Random Discussions On The Case

[GreenIce]

He did. Remember the "never ever" question?:)

William,

I may be wrong but Darden does not seem to ask about any dark clothes that were found in the washer.

I think he asked the maid just if she ever saw a dark sweat suit.

Also, GiGi was only working for Simpson about two months or so--why didn't they ask Michelle? I am sure her testimony would have been more valuable regarding the clothes.

[martin II]

GI
you were correct and bob was wrong.
Furhman, vangatter said they entered a back door to the bar area.This means
they entered into the first door from katos room the south most door.
and into the FAMILY ROOM where the bar area is. The first of three doors.

Kaelin said, “WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.”

If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you will be able to see exactly what door Arnelle, the detectives, and Kaelin used. The door nearest to Kaelin and Arnelle’s rooms, the first of three doors that lead into the family room.
-----------------

BUT

Here Phillips says he entered a door INTO THE LIVING ROOM. The living room has french doors. and is the doors at the north end of the house.

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.


So Phillips entered a door on the opposite end of the house than Furhman and vanhatter.

PHILLIPS ON THE NORTH END AND VANHATTER ON THE SOUTH END.

The detectives did not have their stories togeather . I believe they were not telling the truth and this caused them to give different stories.

[martin II]

More from Ron Phillips:

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: I JUST WENT OVER TO A DOORWAY THAT LED OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. IT WAS KIND OF A -- I DON'T KNOW -- PATIO TYPE -- WELL, IT IS OFF THE KITCHEN, LEADS OUT TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, TOWARD THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOU DOING OUT THERE?

A: JUST STANDING THERE. TOM LANGE WAS BASICALLY TALKING TO ARNELLE AND THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT FOR ME TO DO, NOTHING FOR ME TO DO AT THAT TIME.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I WAS APPROACHED BY MARK FUHRMAN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHO WALKED UP TO ME AND SAID --



The point is that Ron Phillips went to the door at the front of the house and MF approaches him.

So not only does MF leave through the front door to go find the glove but he also uses the front of the house to tell Phillips of his big find.

Ron Phillips testimony is really nothing more then a bunch of double talk. He makes it clear that whatever Arnelle said was wasn't listened to by him.

IMO.

Some time ago i mentioned that on another message board several people offered the idea that Phillips was stand at the front of the house as a look out for furhman as furhman went to the walkway and planted the glove and then said he found it.

[William Anthony]

William,

I may be wrong but Darden does not seem to ask about any dark clothes that were found in the washer.

I think he asked the maid just if she ever saw a dark sweat suit.

Also, GiGi was only working for Simpson about two months or so--why didn't they ask Michelle? I am sure her testimony would have been more valuable regarding the clothes.

GreenIce,

you are not wrong but Martin said that Darden did not talk to Gi Gi about sweats. He attempted but did not get enough from her to even remotely try to connect Simpson to any sweats allegedly found in the laundry room.

[William Anthony]

GI
you were correct and bob was wrong.
Furhman, vangatter said they entered a back door to the bar area.This means
they entered into the first door from katos room the south most door.
and into the FAMILY ROOM where the bar area is. The first of three doors.

Kaelin said, “WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.”

If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you will be able to see exactly what door Arnelle, the detectives, and Kaelin used. The door nearest to Kaelin and Arnelle’s rooms, the first of three doors that lead into the family room.
-----------------

BUT

Here Phillips says he entered a door INTO THE LIVING ROOM. The living room has french doors. and is the doors at the north end of the house.

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.


So Phillips entered a door on the opposite end of the house than Furhman and vanhatter.

PHILLIPS ON THE NORTH END AND VANHATTER ON THE SOUTH END.

The detectives did not have their stories togeather . I believe they were not telling the truth and this caused them to give different stories.

GreenIce and Martin,

I would like to thank you both for providing information/evidence from which I can form an informed opinion as to which parties may have been incorrect in their testimonies. Thank you.

[martin II]

William,

I may be wrong but Darden does not seem to ask about any dark clothes that were found in the washer.

I think he asked the maid just if she ever saw a dark sweat suit.

Also, GiGi was only working for Simpson about two months or so--why didn't they ask Michelle? I am sure her testimony would have been more valuable regarding the clothes.

GI
YOU ARE CPORRECT. Darden never asked GIGI about any sweats. Not one time.

Note Kato did wash his clothes in the washer and he could het to the washing room from his room inside the house.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the clothes that were in the hamper, I saw some--

MR. COCHRAN: Excuse me, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: --I saw some panties--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: I saw some parties in and around the washing machine. Mr. Simpson never wore any panties around that house, did he?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And you know that those clothes and that hamper, that was Arnelle's clothes; isn't that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, they are.

MR. COCHRAN: And Arnelle would wash her clothes inside the house there; isn't that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And would Kato Kaelin also wash his clothes in the house also?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, does Mr. Simpson shave every day as far as you know?

MS. GUARIN: I think, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to--you were asked some questions

[martin II]

GreenIce and Martin,

I would like to thank you both for providing information/evidence from which I can form an informed opinion as to which parties may have been incorrect in their testimonies. Thank you.

William
i can give you a picture of the layout of rockingham so you can see the door Phillips said he entered and the door Vanhatter and furhman said they entered if you need it.It is on wagner.

Bob tried to confuse the issue but he made a mistake in not reading where phillips said he went inside the house.

[GreenIce]

Some time ago i mentioned that on another message board several people offered the idea that Phillips was stand at the front of the house as a look out for furhman as furhman went to the walkway and planted the glove and then said he found it.

Martin,

You need read to Phillips criminal trial and civil trial testimony, one right after the other. In the civil trial, Phillips claims that he saw MF leave through a side door when MF says the left through the front door when he went to find the glove.

Also, you know that infamous picture debate? Well Phillips is busted because he says they both were sent over to see the Bundy glove and see if it was a match. In both trials, Phillips testifies that he never made this comparison and he never was with MF again until much later in the day.

What is clear in civil trial testimony is that he makes sure that MF is always in his eyesight, accept when he goes to find the glove.

His testimony is completely opposite of what he testified in the criminal trial regarding his cell phone.

Also, I have picked up on something, Riske is a key player in this. He is at the center of everything. I think many people have overlooked him. I find it odd he is the center of the debate about OJ Simpson being involved in the murders, using Nicole's house phone, the cell phone debate and taking the picture of MF pointing at the glove debate.

Remember when I posted that VA seemed to have screamed, "See Me" with his actions that day to the media? And I felt it was take the pressure off of MF? Well perhaps MF wasn't the only one he was putting this performance on.

[tv]

Phillips clearly testified that they went into the smaller rear door (not the French doors) Arnelle opened the door and Arnelle, Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter entered the house. There are two diagrams, the bottom diagram is in color and there are red arrows on it that indicate where all the doors are.

Post the testimony where you think Phillips says there were five detectives at Rockingham early that morning. Include the date please.

bobaugust

I just reread the testimony of the four detectives and Kato and they all unequivocally state that they went in through the back door. I don't see anything sinister in them all saying Arnelle opened the door with her keys. I believe she did have keys in her hand, she led the way and they had the impression she used them to open the door. Perhaps she was going to take them through the front door but remembered she hadn't reset the alarm and had left the back door open so she took them through there. Phillips, Vannatter, Lange, Fuhrman and Kato had no reason to lie about what door they entered -- Arnelle did.

[William Anthony]

William
i can give you a picture of the layout of rockingham so you can see the door Phillips said he entered and the door Vanhatter and furhman said they entered if you need it.It is on wagner.

Bob tried to confuse the issue but he made a mistake in not reading where phillips said he went inside the house.

I read that earlier when I read the testimony but the whole issue is irrelevant to me because no one was charged with accessory after the fact and some want to ignore the fact that there is no evidence that Simpson contacted anyone and asked them to clean up but there is evidence to the contrary in that the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle had to contact Ms. Randa to discover her daddy's whereabouts, indicating no contact had been made between any of them. I don't see where engaging in this type of rank speculation in order to make disparaging remarks about others contributes in any meaningful and mature way to an adult discussion and, of course, this is just my opinion being respectfully stated.

[martin II]

I just reread the testimony of the four detectives and Kato and they all unequivocally state that they went in through the back door. I don't see anything sinister in them all saying Arnelle opened the door with her keys. I believe she did have keys in her hand, she led the way and they had the impression she used them to open the door. Perhaps she was going to take them through the front door but remembered she hadn't reset the alarm and had left the back door open so she took them through there. Phillips, Vannatter, Lange, Fuhrman and Kato had no reason to lie about what door they entered -- Arnelle did.

That is not true. below is phillips testimony where he says he went into the living room

vanahatter and furhman say they entered into the family room

These rooms are on two different ends of the house.
Both cannot be true.

To say they all gave the same testimony is just NOT TRUE.



GI
you were correct and bob was wrong.
Furhman, vangatter said they entered a back door to the bar area.This means
they entered into the first door from katos room the south most door.
and into the FAMILY ROOM where the bar area is. The first of three doors.

Kaelin said, “WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.”

If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you will be able to see exactly what door Arnelle, the detectives, and Kaelin used. The door nearest to Kaelin and Arnelle’s rooms, the first of three doors that lead into the family room.
-----------------

BUT

Here Phillips says he entered a door INTO THE LIVING ROOM. The living room has french doors. and is the doors at the north end of the house.

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.


So Phillips entered a door on the opposite end of the house than Furhman and vanhatter.

PHILLIPS ON THE NORTH END AND VANHATTER ON THE SOUTH END.

The detectives did not have their stories togeather . I believe they were not telling the truth and this caused them to give different stories.

[martin II]

I just reread the testimony of the four detectives and Kato and they all unequivocally state that they went in through the back door. I don't see anything sinister in them all saying Arnelle opened the door with her keys. I believe she did have keys in her hand, she led the way and they had the impression she used them to open the door. Perhaps she was going to take them through the front door but remembered she hadn't reset the alarm and had left the back door open so she took them through there. Phillips, Vannatter, Lange, Fuhrman and Kato had no reason to lie about what door they entered -- Arnelle did.

