also does not mean because one glove was found inside the killing cage that the other glove would have had to have been left there or it would have been in a place that made it impossible to miss, by anyone.

And before you go after the photographer, please explain to me what crime MF committed to pointing out evidence that was very difficult see because of the darkness of the area? What does it matter when that photo was taken? Weren't both men doing their jobs? The more you try to say that the picture was taken much later, the more you implicate MF and the more you implicate the DA's and the detectives knowing something was wrong with the glove found at Rockingham. IMO.

There is no evidence that there was as second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. The fact is that after Fuhrman found the glove at Rockingham Vannatter asked him to return to Bundy to see if it was a match to the glove there. Phillips and Fuhrman then drove back to Bundy. Before Fuhrman examined the glove he asked the photographer to photograph it. The photographer testified that he asked Fuhrman to point to it. Officer Riske testified he saw that photograph taken. After Fuhrman checked the glove he asked the photographer to follow him back to Rockingham to photograph evidence there. That is the evidence in this case despite what you want to imagine it was.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There were two french doors leading into the livingroom from the pool area and three doors leading from the pool to the family room area. We have no way of knowing which door was nailed shut because all led to the pool.

One can get to the wet bar from the front door and a back door.

Phillips, Lange, Fuhrman, Vannatter, and Kato Kaelin all testified that they entered Simpson house through the rear door not the front door. Of course someone could get to the wet bar by entering the front door and go through the house to the back of the house. But that’s not what the four detectives and Kato Kaelin said they did.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg


Ron Phillips February 16, 1995

A WALKED TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE -- NOT TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE, BUT THE BACK PORTION OF THE MAIN HOUSE WHERE THERE WAS SOME FRENCH DOORS AND ANOTHER SMALLER DOOR RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
Q WHEN YOU WALKED TOWARD THE MAIN HOUSE, DID YOU PASS BY MR.
KAELIN'S ROOM?
A YES.
Q DID YOU LOOK INSIDE?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WALKED UP TO ONE -- ONE DOOR THAT LED INTO THE HOUSE AND ARNELLE SIMPSON UNLOCKED THE DOOR FOR US AND OPENED THE DOOR.
Q AND DID YOU ALL WALK INSIDE?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS WHO AT THAT POINT?
A THAT WAS ARNELLE SIMPSON, MYSELF, TOM LANGE AND PHIL VANNATTER.
Q WENT IN THROUGH THE REAR?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WE WALKED IN THROUGH THE LIVING ROOM AREA AND THEN INTO A KITCHEN AREA AND FROM THE KITCHEN AREA WE WALKED AROUND TO A MAID'S QUARTERS THAT WAS OFF THE KITCHEN.


Tom Lange February 21, 1995

Q AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A WE MOVED TOWARDS THE REAR AFTER ASKING ARNELLE IF SHE HAD A KEY TO THE LOCATION. SHE SAID SHE DID. I BELIEVE SHE RETURNED TO HER ROOM BRIEFLY AND GOT THE KEY AND CAME BACK OUT. WE THEN PROCEEDED TO THE REAR DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE WHERE SHE UNLOCKED THE DOOR AND WE ENTERED.
*
Q DID YOU ASK TO SEE THE ROOM?
A I ASKED -- YES. I ASKED WHERE IT WAS.
Q AND WAS THAT THE FIRST ROOM THAT YOU WENT TO LOOK INTO IN THE HOUSE?

A NO. I WALKED THROUGH THE REAR AREA, THE I GUESS THE REAR DEN AREA AND THROUGH A FORMAL DINING ROOM AND THROUGH THE KITCHEN, OUT A SHORT HALLWAY, AND TO THE LEFT OF THAT WAS THE HOUSEMAID'S ROOM.
Q NOW, WAS ARNELLE LEADING YOU THROUGH THE HOUSE?
A SHE WAS WITH ME MORE OR LESS IN THE FRONT. INITIALLY WHEN I ASKED THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSEMAID ROOM, SHE MORE OR LESS WALKED IN FRONT OF ME AND POINTED OUT THE WAY.