WRONG

PHILLIPS said they entered a door on the north side of the house.
vanhatter ,furhman said they entered a door at the south side of the house.

one of them is lying. they both cannot be correct.

Both testimonies are posted above. All posters can see for themselves.

Also a video was shown that zoomed in on the back doors knobs.No outside looks were on any door so Ms Arnell could not have unlocked any outside back door to get in.

[GreenIce]

WRONG

PHILLIPS said they entered a door on the north side of the house.
vanhatter ,furhman said they entered a door at the south side of the house.

one of them is lying. they both cannot be correct.

Both testimonies are posted above. All posters can see for themselves.

Also a video was shown that zoomed in on the back doors knobs.No outside looks were on any door so Ms Arnell could not have unlocked any outside back door to get in.

Martin,

In both trials, Kato also testifies that all of them followed Arnelle into the house. He never waviers on that. However, in his civil trial testimony, he also says that he saw Arnelle with a lot of keys but does not remember her using them.

I just thought of this question, what key pad does he use to set the alarm?

Also, the civil trial hightlights, it says that Arnelle's testimony on which door they entered contradicts with three detectives. It doesn't say anything about Kato.

[martin II]

GI
YOU ARE CPORRECT. Darden never asked GIGI about any sweats. Not one time.

Note Kato did wash his clothes in the washer and he could het to the washing room from his room inside the house.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the clothes that were in the hamper, I saw some--

MR. COCHRAN: Excuse me, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: --I saw some panties--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: I saw some parties in and around the washing machine. Mr. Simpson never wore any panties around that house, did he?

MS. GUARIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And you know that those clothes and that hamper, that was Arnelle's clothes; isn't that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, they are.

MR. COCHRAN: And Arnelle would wash her clothes inside the house there; isn't that correct?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And would Kato Kaelin also wash his clothes in the house also?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, does Mr. Simpson shave every day as far as you know?

MS. GUARIN: I think, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to--you were asked some questions

Kato could walk from his room through the back office and be right at the washing machine room.All without going outside the house.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

Doesn't it only make sense, since Arnelle knew the layout of the house and knew which doors were available to enter the main house, she would have choosen the closest one to get into the house?

She knew something terrible was wrong, she knew she was not going to learn anything until she was at least making the attempt to get inside the house and call Cathy Randa.

[GreenIce]

WRONG

PHILLIPS said they entered a door on the north side of the house.
vanhatter ,furhman said they entered a door at the south side of the house.

one of them is lying. they both cannot be correct.

Both testimonies are posted above. All posters can see for themselves.

Also a video was shown that zoomed in on the back doors knobs.No outside looks were on any door so Ms Arnell could not have unlocked any outside back door to get in.

Martin,

Great post.

Arnelle had no reason to lie. However, she did have reason as did Kato to be mistaken.

The detectives, as proved later, had every reason to lie as well as not having an excuse or reason to be mistaken.

[GreenIce]

Kato walked around the house to the front door to set the alarm on that key pad.. the same front door key pad that Arnell disarmed, unlocked that door and let the others in.

William is correct the door discussion is just a vehicle to bash Ms Arnell.It means nothing.

i posted the conflicting detectives testimony to show they did not tell the same story about the door they came in.

Martin,

I disagree with William's term of "bashing" in regards to Arnelle. The G's are flat out saying she was an accomplice and they have no proof of this.

IMO, it should be obvious to all that the 3 detectives had to lie about the door because they had to account for MF's whereabouts at all times. However, Vanatter seems to pop in and out.

It only makes sense that Vanatter, while Kato and MF were talking that he would look at the rear of the house and check for any doors that may have been entered, looked for any blood drops. IMO, that is when he realized that if wanted inside the house, then he would have to follow the same path as the others.

Doesn't it make sense, the detectives who were in such a hurry to get inside the house, did not ask Arnelle or point another enterance into the house that was much closer then having to go around the front or the side?

Also, doesn't it seem odd that MC never asked any of the detectives if they saw Arnelle disarm the alarm?

[martin II]

Martin,

Doesn't it only make sense, since Arnelle knew the layout of the house and knew which doors were available to enter the main house, she would have choosen the closest one to get into the house?

She knew something terrible was wrong, she knew she was not going to learn anything until she was at least making the attempt to get inside the house and call Cathy Randa.

Arnell knew that she could not get into the house from the back doors because she knew two had very high locks on the inside and the other tree were nailed shut.

I think oj had it like that because there were many doors at his house and it was smart not to have locks on the outside of the doors.

Arnell knew what door had to be used. the detectives were just following her.

When the issue of the washing machine came up the da was trying to say Arnell washed the clothes but the only way they could try this was to try to say she had entered the back door. So they decided to lie about the back door to prove she washed the clothes. But they forgot to inspect the back doors for outside locks.That is why Phillips told a different story about which door he entered than vanhatter and furhman.
now if they were all telling the truth they all would have said they entered the SAME DOOR. they didn't.

[martin II]

Martin,

I disagree with William's term of "bashing" in regards to Arnelle. The G's are flat out saying she was an accomplice and they have no proof of this.

IMO, it should be obvious to all that the 3 detectives had to lie about the door because they had to account for MF's whereabouts at all times. However, Vanatter seems to pop in and out.

It only makes sense that Vanatter, while Kato and MF were talking that he would look at the rear of the house and check for any doors that may have been entered, looked for any blood drops. IMO, that is when he realized that if wanted inside the house, then he would have to follow the same path as the others.

Doesn't it make sense, the detectives who were in such a hurry to get inside the house, did not ask Arnelle or point another enterance into the house that was much closer then having to go around the front or the side?

Also, doesn't it seem odd that MC never asked any of the detectives if they saw Arnelle disarm the alarm?

Vanhatter proberly did look at the back doors where he was and saw no outside locks while Arnell was getting her kets. When she came back with her keys kato saw her with the keys in her hand and she started towards the north side of the back yard,pass the pool around to the front door and they
just followed her to that front door. They didn't realize at that time that the door they entered would be a issue.

The proof that Ms Arnell did not lie is when she testified that no one could get in any back door, Clarke did not offer any pictures of the doors to prove her wrong. Before Arnell testified Clarke and le had planty of time to take pictures of the front and back of the house including the doors abd i am sure they did. So when Ms Arnell said there were no outside locks on the back doors, why didn't Clarke just show pictures of the back doors with outside locks.???????
The reason was there were no locks on the outside of the back doors for Ms Arnell to unlock to let them in.

Clarke did not ask Ms Arnell if she disarmed the front door alarm because she knew kATO had set that alarm and that Ms Arnell would say she did disarm that alarm at the same key pad.THE FRONT DOOR.

[GreenIce]

Arnell knew that she could not get into the house from the back doors because she knew two had very high locks on the inside and the other tree were nailed shut.

I think oj had it like that because there were many doors at his house and it was smart not to have locks on the outside of the doors.

Arnell knew what door had to be used. the detectives were just following her.

When the issue of the washing machine came up the da was trying to say Arnell washed the clothes but the only way they could try this was to try to say she had entered the back door. So they decided to lie about the back door to prove she washed the clothes. But they forgot to inspect the back doors for outside locks.That is why Phillips told a different story about which door he entered than vanhatter and furhman.
now if they were all telling the truth they all would have said they entered the SAME DOOR. they didn't.

Martin,

I still don't think Arnelle washing any clothes played a role in the DA's thinking. Remember, Clark in her book says the sweats were in the hamper. So the washing machine never entered into it, IMO.

I also think the DA's did want to introduce any evidence or give even the slightest hint that Simpson had help, even after the fact. To go after Arnelle in the criminal trial would have been a huge mistake.

Also, in none of the books, about the criminal trial, do the authors go after Arnelle on this issue. They write they entered the door or the back door, etc., but no mention of a key pad or that Arnelle acted in away that would leave them to believe she was covering for her father.

I still think the focus was on trying to let the jury believe that MF had no means to plant the glove that he would have been seen doing it.

IMO, Petrocelli knew he had to come up with something that would help his timeline. When he adopted the defense's timeline, he knew he had to come up with an accomplice that would explain why no bloody clothes were found.

Also, it was hinted that someone tried to clean up the inside of the Bronco and because the light was not working, is why they didn't do such a good job. It makes no sense that Simpson would have an accomplice who would only focus on the washing machine.

Is Petrocelli saying that Arnelle went into her father's room and took the clothes out his hamper and then wash them? Then how did she miss the socks? Surely she would have noticed them?

It makes no sense that OJ would enlist an accomplice and the only item of worry was the washing machine.

Also, looking at the picture of the contents of the washing machine, they don't appear to be wet. Wouldn't they have been wet or appeared to be wet inside the washing machine? And doesn't it only make sense that the contents of the washing machine would have been laid out and filmed?

IMO, since the socks were planted, is that much of a leap of faith that dark clothes could have been put inside the washing machine?

And what about the blood fingerprints inside the washing machine, how did they miss those?

[GreenIce]

Vanhatter proberly did look at the back doors where he was and saw no outside locks while Arnell was getting her kets. When she came back with her keys kato saw her with the keys in her hand and she started towards the north side of the back yard,pass the pool around to the front door and they
just followed her to that front door. They didn't realize at that time that the door they entered would be a issue.

The proof that Ms Arnell did not lie is when she testified that no one could get in any back door, Clarke did not offer any pictures of the doors to prove her wrong. Before Arnell testified Clarke and le had planty of time to take pictures of the front and back of the house including the doors abd i am sure they did. So when Ms Arnell said there were no outside locks on the back doors, why didn't Clarke just show pictures of the back doors with outside locks.???????
The reason was there were no locks on the outside of the back doors for Ms Arnell to unlock to let them in.

Clarke did not ask Ms Arnell if she disarmed the front door alarm because she knew kATO had set that alarm and that Ms Arnell would say she did disarm that alarm at the same key pad.THE FRONT DOOR.

Martin,

I think Clark did not ask Arnelle or the other detectives about her disarming the alarm because she already knew the door the detectives said they entered did not have one.

[weezer]

I just reread the testimony of the four detectives and Kato and they all unequivocally state that they went in through the back door. I don't see anything sinister in them all saying Arnelle opened the door with her keys. I believe she did have keys in her hand, she led the way and they had the impression she used them to open the door. Perhaps she was going to take them through the front door but remembered she hadn't reset the alarm and had left the back door open so she took them through there. Phillips, Vannatter, Lange, Fuhrman and Kato had no reason to lie about what door they entered -- Arnelle did.

I'm confused -- is someone trying to say the only entrance to the main house was through the office or the front door? that makes no sense. . . .that would mean that for orenthal to use the tennis courts, guest rooms, etc., he had to come in and out the front door? hmmm

[martin II]

The prosecution never accused Ms Arnell of washing any clothes in any washing machine. For posters to continue to say she did without any testimony to that, is just more bashing of a Simpson family member.

In reading her testimo0ny i did find some things i did not know before

1, That about two weeks before nicole was killed she was sick at Bundy and oj was there to bring her food and flowers and to take care for her.
2. That when Nicole was at GG and at Bundy not long before she was killed
she was at ojs house daily visiting him some times with the kids and some times alone. Taking advantage of the swimming pool and hot tube in bathing suit.

So if she was so afraid of oj as some believe why was she visiting him at his house so much. Why was he at Bundy taking care of her. If she thought he was going to kill her why was she going to see him so much at his house and allowing him to be at her house.

[martin II]

I'm confused -- is someone trying to say the only entrance to the main house was through the office or the front door? that makes no sense. . . .that would mean that for orenthal to use the tennis courts, guest rooms, etc., he had to come in and out the front door? hmmm

No it does not mean that at all.

There were two locks on the two french doors that led to the back yard,pool.hot tub.These lockes were up high and were on the inside of the doors.
So if one was in the house and wanted to go to the pool. one only had to uinlock the high inside locks on the french doors and walk out to the pool.

once the doors were opened from the inside one could go out and in.

[martin II]

Martin,

I think Clark did not ask Arnelle or the other detectives about her disarming the alarm because she already knew the door the detectives said they entered did not have one.

That could have been her reason.

[tv]

I'm confused -- is someone trying to say the only entrance to the main house was through the office or the front door? that makes no sense. . . .that would mean that for orenthal to use the tennis courts, guest rooms, etc., he had to come in and out the front door? hmmm

That back door was left unlocked most of the time and could only be unlocked from inside. It's my understand that the other back doors were nailed shut because the child that drowned had gotten into the pool area that way. Kato testified that the door from his room to the main house was kept locked and alarmed so it wasn't used to enter the house.

The link below is a good place to see all of the detectives, Kato's and Arnelle's testimony regarding the door they entered.

http://bobaugust.com/arnelle.htm#no1

[martin II]

Martin,

I still don't think Arnelle washing any clothes played a role in the DA's thinking. Remember, Clark in her book says the sweats were in the hamper. So the washing machine never entered into it, IMO.

I also think the DA's did want to introduce any evidence or give even the slightest hint that Simpson had help, even after the fact. To go after Arnelle in the criminal trial would have been a huge mistake.

Also, in none of the books, about the criminal trial, do the authors go after Arnelle on this issue. They write they entered the door or the back door, etc., but no mention of a key pad or that Arnelle acted in away that would leave them to believe she was covering for her father.

I still think the focus was on trying to let the jury believe that MF had no means to plant the glove that he would have been seen doing it.

IMO, Petrocelli knew he had to come up with something that would help his timeline. When he adopted the defense's timeline, he knew he had to come up with an accomplice that would explain why no bloody clothes were found.

Also, it was hinted that someone tried to clean up the inside of the Bronco and because the light was not working, is why they didn't do such a good job. It makes no sense that Simpson would have an accomplice who would only focus on the washing machine.

Is Petrocelli saying that Arnelle went into her father's room and took the clothes out his hamper and then wash them? Then how did she miss the socks? Surely she would have noticed them?

It makes no sense that OJ would enlist an accomplice and the only item of worry was the washing machine.

Also, looking at the picture of the contents of the washing machine, they don't appear to be wet. Wouldn't they have been wet or appeared to be wet inside the washing machine? And doesn't it only make sense that the contents of the washing machine would have been laid out and filmed?

IMO, since the socks were planted, is that much of a leap of faith that dark clothes could have been put inside the washing machine?

And what about the blood fingerprints inside the washing machine, how did they miss those?


it all makes no sense.

[martin II]

That back door was left unlocked most of the time and could only be unlocked from inside. It's my understand that the other back doors were nailed shut because the child that drowned had gotten into the pool area that way. Kato testified that the door from his room to the main house was kept locked and alarmed so it wasn't used to enter the house.

The link below is a good place to see all of the detectives, Kato's and Arnelle's testimony regarding the door they entered.

http://bobaugust.com/arnelle.htm#no1

Not true because kato used the back office to type his resume on 6/12
There was no testimony that any internal, inside the house door was locked on 6/12

[weezer]

That back door was left unlocked most of the time and could only be unlocked from inside. It's my understand that the other back doors were nailed shut because the child that drowned had gotten into the pool area that way. Kato testified that the door from his room to the main house was kept locked and alarmed so it wasn't used to enter the house.

The link below is a good place to see all of the detectives, Kato's and Arnelle's testimony regarding the door they entered.

http://bobaugust.com/arnelle.htm#no1

so the prosecution's inference that arnelle, after taking her laundry basket to the main house laundry room and adding her lingerie to the washer with the sweatsuit then left the main house through the back door that she unlocked and left it unlocked. Excellent. :beer:

[martin II]

Martin,

Great post.

Arnelle had no reason to lie. However, she did have reason as did Kato to be mistaken.

The detectives, as proved later, had every reason to lie as well as not having an excuse or reason to be mistaken.

Simple Arnell had no reason to lie about a door the detectives did.and they told different lies.

[martin II]

so the prosecution's inference that arnelle, after taking her laundry basket to the main house laundry room and adding her lingerie to the washer with the sweatsuit then left the main house through the back door that she unlocked and left it unlocked. Excellent. :beer:

The testimony proves that what you posted is a opinion not facts.imo

[martin II]

so the prosecution's inference that arnelle, after taking her laundry basket to the main house laundry room and adding her lingerie to the washer with the sweatsuit then left the main house through the back door that she unlocked and left it unlocked. Excellent. :beer:

If as you say Arnell left a back door unlocked whyt did she have to go get her keys to get in.Kato said she had her keys in her hand when she opened a door.If she left the back door open why did she have keys in her hand?
It makes no sense for her to have keys in her hand if she was going to open the back door because there were no outside locks on those doors. She had keys in her hand because she was opening the front door.

[martin II]

That back door was left unlocked most of the time and could only be unlocked from inside. It's my understand that the other back doors were nailed shut because the child that drowned had gotten into the pool area that way. Kato testified that the door from his room to the main house was kept locked and alarmed so it wasn't used to enter the house.

The link below is a good place to see all of the detectives, Kato's and Arnelle's testimony regarding the door they entered.

http://bobaugust.com/arnelle.htm#no1

This is a biased web site.

[tv]

so the prosecution's inference that arnelle, after taking her laundry basket to the main house laundry room and adding her lingerie to the washer with the sweatsuit then left the main house through the back door that she unlocked and left it unlocked. Excellent. :beer:

Yes, and that's why the back door didn't alarm when all four detectives, Arnelle and Kato entered -- the alarm was never reset after Arnelle disarmed it, according to the plaintiff's theory. :) IMO, as I said before, she had her keys but didn't use them. The detectives didn't know at that time that you couldn't unlock the door from the outside. It was their impression that she unlocked it because she had keys in her hand.

The testimony in the link I posted tells the story. The testimony is what it is no matter the spin put on it.

[martin II]

That back door was left unlocked most of the time and could only be unlocked from inside. It's my understand that the other back doors were nailed shut because the child that drowned had gotten into the pool area that way. Kato testified that the door from his room to the main house was kept locked and alarmed so it wasn't used to enter the house.

The link below is a good place to see all of the detectives, Kato's and Arnelle's testimony regarding the door they entered.

http://bobaugust.com/arnelle.htm#no1

There in so court testimony that OJ Simpson left any door to his house unlocked at any time. Not with all the valuable stuff that was inside.
That is a piece of misinformation.

[martin II]

Yes, and that's why the back door didn't alarm when all four detectives, Arnelle and Kato entered -- the alarm was never reset after Arnelle disarmed it, according to the plaintiff's theory. :) IMO, as I said before, she had her keys but didn't use them. The detectives didn't know at that time that you couldn't unlock the door from the outside. It was their impression that she unlocked it because she had keys in her hand.

Clarke realized that she could not prove Arnell wrong about no locks being on the outside of the back doors. That is why she left the subject when Arnell testified to that fact. Vanhatter had looked at the back doors and saw no outside locks.there was only a door knob. When the camera zoomed in on the
outside doors during defense questioning only door knobs were seen No out side door locks on the back doors.

[weezer]

Yes, and that's why the back door didn't alarm when all four detectives, Arnelle and Kato entered -- the alarm was never reset after Arnelle disarmed it, according to the plaintiff's theory. :) IMO, as I said before, she had her keys but didn't use them. The detectives didn't know at that time that you couldn't unlock the door from the outside. It was their impression that she unlocked it because she had keys in her hand.

The testimony in the link I posted tells the story. The testimony is what it is no matter the spin put on it.

LOL -- I've been known to grab my glasses on my way to the shower. sometimes, people do things out of habit -- like grabbing keys on your way out the door. do you remember reading any testimony that arnelle locked her door when she left or that the door locked automatically?

[tv]

LOL -- I've been known to grab my glasses on my way to the shower. sometimes, people do things out of habit -- like grabbing keys on your way out the door. do you remember reading any testimony that arnelle locked her door when she left or that the door locked automatically?

Good question. I don't recall reading that in any of the testimony. I'll have to read it again. People do things out of habit. She may have grabbed the keys because the detectives asked her to get keys and she did it automatically. According to her testimony she was 'scared and nervous'. IMO, it was starting to dawn on her that there was something very wrong and she was starting to connect it to washing Daddy's sweats earlier.