Mark Fuhrman March 10, 1995

A I ASKED MR. KAELIN IF HE WOULD COME WITH ME, AND WE EXITED HIS ROOM AND I LOOKED TOWARDS THE MAIN HOUSE AND I SAW THERE WAS AN OPEN DOOR, THE REAR OFF THE PATIO.
Q CAN YOU TELL US -- CAN YOU SHOW US, SIR, THE PATH THAT YOU TOOK ON THE DIAGRAM MARKED PEOPLE'S 66 IN THE COMPANY OF MR. KAELIN?
A YES. WE EXITED MR. KAELIN'S ROOM. WE WALKED UP THESE STAIRS, WENT TOWARDS THE MAIN HOUSE, PROBABLY THESE STAIRS RIGHT HERE. THERE'S A DOOR RIGHT HERE THAT WAS PARTIALLY OPEN (INDICATING). I BELIEVE IT HAD A SCREEN ON IT ALSO. WALKED INTO THAT DOOR. IT LED INTO A BAR AREA JUST TO THE LEFT OF A BILLIARD TABLE THAT YOU STEP DOWN INTO.
*
Q AND WHAT DID HAPPEN NEXT AFTER YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE?

A WHEN I FIRST WALKED IN, I NOTICED THIS AREA, YOU STEP DOWN WHERE THERE'S A LARGE BILLIARD TABLE AND THEN DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF WHERE WE CAME IN, THERE'S A BAR AREA WITH FOUR OR FIVE BAR STOOLS. AND I ASKED MR. KAELIN TO SIT IN ONE OF THOSE STOOLS AND RELAX AND SOMEBODY WOULD TALK TO HIM IN A MINUTE.


Phillip Vannatter March 16, 1995

Q AND AT THAT POINT, DID SHE OBTAIN A KEY?
A YES. SHE OBTAINED A KEY FROM INSIDE THE ROOM AND LED US DOWN THE WALKWAY TO THE REAR DOOR HERE (INDICATING).
*
Q NOW, DID SHE ENTER THROUGH THE REAR DOOR?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO ONCE YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE?
A I -- AS WE ENTERED THE HOUSE, I ASKED ARNELLE SIMPSON WHERE THE MAID'S QUARTERS WERE. I WANTED TO CHECK AND MAKE SURE IF THERE WAS A MAID THERE IF SHE WAS OKAY. AND I WAS LED THROUGH A BAR AREA INTO A -- INTO THE KITCHEN AND THEN INTO A UTILITY ROOM AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE KITCHEN. SHE OPENED THE DOOR TO WHAT APPEARED TO BE THE MAID'S QUARTERS. I LOOKED IN AND EVERYTHING APPEARED TO BE IN ORDER.


Kato Kaelin, March 22, 1995

Q OKAY. HOW LONG DID YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN LAST, SIR?
A I THINK ABOUT FIVE MINUTES INSIDE THE ROOM.
Q IS THAT AN ESTIMATE YOU'RE GIVING US?
A ESTIMATE, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
Q AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I FOLLOWED -- WHATEVER THEY TOLD ME TO DO I DID. SO WE ALL WENT OUTSIDE.
Q OKAY. DID HE TELL YOU TO COME OUTSIDE?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.
Q WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, DID YOU ENTER BEFORE OR AFTER
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A I THINK IT WAS BEFORE.
Q OKAY. YOU WERE AHEAD OF HIM?
A I WAS AHEAD OF HIM.
Q AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?
A WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"Q: OKAY. "QUESTION: HOW FAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU WERE FROM WHERE THE BODIES WERE LOCATED? "ANSWER: I WAS DIRECTLY ABOVE THE FEMALE VICTIM WHICH WAS PROBABLY THREE FEET. THE MALE VICTIM WOULD HAVE BEEN TEN FEET, TWELVE FEET. "QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT YOU FIRST OBSERVED THE GLOVE THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT? "ANSWER: NOT FIRST, NO. "QUESTION: WHEN DID YOU FIRST OBSERVE IT? "ANSWER: WE HAD FLASHLIGHTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FEMALE VICTIM. WE LOOKED AT THE MALE VICTIM. I NOTICED THE GLOVE WHEN I WALKED AROUND TO THE -- AFTER I EXITED THE RESIDENCE THE FIRST TIME AND WALKED AROUND TO THE SIDE OR THE NORTH SIDE, NORTH PERIMETER OF BUNDY OF 875 BUNDY, THERE IS AN IRON FENCE AND THROUGH THAT IRON FENCE YOU CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO THE MALE VICTIM, AND LOOKING THERE I COULD SEE THEM AT HIS FEET." DID YOU USE THE WORD "THEM" IN YOUR ANSWER ON JULY 5TH?