[weezer]

Good question. I don't recall reading that in any of the testimony. I'll have to read it again. People do things out of habit. She may have grabbed the keys because the detectives asked her to get keys and she did it automatically. According to her testimony she was 'scared and nervous'. IMO, it was starting to dawn on her that there was something very wrong and she was starting to connect it to washing Daddy's sweats earlier.

agreed.

[William Anthony]

so the prosecution's inference that arnelle, after taking her laundry basket to the main house laundry room and adding her lingerie to the washer with the sweatsuit then left the main house through the back door that she unlocked and left it unlocked. Excellent. :beer:

Please, provide the link to the prosecution's theory, regarding the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle.

[William Anthony]

Where are the phone records connecting the alleged criminal activity?

[martin II]

There in so court testimony that OJ Simpson left any door to his house unlocked at any time. Not with all the valuable stuff that was inside.
That is a piece of misinformation.

Proof was posted that there were no locks on the back doors so now a poster is posting the idea that a door was never locked at ojs house. That is just stuff that is made up in a effort to side step the facts.

PS

IF oj had been comming from Bundy and there was a back door that was always left open, oj could have walked through the south walkway and into this unlocked door to his house and never been seen.Thats nonsense.
all my opinion.

[martin II]

LOL -- I've been known to grab my glasses on my way to the shower. sometimes, people do things out of habit -- like grabbing keys on your way out the door. do you remember reading any testimony that arnelle locked her door when she left or that the door locked automatically?

Le had control of all the rooms on the property. no reason for her to lock her doors until they told her to leave.It makes no differance if she did or did not imo

[martin II]

LOL -- I've been known to grab my glasses on my way to the shower. sometimes, people do things out of habit -- like grabbing keys on your way out the door. do you remember reading any testimony that arnelle locked her door when she left or that the door locked automatically?

Ms Arnell was asked to get her keys from her room so she could let them in.If there was a door that stayed unlocked all the time she would have told them i don't need keys we can go in this door right here.
She was not grabbing some keys by habit. She was asked to get them. she did and led them to the front door and Kato said she had them in her hand as she approached to open the door.THE FRONT DOOR.

[martin II]

Where are the phone records connecting the alleged criminal activity?

There are none. Ms Arnell was not accused of any criminal activity as claimed by a couple posters.Not directly or indirectly. Thats just made up stuff.

[martin II]

Clarke and Cochran said the clothes were in a HAMPER. Sone posters say the clothes were in the washing machine. Who knows best.The lead DA and the lead defense lawyer or some posters.

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, prior to that time, the time we are now talking about, June 6th or thereabouts, did there come a time when your dad and Nicole Brown Simpson stopped seeing each other again, if you recall?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Was that sometime after mother's day of 1994?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Around that time?

MS. SIMPSON: It was around, yeah, mother's day.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, during the time--you have told us that during the time that Mr. Simpson was seeing Nicole Brown Simpson he was not seeing Paula Barbieri; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And after this time when Mr. Simpson, your father, was no longer seeing Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, did you have occasion to again see Paula Barbieri?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Was that after they--he had broken up with Nicole Brown Simpson?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And again, would that be after mother's day or so in May of 1994 that you saw Paula again?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to discuss the various things that were taking place in your father's life at that time with him at all?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You were somebody he would come and talk with?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Prior to--strike that. Back to this particular week that we were talking about, the week of June 6, 1994, you had describe for us that you became aware that your dad went out of town that particular week. Do you recall that?

MS. SIMPSON: Pardon me?

MR. COCHRAN: You described for us that your dad went out of town during the week of June 6th, 1994?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Prior to that, before the June 6th week, do you recall a time that after your dad and Miss Nicole Brown Simpson were no longer dating that she became sick with pneumonia?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall that?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Was that in the month of May, after they had broken up?

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, objection. It is all leading.

MR. COCHRAN: I am asking.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: When was that when she came down with pneumonia, if you recall, your best recollection?

MS. SIMPSON: Sometime in the month of May.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell us what you observed with regard to that. Did you ever see her at the house, the Rockingham residence, during this time frame?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were you aware of her being at the Bundy location?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you aware of whether or not your father did anything in taking care of her?

MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Foundation sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to whether or not your father cared for Miss Nicole Brown Simpson when she had pneumonia, how do you know that? What were the circumstances?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to see Miss Nicole Brown Simpson during this time of time when she was sick?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you describe that for us and tell us where you saw her.

MS. SIMPSON: I saw her once at Justin's graduation and then I went over to her house one day.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you say went over to her house, you went to the Bundy location?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You became aware that she was sick?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What was her ailment at this time?

MS. SIMPSON: She had pneumonia.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to that, were you aware of whether or not your father did anything or visited her during this particular period of time?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us what you observed in that regard?

MS. SIMPSON: He went over to her house one day to help--

MS. CLARK: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SIMPSON: He went over to the house to help her one day with the kids and to bring her some soup and medicine to see if she was okay.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. This was during the time after they had broken up while she was sick; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, back again to this week of June 6th, on this particular week did you become aware, toward the end of the week, specifically I guess around Friday, June 10th, did you become aware of your father coming back to California?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall when you saw him in and around that period of time, June 10, June 11, if at all?

MS. SIMPSON: I don't believe that I saw him on that day.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MS. SIMPSON: Not in person.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You were aware he was back in town, however?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you recall whether or not you saw him at all on the Saturday which I think would be the 11th of June?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And on Sunday, June 12, 1994, did you spend the previous night, the Saturday night, in your residence in your room there on People's 66 as indicated?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you have occasion on that morning to get up and go someplace?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Where did you go at that time?

MS. SIMPSON: I went to church.

MR. COCHRAN: What church do you go to?

[martin II]

Good question. I don't recall reading that in any of the testimony. I'll have to read it again. People do things out of habit. She may have grabbed the keys because the detectives asked her to get keys and she did it automatically. According to her testimony she was 'scared and nervous'. IMO, it was starting to dawn on her that there was something very wrong and she was starting to connect it to washing Daddy's sweats earlier.

Ms Arnell knew that there were no locks on the outside rear doors and that she had opened the front door to let them in by disarming the front door alarm and using her keys to open the front door. she had no concern about the three lies the detectives would tell. She also knew that Clarke could not prove her statement about no locks on the pouside of the back doors was wrong.So she appeared to be cool,calm and collected.

[martin II]

So far testimony proves:

1. There was no outside locks on any back door as claimed by the detectives.

2. Different detectives gave different testimony on what door they entered the house. causing some to believe they lied in their different testimonies.

3. Kato said Ms Arnell had her keys in her hands when she approached the door to opem it.

4. The detectives said Ms Arnell opened the door.But the only door that had to be opened with a key was the front door.

5. There was no testimony that any door at ojs house was left unlocked.

6. Clarke did not try to prove Ms Arnells testimony wrong.

7. Vanhatter was in the back yard and had time to look for locks on the back doors.He saw none.

8. There was no testimony to prove that Ms Arnell was not completely truthful in her testimony. There was testimony that some of the detectives were not truthful in their testimony.

9. Although the detectives had planty of time to get their stories togeather , they failed because they gave different testimony.

[Hipcheck]

So far testimony proves:

1. There was no outside locks on any back door as claimed by the detectives.

2. Different detectives gave different testimony on what door they entered the house. causing some to believe they lied in their different testimonies.

3. Kato said Ms Arnell had her keys in her hands when she approached the door to opem it.

4. The detectives said Ms Arnell opened the door.But the only door that had to be opened with a key was the front door.

5. There was no testimony that any door at ojs house was left unlocked.

6. Clarke did not try to prove Ms Arnells testimony wrong.

7. Vanhatter was in the back yard and had time to look for locks on the back doors.He saw none.

8. There was no testimony to prove that Ms Arnell was not completely truthful in her testimony. There was testimony that some of the detectives were not truthful in their testimony.

9. Although the detectives had planty of time to get their stories togeather , they failed because they gave different testimony.

1. None of the detectives claimed there were outside locks on those doors.

2. All the detectives gave the same testimony about goig in thru the rear door.

3. Kato said she did have keys in her hand. He never said he was her use any of them.

4. All the detectives agreed to which door Arnell opened.

5. No one checked to see if any door was left unlocked.

6. Clarke proved Arnell to be a liar.

7. There is NO "H" in Vannatter and he never said he looked for locks.

8. It was proven that Arnell is a liar and that the detectives accounts were all the same.

9. All the detectives plus Kato said they entered the house thru the rear door. I believe Arnell to be a liar.

[martin II]

1. None of the detectives claimed there were outside locks on those doors.

2. All the detectives gave the same testimony about goig in thru the rear door.

3. Kato said she did have keys in her hand. He never said he was her use any of them.

4. All the detectives agreed to which door Arnell opened.

5. No one checked to see if any door was left unlocked.

6. Clarke proved Arnell to be a liar.

7. There is NO "H" in Vannatter and he never said he looked for locks.

8. It was proven that Arnell is a liar and that the detectives accounts were all the same.

9. All the detectives plus Kato said they entered the house thru the rear door. I believe Arnell to be a liar.


i have posted testimony that proves that Phillip testified that he entered a door different from the door vamhatter said they entered.

Kato never said which door he entered in his testimony.

All the detectives did not agree on the door Arnell opened.

Which door do you believe Vanhatter said he entered through.
What door do you believe Phillips entered through.
There was no testimony that proves Ms Arnell lied in her testimony.If you believe there was you can post it if you like.

You are entitled to your opinions but it would be helpful if you identify that you are posting opinion or fact.
IMO

[bobaugust]

Kato did not testify to which door he went in.
There was no outside locks on the lower (S) three doors.Just a door knob.

Kaelin testified he and Fuhrman went in the same door he saw Arnelle and the detectives use to enter the house. The door that could only be locked or unlocked from the inside, the door that had no alarm pad near it, the door that Arnelle used to go back to her room after speaking with her father on the telephone. Not one of the two French doors that also opened into the family room but the smaller most southern door that led into the bar area of the family room.

January 23, 1996 Simpson

Q: And the next one is Kaelin's?
A: No. It's actually this--you've got two Arnelle rooms here, so both are Arnelle's room.
Q: Two Arnelle rooms, so two doors to Arnelle's.
A: Yes.
Q: And then the next one is what?
A: Kaelin's.
Q: And then the next one is what?
A: Into my pool--into my family room.
Q: From the pool area?
A: Yes.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

To me, if there were no phone records indicating a call between Simpson and the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle or Simpson and Ms. Randa and/or Ms. Randa and the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle, then there is no evidence to promulgate, in any form, the notion that the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle was engaged in any criminal activity for which she had to tell a lie, IMHO.

I see, since you think Arnelle is beautiful then that somehow means to you that she is not capable of lying despite all the evidence that proves she lied.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Kato described what door they went in, the bar area, I believe. This is how Phillips describes it:

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU WALK?

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.


Bottom line, Phillips isn't tell the truth. Unless you now what to say that Kato is involved with Arnelle who is involved with Cathy Randa who is involved with AC Cowlings who is involved with OJ Simpson to cover up for the murders of Ron and Nicole.

Nothing Philips said in this testimony contradicts what the other witnesses said except Phillips evidently mistakenly said living room for dinning room. Where is the testimony that you claim Phillips said there were five detectives at Rockingham at that time.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

More from Ron Phillips:

Q: WHY WERE YOU LOOKING FOR GIGI?

A: WE HAD BEEN TOLD BY THE WESTEC PEOPLE THAT SHE WAS A FULL -- LIVE-IN MAID, FULL-TIME, AND ARNELLE HAD ALSO BROUGHT HER NAME UP, SO WE THOUGHT IF WE COULD FIND HER, SHE MAY KNOW WHERE MR. SIMPSON WAS AT IN THE HOUSE.

Q: AND YOU WENT INTO HER ROOM THEN?

A: WE JUST WENT INTO THE ROOM BRIEFLY, YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SEE IN THE ROOM?

A: THERE WAS NOBODY INSIDE THE ROOM AND THE BED WAS COMPLETELY MADE AND THE ROOM WAS WELL ORGANIZED AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT ANYBODY HAD BEEN IN THERE RECENTLY.



The point here is that waited until they were on the way before they enterd
the house--wasn't the maid the real focus of their entry?

Also, they were told a maid worked at the house full time, doesn't that mean 40 hours?

Also, MF said he did a plate search on the Bronco and on Kato's car. Why didn't he do one on the Saab and the Bently?

Unless maids are forbidden to have cars in CA or they all drive Bentley's or Saabs.

Do you not understand what a live in maid is? A plate search was made on cars that were parked on the street, not inside the estate.

[bobaugust]

More from Ron Phillips:

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: I JUST WENT OVER TO A DOORWAY THAT LED OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. IT WAS KIND OF A -- I DON'T KNOW -- PATIO TYPE -- WELL, IT IS OFF THE KITCHEN, LEADS OUT TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, TOWARD THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOU DOING OUT THERE?

A: JUST STANDING THERE. TOM LANGE WAS BASICALLY TALKING TO ARNELLE AND THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT FOR ME TO DO, NOTHING FOR ME TO DO AT THAT TIME.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I WAS APPROACHED BY MARK FUHRMAN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHO WALKED UP TO ME AND SAID --



The point is that Ron Phillips went to the door at the front of the house and MF approaches him.

So not only does MF leave through the front door to go find the glove but he also uses the front of the house to tell Phillips of his big find.

Ron Phillips testimony is really nothing more then a bunch of double talk. He makes it clear that whatever Arnelle said was wasn't listened to by him.

IMO.

The front door was closer to the entrance of the south path then a door at the back of the house was.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

GI
you were correct and bob was wrong.
Furhman, vangatter said they entered a back door to the bar area.This means
they entered into the first door from katos room the south most door.
and into the FAMILY ROOM where the bar area is. The first of three doors.

Kaelin said, “WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.”

If you look at the diagram I posted a link to you will be able to see exactly what door Arnelle, the detectives, and Kaelin used. The door nearest to Kaelin and Arnelle’s rooms, the first of three doors that lead into the family room.
-----------------

BUT

Here Phillips says he entered a door INTO THE LIVING ROOM. The living room has french doors. and is the doors at the north end of the house.

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.


So Phillips entered a door on the opposite end of the house than Furhman and vanhatter.

PHILLIPS ON THE NORTH END AND VANHATTER ON THE SOUTH END.

The detectives did not have their stories togeather . I believe they were not telling the truth and this caused them to give different stories.

Phillips entered the house with Arnelle, Lange and Vannatter. Phillips didn’t say he entered the house into the living room, he said he walked through the living room into the kitchen. The living room doesn’t lead into the kitchen, the dinning room does. Evidenly Phillips mistakenly said living room instead of dinning room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Kato could walk from his room through the back office and be right at the washing machine room.All without going outside the house.

February 14, 1997 Kato Kaelin

Q: And there is an interior door that connects your room to the Simpson residence. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, that door is typically locked or unlocked?
A: It normally is always locked.
Q: And it's locked from your side or the other side?
A: It's locked from the other side.
Q: So if you wanted to go from your room into the Simpson residence through that interior door, you can't do so. Is that right?
A: Correct. Unless it would be opened.
Q: And you had no key to it. Right?
A: No key.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Arnell knew that she could not get into the house from the back doors because she knew two had very high locks on the inside and the other tree were nailed shut.

I think oj had it like that because there were many doors at his house and it was smart not to have locks on the outside of the doors.

Arnell knew what door had to be used. the detectives were just following her.

When the issue of the washing machine came up the da was trying to say Arnell washed the clothes but the only way they could try this was to try to say she had entered the back door. So they decided to lie about the back door to prove she washed the clothes. But they forgot to inspect the back doors for outside locks.That is why Phillips told a different story about which door he entered than vanhatter and furhman.
now if they were all telling the truth they all would have said they entered the SAME DOOR. they didn't.

More police bashing by you but at least you seem to understand the significance of Arnelle’s lies. The evidence is that the police did not lie about this, Arnelle did since Kato Kaelin corroborates the detectives testimony not Arnelle’s. As I previously posted this was not the only lie Arnelle told under oath.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The front door was closer to the entrance of the south path then a door at the back of the house was.

bobaugust

Furhman didn't know where the s walkway was unless he had been there previously.

[fgump2]

The prosecution never accused Ms Arnell of washing any clothes in any washing machine. For posters to continue to say she did without any testimony to that, is just more bashing of a Simpson family member.

In reading her testimo0ny i did find some things i did not know before

1, That about two weeks before nicole was killed she was sick at Bundy and oj was there to bring her food and flowers and to take care for her.
2. That when Nicole was at GG and at Bundy not long before she was killed
she was at ojs house daily visiting him some times with the kids and some times alone. Taking advantage of the swimming pool and hot tube in bathing suit.

So if she was so afraid of oj as some believe why was she visiting him at his house so much. Why was he at Bundy taking care of her. If she thought he was going to kill her why was she going to see him so much at his house and allowing him to be at her house.

Some people have written that Mr. SImpson brought her food and other things when she was sick so he could steal a key to the gate. I don't have an explanation for some of the other thins you wrote about.

Another point about the Bronco chase. Simpson had agreed to turn himself in at 11:00 on that day. The bronco chase unofficially began when he was about 3 hours late in turning himself in. Some people would say that doesn't mean he was running, but he wasn't being prompt.

[martin II]

Some people have written that Mr. SImpson brought her food and other things when she was sick so he could steal a key to the gate. I don't have an explanation for some of the other thins you wrote about.

Another point about the Bronco chase. Simpson had agreed to turn himself in at 11:00 on that day. The bronco chase unofficially began when he was about 3 hours late in turning himself in. Some people would say that doesn't mean he was running, but he wasn't being prompt.

I have never read a comment making the claim you are making.I have no idea who the "some people are" that you speak of. I always thought he was there because she was sick. But one can always carve the most negative thought
out of about anything.

All that was in my post is court testimony by a witness.

[martin II]

Some people have written that Mr. SImpson brought her food and other things when she was sick so he could steal a key to the gate. I don't have an explanation for some of the other thins you wrote about.

Another point about the Bronco chase. Simpson had agreed to turn himself in at 11:00 on that day. The bronco chase unofficially began when he was about 3 hours late in turning himself in. Some people would say that doesn't mean he was running, but he wasn't being prompt.

Obviously he was not thinking about being prompt. he wanted to visit Nicoles grave and he did.

[weezer]

Some people have written that Mr. SImpson brought her food and other things when she was sick so he could steal a key to the gate. I don't have an explanation for some of the other thins you wrote about.

Another point about the Bronco chase. Simpson had agreed to turn himself in at 11:00 on that day. The bronco chase unofficially began when he was about 3 hours late in turning himself in. Some people would say that doesn't mean he was running, but he wasn't being prompt.

it was arnelle who testified that orenthal took soup and medicine to Nicole ONE day while she had pnemonia. it was Nicole who is said to have made the statement that she was afraid orenthal had stolen the key.

[martin II]

it was arnelle who testified that orenthal took soup and medicine to Nicole ONE day while she had pnemonia. it was Nicole who is said to have made the statement that she was afraid orenthal had stolen the key.

Who is the person that nicole was suppose to have made that statement to. was that testimony?

[martin II]

it was arnelle who testified that orenthal took soup and medicine to Nicole ONE day while she had pnemonia. it was Nicole who is said to have made the statement that she was afraid orenthal had stolen the key.

Arnell,oj and CF testified that oj helped nicole when she was sick ,not just Arnell.

[William Anthony]

Nothing Philips said in this testimony contradicts what the other witnesses said except Phillips evidently mistakenly said living room for dinning room. Where is the testimony that you claim Phillips said there were five detectives at Rockingham at that time.

bobaugust

Why is that Phillips spoke mistakenly but the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle lied, according to you? Why is it that you do not see the mistake as a contradiction of the others' testimonies?

[GreenIce]

Some people have written that Mr. SImpson brought her food and other things when she was sick so he could steal a key to the gate. I don't have an explanation for some of the other thins you wrote about.

Another point about the Bronco chase. Simpson had agreed to turn himself in at 11:00 on that day. The bronco chase unofficially began when he was about 3 hours late in turning himself in. Some people would say that doesn't mean he was running, but he wasn't being prompt.

fgump2,

Simpson did not have to steal her spare set of keys, he already had a set. No need to steal keys.