A: YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

Q: AND WAS THE LAST ITEM TO WHICH "THEM" COULD HAVE APPLIED IN YOUR NARRATIVE THE WORD "GLOVE"?

A: SINGULAR, YES. (Them is plural. It is singular) :);):cool:

Q: I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?

A: "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

Q: SHOW ME ANYWHERE ON THAT PAGE WHERE THE KNIT CAP IS MENTIONED? CAN YOU?

A: THAT PAGE, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ON THE PRIOR PAGE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ABOUT THE KNIT CAP?

A: DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT THAT PRIOR PAGE?

Q: SURE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT. 63.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I DO NOT. "

The evidence in this case is that there was a knit hat and one glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. That is what every witness testified to seeing including Mark Fuhrman. Fuhrman explained that when he said the word “them” he was referring to that evidence, a knit hat and one glove. That is the evidence in this case despite what you want to imagine it was.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The evidence in this case is that there was a knit hat and one glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. That is what every witness testified to seeing including Mark Fuhrman. Fuhrman explained that when he said the word “them” he was referring to that evidence, a knit hat and one glove. That is the evidence in this case despite what you want to imagine it was.

bobaugust

The evidence in this case is that MF was asked about seeing a glove (singular) and answered to seeing more than one (plural). You may believe MF, who was later convicted of perjury, and you can imagine he was telling the truth but, I choose to follow the lead of the sophisticated jury and not consider him.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9215710]Phillips, Lange, Fuhrman, Vannatter, and Kato Kaelin all testified that they entered Simpson house through the rear door not the front door. Of course someone could get to the wet bar by entering the front door and go through the house to the back of the house. But that’s not what the four detectives and Kato Kaelin said they did.

Mr. August,

The pictures submitted in the civil trial proof your detectives are lying.

Q. Okay. Now, why did you go that way?
A. Because I had to go inside the house.
Q. Okay. Now, three detectives have testified before this jury that
you went right in -- there's a back door right here?
A. Yeah, there's a door right here.
Q. They testified that you had your keys out and you had to open up
a lock with the keys and you went in that way. Did you do that
night?
A. No. It's impossible.
MR. PETROCELLI: Object to the mischaracterization of the testimony.
MR. LEONARD: They testified --
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. PETROCELLI: I think he misstated the details of their testimony.

THE COURT: Okay. Strike that. And ask the question as to what she
did.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you go in the back door?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You can resume your seat.
MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, these are exhibits and photos I've
not seen before, not on the joint trial statement, but I have no
objection.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: Half of your exhibits are not on the joint trial
statement
(indicating to photographs shown to him by Mr. Leonard).
MR. LEONARD: I'll show you what I'll mark next in order.
THE CLERK: 2318.
(The instrument herein described as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2318.)
MR. LEONARD: And 2319.
(The instrument herein described as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2319.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I ask you to take a look at those two
photographs, Ms. Simpson. I'm going to ask you if they accurately
depict the back door that we've just been talking about as it
existed on June 12 -- excuse me -- the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a lock on that door --
A. No.
Q. -- that you can open with a key from the outside?
A. No, there's not.
Q. Is there an alarm and was there on June 13, 1994?
A. No.
Q. Is there a key pad to activate the alarm there?
A. No.
Q. Was there on the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. No.
Q. Now, when you -- after you walked all the way around with the
detectives, did you enter the house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: This is depicting 22 -- what's the second one?
THE CLERK: 2319.
MR. LEONARD: 2319.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is that correct, Ms. Simpson?
A. Yes.
(Exhibit 2319 is displayed on Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: If we could show 2318.
MR. BAKER: Why don't you zoom in on the door handle.
(Elmo is adjusted to zoom in on door handle.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Again, that was the handle that was on that door
on the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. Correct.
Q. I just want to show -- no, that's fine, we'll get it back
(indicating to exhibit in the witness' possession). Now, what was
the purpose of going into the house?
A. I was going into the house to go to get in touch with somebody
that could find out where my dad was.


Also, MF's testimony about getting into the house does not match Kato's. MF has them walking by themselves, Kato has them playing follow the leader with Arnelle leading the way.

And you still haven't provided any evidence or reason why Arnelle would lie about what door to enter?