The proof that Simpson was not running is because there is a witness to this, AC Cowlings. Remember, he was arrested and booked on charges that he was helping OJ get get away. Charges were dropped.

Another point, the DA's never used the Bronco chase because there is evidence to support what AC said, that he was not running away.

BTW, where was he going to run to?

[GreenIce]

1. None of the detectives claimed there were outside locks on those doors.

2. All the detectives gave the same testimony about goig in thru the rear door.

3. Kato said she did have keys in her hand. He never said he was her use any of them.

4. All the detectives agreed to which door Arnell opened.

5. No one checked to see if any door was left unlocked.

6. Clarke proved Arnell to be a liar.

7. There is NO "H" in Vannatter and he never said he looked for locks.

8. It was proven that Arnell is a liar and that the detectives accounts were all the same.

9. All the detectives plus Kato said they entered the house thru the rear door. I believe Arnell to be a liar.

Hipcheck,

Was there are any reason for the detectives to believe that there were not outside locks on the doors?

Arnelle was the first person to testifiy about what door was entered in the prelim hearing. I don't believe any of the detectives were asked in the prelim hearing what door they entered. So anything the detectives say means nothing---they have the motive to lie, Arnelle did not.

There is no reason for Arnelle to lie about this because if Simpson called her and told her to do his wash---then why wouldn't he tell her to make sure she turned the alarm on?

And why would Simpson have Kato set the alarm? Doesn't it only make sense that he would have used the alarm as the excuse he needed to call Arnelle in the early morning hours?

All the detectives game the same story that OJ was not a suspect, so them all telling the same story about a door means nothing. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Here is something interesting.

MF testifies that when he was talking to Kato, he stopped his interviews right after Kato told him about the thumps. He never waits to hear what Kato did to investigate them. IMO, this is a clear indication that MF saw this as a golden opportunity on where to place the glove.

He then escorts Kato into the main house---why would he escort Kato into the main house, did he think Kato did not know what door to enter?

Also, in Kato's testimony, he claims that he told Vanatter about the noise he heard. He also testifies that he asked Vanatter about the thumps and did they mean anything? He point blanks asked Vanatter if he checked out the thumps and he says that VA never answered, just gave a shrug.

IMO, the way I am reading this is that Vanatter was told about the thumps and Kato knew he was told because why would he ask VA if checked them out?

[bobaugust]

Furhman didn't know where the s walkway was unless he had been there previously.

Fuhrman testified that he went out the front door to orient himself as to where the south wall to Kaelin’s bedroom could be located on the property. Fuhrman had already gone around the north side of the house to Kaelin’s bedroom so he went the other way towards the garage.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why is that Phillips spoke mistakenly but the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle lied, according to you? Why is it that you do not see the mistake as a contradiction of the others' testimonies?

Phillips testified that he entered the house along with the Arnelle and the other two detectives and went to the kitchen and then the maids quarters, and then back to the kitchen where he was with Arnelle and Lange when Arnelle started making phone calls.

Phillips was simply mistaken calling the family room the living room. Arnelle Simpson didn’t mistakenly call the back door the front door. She lied about taking the detectives around to the front of the house and turning off the house alarm. Either she lied or she was mistaken about where Kaelin was during the time she was in the house. The four detectives and Kato Kaelin all contradict Arnelle’s story.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Here is something interesting.

MF testifies that when he was talking to Kato, he stopped his interviews right after Kato told him about the thumps. He never waits to hear what Kato did to investigate them. IMO, this is a clear indication that MF saw this as a golden opportunity on where to place the glove.

He then escorts Kato into the main house---why would he escort Kato into the main house, did he think Kato did not know what door to enter?

Also, in Kato's testimony, he claims that he told Vanatter about the noise he heard. He also testifies that he asked Vanatter about the thumps and did they mean anything? He point blanks asked Vanatter if he checked out the thumps and he says that VA never answered, just gave a shrug.

IMO, the way I am reading this is that Vanatter was told about the thumps and Kato knew he was told because why would he ask VA if checked them out?

Fuhrman escorted Kaelin into the main house because that’s where the Robbery Homicide detectives were. When they entered the back door Fuhrman left Kaelin in the bar area and found the detectives in the kitchen. He asked Vannatter to talk to Kaelin who was waiting at the bar and then Fuhrman went out the front door to investigate the noises Kaelin had told him about. Of course Kaelin told Vannatter about the noises. Detectives ask questions of civilians involved in an investigation, they don’t answer them.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

Was there are any reason for the detectives to believe that there were not outside locks on the doors?

Arnelle was the first person to testifiy about what door was entered in the prelim hearing. I don't believe any of the detectives were asked in the prelim hearing what door they entered. So anything the detectives say means nothing---they have the motive to lie, Arnelle did not.

There is no reason for Arnelle to lie about this because if Simpson called her and told her to do his wash---then why wouldn't he tell her to make sure she turned the alarm on?

And why would Simpson have Kato set the alarm? Doesn't it only make sense that he would have used the alarm as the excuse he needed to call Arnelle in the early morning hours?

All the detectives game the same story that OJ was not a suspect, so them all telling the same story about a door means nothing. IMO.

Some just copy what others post

It is obvious that Phillips lie was different from furhmans and Vanhatter yet some ignore this and just post the same stuff.

[William Anthony]

Phillips testified that he entered the house along with the Arnelle and the other two detectives and went to the kitchen and then the maids quarters, and then back to the kitchen where he was with Arnelle and Lange when Arnelle started making phone calls.

Phillips was simply mistaken calling the family room the living room. Arnelle Simpson didn’t mistakenly call the back door the front door. She lied about taking the detectives around to the front of the house and turning off the house alarm. Either she lied or she was mistaken about where Kaelin was during the time she was in the house. The four detectives and Kato Kaelin all contradict Arnelle’s story.

bobaugust

If you can allow Phillips to be mistaken, then why can't the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle? Remember, I pointed out to you the difference in the people you call liars and the ones you say made human error and mistakes. This surely fits that pattern. Where are the phone records, indicating that the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle (hereinafter, BMA) was requested/told to engage incriminal activity?

[martin II]

Phillips testified that he entered the house along with the Arnelle and the other two detectives and went to the kitchen and then the maids quarters, and then back to the kitchen where he was with Arnelle and Lange when Arnelle started making phone calls.

Phillips was simply mistaken calling the family room the living room. Arnelle Simpson didn’t mistakenly call the back door the front door. She lied about taking the detectives around to the front of the house and turning off the house alarm. Either she lied or she was mistaken about where Kaelin was during the time she was in the house. The four detectives and Kato Kaelin all contradict Arnelle’s story.

bobaugust

When phillips lied he was mistaken. no one interested in truth believes that.

[martin II]

1. None of the detectives claimed there were outside locks on those doors.

2. All the detectives gave the same testimony about goig in thru the rear door.If you read the testimony that was posdted you will see this claim is not true

3. Kato said she did have keys in her hand. He never said he was her use any of them.Arnell was asked to get her keys.kato saw her wiyj yjem when she opened the door and you think she did not use the keys?

4. All the detectives agreed to which door Arnell opened.NOT TRUE

5. No one checked to see if any door was left unlocked.How do you know this

6. Clarke proved Arnell to be a liar.Not true

7. There is NO "H" in Vannatter and he never said he looked for locks.

8. It was proven that Arnell is a liar and that the detectives accounts were all the same.Not true

9. All the detectives plus Kato said they entered the house thru the rear door. I believe Arnell to be a liar.


It seems you are willing to ignore the testimony.

[bobaugust]

If you can allow Phillips to be mistaken, then why can't the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle? Remember, I pointed out to you the difference in the people you call liars and the ones you say made human error and mistakes. This surely fits that pattern. Where are the phone records, indicating that the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle (hereinafter, BMA) was requested/told to engage incriminal activity?

Was Arnelle mistaken when she said she took two detectives around to the front of the house and turned the house alarm off or was she lying?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

When phillips lied he was mistaken. no one interested in truth believes that.

Phillips clearly testified that he entered the house with Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter. Kaelin corroborated that fact.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Was Arnelle mistaken when she said she took two detectives around to the front of the house and turned the house alarm off or was she lying?

bobaugust

She was telling the truth as that is what she did.

[William Anthony]

Was Arnelle mistaken when she said she took two detectives around to the front of the house and turned the house alarm off or was she lying?

bobaugust

Martin,

Has answered but one does not answer a question with a question. I simply want to know, although I think I do, or should I say want you to say the criteria you used to determine who you will call a liar or who you will say is mistaken.

Phillips, via a slip of the tongue, and the BMA contradicted the testimony of the other officers.

[William Anthony]

She was telling the truth as that is what she did.

Martin,

A person is much less likely to make mistakes, when they tell the truth, IMHO.

[martin II]

Phillips clearly testified that he entered the house with Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter. Kaelin corroborated that fact.

bobaugust

Phillips clearly testified he entered the house to the living room which would mean he entered a door on the north side of the house while vanatter said he entered by a south side door.

[martin II]

Martin,

A person is much less likely to make mistakes, when they tell the truth, IMHO.

Why post testimony if people read it and then ignore it.

PHillips testimony as posted is clearly different from the others yet a poster post that their testimony was the same.Another says well he just made a mistake. The issue that the testimonie were different is just ignored yet some claim they are interested in the truth,:shrug:

[martin II]

Martin,

A person is much less likely to make mistakes, when they tell the truth, IMHO.

Lawyers usually advise clients to just tell the truth otherwise you will be caught in the lie.Vanatter was caught many times.

[martin II]

William i think it was GI or you that offered the idea that the doors and the washing machine sweats was a non issue and meant nothing. I agree.
There were no sweats presented in court so all talk about what oj may have worn,fibers and doors is a deflection away fromm other issues.The prosecutioin had no proof of what the murder clothes were so this was just a effort to plant false stories in the juries mind.I don't think it worked.:cool:

[tv]

Now here is something really interesting -- it appears that Mark Fuhrman DID find out from Kato what he did to investigate the thumps. He even finished his investigation of Kato's room before he took Kato into the house. It's amazing what a little research will turn up. :rolleyes:


Q: OKAY. AFTER LOOKING THROUGH THE CLOTHES AND THE SHOES, SIR, DID YOU HAVE SOME FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. KAELIN?

A: YES. WELL, MR. KAELIN OFFERED -- HE DESCRIBED THAT WHEN HE HEARD THAT NOISE, INITIALLY THOUGHT IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE, BUT NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED. SO HE WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHERE HE WENT TO INVESTIGATE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT?

A: HE WENT AROUND THE NORTH SIDE PAST THE POOL, NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AND WALKED THE SAME PATHWAY THAT WE HAD USED TO APPROACH HIS -- HIS ROOM.

Q: AND THEN WHAT?

A: HE SAID HE SAW A LIMO IN THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN HE PROCEEDED TOWARDS THE AREA WHERE HE WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE, BUT HE DIDN'T DESCRIBE ANYTHING ANY FARTHER.

Q: NOW, THE AREA ON THE WALL WHERE HE INDICATED HE HEARD THE THUMPS, COULD YOU TELL WHERE THAT -- THE EXTERIOR OF THAT POINT WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY?

A: NO.

Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU HOW TO GET TO THAT POINT ON THE EXTERIOR PART OF THE PROPERTY?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T.

Q: SO AFTER HE TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD GONE OUT TO INVESTIGATE THE THUMPS AND GOTTEN TO THE DRIVEWAY AND SEEN THE LIMO DRIVER, DID HE TELL YOU WHERE HE WENT AFTER THAT POINT?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT HE DID, NO.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

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.

[tv]

Was Arnelle mistaken when she said she took two detectives around to the front of the house and turned the house alarm off or was she lying?

bobaugust

She was lying. :)

[martin II]

hipcheck

you have claimed that there was no proof that Ms Arnell used the keys kato said she had. Below is proof that you are wrong. If phillips walked in to the living room he would have entered through the doors at the north side of the house.Vanatter said he entered by the south door. Phillips says Arnell UNLOCKED THE DOOR .The only door that had a outside lock was the front door.

This is in conflict with what you think happened.If you read the testimony you will see your error.

PHILLIPS TESTIMONY.

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.

[martin II]

She was lying. :)

What do you think about phillips? Or are we expected to ignor his testimony?

Phillips testified that Ms ARNELL unlocked the door to let them in. There were no outside locks on any back door to unlock.Only the front door had a outside loock.
I posted PHILLIPS testimony on unlocking the door above.Its conclusive that they did not enter a back door and Ms Arnell did not lie.

[tv]

Some people have written that Mr. SImpson brought her food and other things when she was sick so he could steal a key to the gate. I don't have an explanation for some of the other thins you wrote about.

Another point about the Bronco chase. Simpson had agreed to turn himself in at 11:00 on that day. The bronco chase unofficially began when he was about 3 hours late in turning himself in. Some people would say that doesn't mean he was running, but he wasn't being prompt.

I've never heard that theory before but that would have been a good time for him to steal the keys. One thing is for sure -- he took the keys at some point without permission. There's no way that Nicole would have given him keys to her house. He was stalking her and she was frightened of him -- giving him her house keys would make no sense at all.

[martin II]

Now here is something really interesting -- it appears that Mark Fuhrman DID find out from Kato what he did to investigate the thumps. He even finished his investigation of Kato's room before he took Kato into the house. It's amazing what a little research will turn up. :rolleyes:


Q: OKAY. AFTER LOOKING THROUGH THE CLOTHES AND THE SHOES, SIR, DID YOU HAVE SOME FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. KAELIN?

A: YES. WELL, MR. KAELIN OFFERED -- HE DESCRIBED THAT WHEN HE HEARD THAT NOISE, INITIALLY THOUGHT IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE, BUT NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED. SO HE WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHERE HE WENT TO INVESTIGATE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT?

A: HE WENT AROUND THE NORTH SIDE PAST THE POOL, NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AND WALKED THE SAME PATHWAY THAT WE HAD USED TO APPROACH HIS -- HIS ROOM.

Q: AND THEN WHAT?

A: HE SAID HE SAW A LIMO IN THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN HE PROCEEDED TOWARDS THE AREA WHERE HE WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE, BUT HE DIDN'T DESCRIBE ANYTHING ANY FARTHER.

Q: NOW, THE AREA ON THE WALL WHERE HE INDICATED HE HEARD THE THUMPS, COULD YOU TELL WHERE THAT -- THE EXTERIOR OF THAT POINT WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY?

A: NO.

Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU HOW TO GET TO THAT POINT ON THE EXTERIOR PART OF THE PROPERTY?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T.

Q: SO AFTER HE TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD GONE OUT TO INVESTIGATE THE THUMPS AND GOTTEN TO THE DRIVEWAY AND SEEN THE LIMO DRIVER, DID HE TELL YOU WHERE HE WENT AFTER THAT POINT?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT HE DID, NO.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

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.

BUT
Phillips testified that he entered the house into the LIVING ROOM.That would be THROUGH the french doors that had locks on the inside up high and on the opposite end of the house from where the bar area was.

So who is telling the truth?

[tv]

it was arnelle who testified that orenthal took soup and medicine to Nicole ONE day while she had pnemonia. it was Nicole who is said to have made the statement that she was afraid orenthal had stolen the key.

I'm wondering if he hadn't already starting planning the crime at that point. How closely does the purchase of the disguise and the missing key coincide?

[martin II]

I've never heard that theory before but that would have been a good time for him to steal the keys. One thing is for sure -- he took the keys at some point without permission. There's no way that Nicole would have given him keys to her house. He was stalking her and she was frightened of him -- giving him her house keys would make no sense at all.

What makes no sense is why would Nicole would spend so much time at ojs house tanning herself at his pool and inviting him to Bundy sometimes for overnight stays if she was afraid of him.If he was going to kill her.She was a smart lady.:cool:

[William Anthony]

William i think it was GI or you that offered the idea that the doors and the washing machine sweats was a non issue and meant nothing. I agree.
There were no sweats presented in court so all talk about what oj may have worn,fibers and doors is a deflection away fromm other issues.The prosecutioin had no proof of what the murder clothes were so this was just a effort to plant false stories in the juries mind.I don't think it worked.:cool:

Martin,

I know I said it and I believe GreenIce did also. I don't think it worked with the sophisticated jury but it seems to have worked with some. No one has produced a link to the phone records I requested.

[martin II]

I've never heard that theory before but that would have been a good time for him to steal the keys. One thing is for sure -- he took the keys at some point without permission. There's no way that Nicole would have given him keys to her house. He was stalking her and she was frightened of him -- giving him her house keys would make no sense at all.

House keys were not required to ernter Nicoles yard.

[martin II]

Martin,

I know I said it and I believe GreenIce did also. I don't think it worked with the sophisticated jury but it seems to have worked with some. No one has produced a link to the phone records I requested.

I think that the evidence that proved that the prosecution did not prove their case would have been accepted by most if the defendant had not been OJ Simpson.

[martin II]

I've never heard that theory before but that would have been a good time for him to steal the keys. One thing is for sure -- he took the keys at some point without permission. There's no way that Nicole would have given him keys to her house. He was stalking her and she was frightened of him -- giving him her house keys would make no sense at all.

Faye said oj took the keys.There is no testimony that Nicole said oj did.

[William Anthony]

Nicole was much more beautiful than Arnelle and some people don't believe a word she said...go figure. :shrug:

I am certain this is only your opinion as a woman. However, mine is given as a man and is based not solely upon the physical appearance as true Beauty is much much more, even though I believe the BMA possessed far more physical beauty than Ms. NBS. However, that is not the point. I remarked upon the MBA's beauty, after seeing that there was no evidence to support the fact that she is a liar, to include the missing link, in conjunction with what I feel I have learned about human nature.

[William Anthony]

What makes no sense is why would Nicole would spend so much time at ojs house tanning herself at his pool and inviting him to Bundy sometimes for overnight stays if she was afraid of him.If he was going to kill her.She was a smart lady.:cool:

Ditto. It would be illogical, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

I'm wondering if he hadn't already starting planning the crime at that point. How closely does the purchase of the disguise and the missing key coincide?

What crime would that be? Would it be the one for which he was found not guilty?

[martin II]

I'm wondering if he hadn't already starting planning the crime at that point. How closely does the purchase of the disguise and the missing key coincide?

It has been said that oj was so bent out of shape because Nicole did not invite him to dinner, went home and decided to kill her.So what planning are you speaking of.On 6/12 oj was in his house planning to go to Chicago.

[William Anthony]

It has been said that oj was so bent out of shape because Nicole did not invite him to dinner, went home and decided to kill her.So what planning are you speaking of.On 6/12 oj was in his house planning to go to Chicago.

I think that is what the evidence supports is that the only planning he was doing was his prearranged trip.

[martin II]

Ditto. It would be illogical, IMHO.

There was a period when she was at Rockingham daily. There was also the time that Nicole told Oj that when she was at Rockingham she did not want to see Kato or Michael.She demanded that he send them off the property because she did not like them. This seems like Nicole was planning to move back to Rockiingham not stay away from oj because she thought he was going to kill her. Here she was in bathing suit sunning herself fully confortable
in the house and at the pool of the man she thought was going to kill her.

This makes no sense at all. Her actions were not descriptive of the fear some claim she had of oj. oj didn't have to stalk her as she was at his house frequently.

Mothers day he broke it up with her and Paula came back on the scene yet Nicole continued to visit him.

[martin II]

I am certain this is only your opinion as a woman. However, mine is given as a man and is based not solely upon the physical appearance as true Beauty is much much more, even though I believe the BMA possessed far more physical beauty than Ms. NBS. However, that is not the point. I remarked upon the MBA's beauty, after seeing that there was no evidence to support the fact that she is a liar, to include the missing link, in conjunction with what I feel I have learned about human nature.

Some have been trained to only see the European standard of beauty while ignoring 3/4 of the rest of the worlds standard.