[GreenIce]

There is no evidence that there was as second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. The fact is that after Fuhrman found the glove at Rockingham Vannatter asked him to return to Bundy to see if it was a match to the glove there. Phillips and Fuhrman then drove back to Bundy. Before Fuhrman examined the glove he asked the photographer to photograph it. The photographer testified that he asked Fuhrman to point to it. Officer Riske testified he saw that photograph taken. After Fuhrman checked the glove he asked the photographer to follow him back to Rockingham to photograph evidence there. That is the evidence in this case despite what you want to imagine it was.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Since the officers and the detectives proved to have major credibility problems, what they say happened and when they said it did happen means nothing.

Riske, Phillips and MF had reasons to lie and to get a story together. The photographer did not have a reason to lie.

Speaking of pictures, the big picture is that since both men were called to the scene to do a specific job, the time of the picture should not matter. There has to be a reason why the DA's challenged when this picture was taken and I think we all know why they did so.

It also appears to me that the DA's were trying to prove that had MF saw another glove and picked it up, it would have had to have been seen by someone who was pay attention to his every move. My question is why everyone seems to know that MF must be watched at crime scenes?

The fact that MF and Phillips were ordered back to Rockingham is nothing more then a cover. The photographer was talking to Ron Phillips when MF approached him to take the picture. Of course Phillips know when this picture is taken and of course he is going to do his best to confuse the situation.

And, you know as well as I do none of the police officers were asked if they did look for a second glove. The second glove did not have to be left inside the killing cage, however, it is very possible that it was there and MF knew that he was the only person who knew there was a second glove. Riske pointed out the evidence he saw, if had seen two gloves, he would have told MF. Therefore, MF knew that a second glove was not seen by anyone other themself.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Since the officers and the detectives proved to have major credibility problems, what they say happened and when they said it did happen means nothing.

Riske, Phillips and MF had reasons to lie and to get a story together. The photographer did not have a reason to lie.

Speaking of pictures, the big picture is that since both men were called to the scene to do a specific job, the time of the picture should not matter. There has to be a reason why the DA's challenged when this picture was taken and I think we all know why they did so.

It also appears to me that the DA's were trying to prove that had MF saw another glove and picked it up, it would have had to have been seen by someone who was pay attention to his every move. My question is why everyone seems to know that MF must be watched at crime scenes?

The fact that MF and Phillips were ordered back to Rockingham is nothing more then a cover. The photographer was talking to Ron Phillips when MF approached him to take the picture. Of course Phillips know when this picture is taken and of course he is going to do his best to confuse the situation.

And, you know as well as I do none of the police officers were asked if they did look for a second glove. The second glove did not have to be left inside the killing cage, however, it is very possible that it was there and MF knew that he was the only person who knew there was a second glove. Riske pointed out the evidence he saw, if had seen two gloves, he would have told MF. Therefore, MF knew that a second glove was not seen by anyone other themself.


gi
I remember a detectives testifying that Furhman either walked out the front of bundy and around the block to the alley or out the back gate to the alley and that this was the only time he was not seen for 5-10 minutes.
if you remember this let me know who the detective was otherwise i will have to read all their testimony to try to find it. also i cannot remember where furhman parked his car when he arrived at bundy.

[martin II]

Confusion.


lang

I BELIEVE SHE RETURNED TO HER ROOM BRIEFLY AND GOT THE KEY AND CAME BACK OUT. WE THEN PROCEEDED TO THE REAR DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE WHERE SHE UNLOCKED THE DOOR AND WE ENTERED.
*

furhman
THERE'S A DOOR RIGHT HERE THAT WAS PARTIALLY OPEN (INDICATING). I BELIEVE IT HAD A SCREEN ON IT ALSO. WALKED INTO THAT DOOR. IT LED INTO A BAR AREA

lang said Arnell used a key to open the door

furhman said the door was partially open.

kato didn't say what door he entered.

[martin II]

LE had absolutely no reason to frame Simpson for the murders. Why would they do this? Why would so many people jeopardize their careers to frame one man -- for what reason? If you plant evidence or testify falsely in a capital case in California, under some circumstances, you can get the death penalty. Why would Mark Fuhrman or any other officer risk his entire career and his life to frame a black man just because he had been married to a white woman? That is simply too preposterous to be believable.

Not many people just 2-3 the rest would remain silent if they knew anything. no one ask questions just like people remained silent about furhman.

[martin II]

Many cops in the department knew fyrhman has a active case for planting a knife on a suspect. Furhman painted a nazi symble on a cops locker because he was married to a jew.Cops had heard him talk about Nicoles brest and knew he had a special interest in nicole and oj.Police watch has five casses against furhman for abuse of minorties. The DA. clarke and Darden knew furhman had racial issues.

No cop came forward to their superiors to report furhman and the DAS did not report what they new to GG. The DA put him on ther stand and other detectives did what they could to protect him in their testimony.

That looks like a blue wall of silence to me.
all my opinion. :cool:

[fgump2]

In the Rampart case one cop was accused of contract killing of BIGGIE SMALLS in los vegas.

accused is not the same as convicted.

[fgump2]

Many cops in the department knew fyrhman has a active case for planting a knife on a suspect. Furhman painted a nazi symble on a cops locker because he was married to a jew.Cops had heard him talk about Nicoles brest and knew he had a special interest in nicole and oj.Police watch has five casses against furhman for abuse of minorties. The DA. clarke and Darden knew furhman had racial issues.

No cop came forward to their superiors to report furhman and the DAS did not report what they new to GG. The DA put him on ther stand and other detectives did what they could to protect him in their testimony.

That looks like a blue wall of silence to me.
all my opinion. :cool:
I don't think the behavior of the LAPD is above criticism. I think the blue wall does exist, but it isn't very reliable. Many people think, or at least say, that he blue wall is so reliable that a cop can break rules and count on getting away with it. For example, if Fuhrman had found a 2nd glove at the original crime scene, the other cops would have ignored it because of the blue wall of silence.
I doubt this. Any LAPD employee who realized that evidence was being tampered to incriminate Mr. Simpson, or that there was any indication of framing OJS would have two motives for speaking out to their superiors and the press: (1) their conscience (2) to make money selling a story to the press. I haven't read about the ramparts case, but I doubt that the financial motive for blowing the whistle existed in the ramparts case. In any big organization there are always people short on money - so any copy short on money would be tempted to blow the whistel and sell a story to the press.

I have raised the question about the complication that one of the first cops to Bundy was an African American - Donald Thompson. If Fuhrman was as racist as many claim, he would have been worried that Thompson would might see what he was doing and blow a whistle. Think of the humiliation Fuhrman (if he was as racist as some say) would have felt about being nailed by a black man.

The answer some people have given - is that Thompson wouldn't have done that because of the blue wall of silence.
To believe that we have to think that Fuhrman hated all black people, but trusted Thompson to follow the blue wall of silence. Also Fuhrman would have had no way of knowing how many of the other cops were jewish. There were probably a lot of jewish cops working for the LAPD - and Jewish and black criminologists. The two most important police criminologists on the case were a chinise amaerican man and a hispanic woman. If Fuhrman was as racist as some say, he would have felt quite uncomfortable about that.

[fgump2]

Many cops in the department knew fyrhman has a active case for planting a knife on a suspect. Furhman painted a nazi symble on a cops locker because he was married to a jew.Cops had heard him talk about Nicoles brest and knew he had a special interest in nicole and oj.Police watch has five casses against furhman for abuse of minorties. The DA. clarke and Darden knew furhman had racial issues.

No cop came forward to their superiors to report furhman and the DAS did not report what they new to GG. The DA put him on ther stand and other detectives did what they could to protect him in their testimony.

That looks like a blue wall of silence to me.
all my opinion. :cool:

One thing I'd like to know about the case of MF planting a knife. Was that ever proved, and if so, why didn't he go to jail? It seems odd that he was punished more for the perjury charge than for planting a knife.

[fgump2]

Not many people just 2-3 the rest would remain silent if they knew anything. no one ask questions just like people remained silent about furhman.

The story that many conspiricy theory people give is that the culprits planted blood in the bronco weeks or months after the crime. This would indicate more than one or two people involved.
I think some have indicated that planting occurred after the start of the trial, more than 6 months later. Also the sock was supposedly siting around with no blood on it for months before someone decided to plant blood on it. Does this mean the planter had records of what tests had been done? How would they have gotten the proper people to do more testing?

For this planting to have occurred months after the trial, the plotters would have had to have access to blood, and also be able to get the proper authorities to do more testing late in the game.

The fact that the blood from Nicole on the sock was less degraded than her reference sample is another complication.

[tv]

One thing I'd like to know about the case of MF planting a knife. Was that ever proved, and if so, why didn't he go to jail? It seems odd that he was punished more for the perjury charge than for planting a knife.

I'd like to see a link to the testimony that Fuhrman painted a swastika on a fellow officer's locker and also to the cases that 'police watch' had against Det. Fuhrman and their outcomes. I hope that no one responds with the usual innuendos of racism or romantic interest in Mark Fuhrman just because I'm requesting validation for these claims.

[tv]

The story that many conspiricy theory people give is that the culprits planted blood in the bronco weeks or months after the crime. This would indicate more than one or two people involved.
I think some have indicated that planting occurred after the start of the trial, more than 6 months later. Also the sock was supposedly siting around with no blood on it for months before someone decided to plant blood on it. Does this mean the planter had records of what tests had been done? How would they have gotten the proper people to do more testing?

For this planting to have occurred months after the trial, the plotters would have had to have access to blood, and also be able to get the proper authorities to do more testing late in the game.

The fact that the blood from Nicole on the sock was less degraded than her reference sample is another complication.

If Mark Fuhrman is one of the 2-3 people involved in the 'conspiracy' who are the other 1 -2? Lange and Vannatter? Mazzola and Fung? Peratis? Lange and Fung? Vannatter and Mazzola? Mazzola and Peratis? Park and Fung? Kato and Yamauchi? Just who are the active conspirators? Also, if someone merely remained silent they would still be a part of the 'conspiracy' by omission. For pete's sake. :rolleyes:

[fgump2]

From TV Dinner:

"LE had absolutely no reason to frame Simpson for the murders. Why would they do this? Why would so many people jeopardize their careers to frame one man -- for what reason? If you plant evidence or testify falsely in a capital case in California, under some circumstances, you can get the death penalty. Why would Mark Fuhrman or any other officer risk his entire career and his life to frame a black man just because he had been married to a white woman? That is simply too preposterous to be believable."

Martin and William,

In reading TV's post, isn't it fair to say that 3 detectives did risk, if not their careers, but their cherished credibility on Mark Fuhrman? Isn't it also fair to say that the risks these three detectives took to protect MF also had a negative impact on the Judge and the DA's?

Isn't also fair to say that in order to a cop to be afraid to break these laws, they would have to be afraid of the probability of being caught? That they would have to fear the consequences?

I can't think of one police officer who ever received the death penality for tampering with evidence. IMO, the only way this could happen would be if other officers testified they saw this happen. However, the question would also be raised if you saw this happen, then why wasn't it reported right away?

Isn't it also fair to say that for a police officer to suspect another police officer of tampering or planting evidence, he or she needs to have witness this or to provide a name of a witness who would tell the truth?

Also, I think it has been established that while MF is a rabid racist, he had stronger motives then racism to plant the glove. Isn't also fair to say that MF's racism has nothing to do with the fact that the spouse or ex is always a prime suspect and that in this case, he had every reason to believe that Simpson had committed this crime?

Isn't also fair to say that Vanatter was quite visable and any move that he made that caused controversy, he made sure he was focus and did not involve any of the detectives. Perfect example, we only see him walking the blood vial, we don't see his partner any where near him. And to the best of my knowledge, I don't think Lange ever testified that he knew what VA was doing with the blood vial. I don't recall if VA ever told Lange he was taking the blood vial to Dennis Fung at Rockingham. I could be wrong but I don't remember it.

I think what is fair to post that Ron Phillips knew about MF and the tapes and he gave MF an order not to talk to LHM. What did MF, everything that his supervisor told him not to do.

What is troubling is that Phillips never went to the DA's about this and should have. I don't think Phillips would have been ignored because he knew there were tapes. MC could attack any witness who came into court about their dealings with MF but she could not attack the tapes, IMO.

Why do you address so many of your postings to "Martin and William"? is this preaching to the choir? I don't feel left out. I sometimes wonder why I bother reading or replying to this stuff.

It seems improbable that Lange and Vannatter would cover up for MF, and vice versa (I guess) and then slam each other in their respective books (one by MF the other book by the other two). I would think anyone engaged in an illegal plot would be afraid of offending the others in on the plot.

One of the points I made on thread about the blue wall of silence is that anyone depending on the blue wall of silence would be afraid of death bed confessions and of people getting drunk and talking. The blue wall of silence couldn't prevent that. If you add that problem to the possibility of someone blowing the whistle and selling the story to the press, the blue wall of silence protecting Fuhrman, Lange, and Vannatter would be pretty precarious.