[William Anthony]

There was a period when she was at Rockingham daily. There was also the time that Nicole told Oj that when she was at Rockingham she did not want to see Kato or Michael.She demanded that he send them off the property because she did not like them. This seems like Nicole was planning to move back to Rockiingham not stay away from oj because she thought he was going to kill her. Here she was in bathing suit sunning herself fully confortable
in the house and at the pool of the man she thought was going to kill her.

This makes no sense at all. Her actions were not descriptive of the fear some claim she had of oj. oj didn't have to stalk her as she was at his house frequently.

Mothers day he broke it up with her and Paula came back on the scene yet Nicole continued to visit him.

I know that I would put enough distance as possible between someone, who I thought was going to kill me, and myself. I realize that children played a role but I would not go visit, placing myself in danger. There was a remark made about Ms NBS' beauty and I think intelligence is a part of beauty. I think Ms. NBS had enough intelligent beauty to not knowingly place herself in danger.

[tv]

it was arnelle who testified that orenthal took soup and medicine to Nicole ONE day while she had pnemonia. it was Nicole who is said to have made the statement that she was afraid orenthal had stolen the key.

If my memory is correct, Simpson purchased the disguise on May 27, Nicole told Cora Fischman six days before the murders (June 6) that she couldn't find her extra key. So it was only 10 days or possibly less, depending on how long the keys were missing before Nicole noticed, between the purchase of the disguise and the keys being taken. I'm not a big believer in coincidence. :)

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

Vanatter's grand jury testimony is very interesting. This is part of it:

A. WE KNOCKED AT THE OTHER GUEST QUARTER DOOR AND
2 AROUSED THE FEMALE WHO IDENTIFIED HERSELF AS ARNELL
3 SIMPSON, THE DAUGHTER OF O.J. SIMPSON.
4 Q. DID YOU THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER?
5 A. YES.
6 Q. AND AFTER YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH HER,
7 WHAT DID YOU DO?
8 A. WE GAINED ADMITTANCE TO THE HOUSE AND, WITH HER
9 ASSISTANCE, CONTACTED MR. SIMPSON BY TELEPHONE.
10 Q. DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SIMPSON OR WERE YOU
11 PRESENT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE DID SO?
12 A. I WAS PRESENT, YES.
13 Q. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT?
14 A. IT WAS BEGINNING TO LIGHTEN UP.
15 WE WALKED OUTSIDE TO MAKE SURE NOTHING WAS
16 WRONG WITH THE RESIDENCE AND EVERYTHING WAS OKAY, AND WE
17 WERE LOOKING AROUND THE HOUSE TO MAKE SURE NOTHING HAD
18 OCCURRED AT THE HOME.
19 AND ON THE -- WHICH WOULD BE THE SOUTH SIDE OF
20 THE RESIDENCE, IN THIS WALKWAY --
21 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS POINTING
22 TO THE AREA JUST BELOW THE GARAGE BETWEEN THE SOUTHERNMOST
23 PORTION OF THE GARAGE WALL AND THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THE
24 PROPERTY, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY MARKED BY ANOTHER WITNESS
25 WITH A CIRCLE AND A LINE.
26 THE WITNESS: IT'S A VERY NARROW WALKWAY BETWEEN THE
27 HOUSE AND THE FENCE THAT APPARENTLY SEPARATES THE TWO
28 PROPERTIES FROM THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE SOUTH OF

332

1 THAT LOCATION.
2 I WAS DIRECTED BY ANOTHER DETECTIVE WHO
3 PRECEDED ME IN THERE TO A MAN'S GLOVE THAT WAS LYING IN
4 THIS AREA.



IMO, it is clear that Vanatter is giving the impression that he was outside when approached about the glove.


Also, when you read his grand jury testimony, you can see where he refuses to directly answer the question when did he search the outside of the the home. He is asked if he searched outside before or after Arnelle was told. It is clear, he is saying two detectives were with Arnelle and two detectives were on the outside.

IMO, this supports Arnelle saying she led two detectives into the house.

Also, in his prelim testimony, I think VA says that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence. That she just came there that night to sleep. If that is the case, why didn't Petrocelli jump all over that?

[William Anthony]

If my memory is correct, Simpson purchased the disguise on May 27, Nicole told Cora Fischman six days before the murders (June 6) that she couldn't find her extra key. So it was only 10 days or possibly less, depending on how long the keys were missing before Nicole noticed, between the purchase of the disguise and the keys being taken. I'm not a big believer in coincidence. :)

What role did the keys play in the murders?

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

Vanatter's grand jury testimony is very interesting. This is part of it:

A. WE KNOCKED AT THE OTHER GUEST QUARTER DOOR AND
2 AROUSED THE FEMALE WHO IDENTIFIED HERSELF AS ARNELL
3 SIMPSON, THE DAUGHTER OF O.J. SIMPSON.
4 Q. DID YOU THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER?
5 A. YES.
6 Q. AND AFTER YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH HER,
7 WHAT DID YOU DO?
8 A. WE GAINED ADMITTANCE TO THE HOUSE AND, WITH HER
9 ASSISTANCE, CONTACTED MR. SIMPSON BY TELEPHONE.
10 Q. DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SIMPSON OR WERE YOU
11 PRESENT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE DID SO?
12 A. I WAS PRESENT, YES.
13 Q. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT?
14 A. IT WAS BEGINNING TO LIGHTEN UP.
15 WE WALKED OUTSIDE TO MAKE SURE NOTHING WAS
16 WRONG WITH THE RESIDENCE AND EVERYTHING WAS OKAY, AND WE
17 WERE LOOKING AROUND THE HOUSE TO MAKE SURE NOTHING HAD
18 OCCURRED AT THE HOME.
19 AND ON THE -- WHICH WOULD BE THE SOUTH SIDE OF
20 THE RESIDENCE, IN THIS WALKWAY --
21 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS POINTING
22 TO THE AREA JUST BELOW THE GARAGE BETWEEN THE SOUTHERNMOST
23 PORTION OF THE GARAGE WALL AND THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THE
24 PROPERTY, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY MARKED BY ANOTHER WITNESS
25 WITH A CIRCLE AND A LINE.
26 THE WITNESS: IT'S A VERY NARROW WALKWAY BETWEEN THE
27 HOUSE AND THE FENCE THAT APPARENTLY SEPARATES THE TWO
28 PROPERTIES FROM THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE SOUTH OF

332

1 THAT LOCATION.
2 I WAS DIRECTED BY ANOTHER DETECTIVE WHO
3 PRECEDED ME IN THERE TO A MAN'S GLOVE THAT WAS LYING IN
4 THIS AREA.



IMO, it is clear that Vanatter is giving the impression that he was outside when approached about the glove.


Also, when you read his grand jury testimony, you can see where he refuses to directly answer the question when did he search the outside of the the home. He is asked if he searched outside before or after Arnelle was told. It is clear, he is saying two detectives were with Arnelle and two detectives were on the outside.

IMO, this supports Arnelle saying she led two detectives into the house.

Also, in his prelim testimony, I think VA says that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence. That she just came there that night to sleep. If that is the case, why didn't Petrocelli jump all over that?

GreenIce,

You know that Vannatter was nervous, sleepy and careless, causing him to make human error and mistakes. :biggrin:

[weezer]

If my memory is correct, Simpson purchased the disguise on May 27, Nicole told Cora Fischman six days before the murders (June 6) that she couldn't find her extra key. So it was only 10 days or possibly less, depending on how long the keys were missing before Nicole noticed, between the purchase of the disguise and the keys being taken. I'm not a big believer in coincidence. :)

I'm with you -- there was just way too many 'coincidences' -- ;)

[William Anthony]

I am of the opinion that LE made to many coincidental mistakes and human errors:) for their to ever have been a conviction or for me to believe they were simply human errors and mistakes.:);):cool:

[weezer]

Ito's Final Decision on the Fuhrman Tapes

Foundation Testimony By McKinny: McKinny was adamant that her screenplay was intended as a fictional work.

Use of Racial Epithets: relevant and admissible as impeachment

Incidents Of Alleged Misconduct: That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.

[weezer]

1. Reaction to being called names:
This is clearly an instance of suggesting a scenario for the screenplay. As such, it has no relevance. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

2. Tearing up a driver's license as a pretext to arrest:
The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. As a suggested scenario for a screenplay, its negligible probative value is substantially outweighed by the undue amount of time that would be consumed in its presentation and refutation.

3. Hype arrest: This case does not involve an arrest by Fuhrman. Because the proffer goes to a collateral matter, the probative value is therefore non-existent. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. No factual basis has been offered in support.

4. Use of deadly force in making arrests: This case does not involve the use of deadly force. The proffer is completely irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

5. Use of deadly force in making arrests: This case does not involve the use of deadly force. The proffer is completely irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

6. Revenge for killing policemen: This case does not involve the killing of a police officer. There is no suggestion that the defendant has in any way physically harmed any police officers. The record indicates the defendant was on friendly terms with the officers of the West Los Angeles Division. The proffer is completely irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

[weezer]

7. Manufacturing probable cause for arrest: This case does not involve an arrest made by Fuhrman. The incident does not speak to racial animosity. It is not relevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

8. Field interrogation techniques: This case does not involve the field interrogation of any suspect by former Detective Fuhrman. The proffer is completely irrelevant: The Evidence Code SEction 350 objection is sustained.

9. Cover up of unlawful use of force: This case does not involve any police officers as victims, any pursuit of a suspect where there is any allegation of unnecessary force used in the arrest, or any cover up of unnecessary force upon an arrestee. The proffer lacks relevance to this case. The proffer does not included mention of a basis in fact. The argument of the parties indicates there is substantial factual dispute as to whether any actual incident matches the scenario painted by Fuhrman. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

10. Necessity for the police officers to be willing to lie:
No argument or allegation has been made that Fuhrman has been lying to cover for his partner, Det. Phillips, nor has there been any argument or allegation that Phillips has been lying to cover for Fuhrman. There is no direct relevance to this case. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

11. Revenge against those who oppose the choke hold:
This case does not involve the use or application of any choke hold. The proffer is completely irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

12. Destruction of a suspect's property: Fuhrman discusses the actions of another officer which involve the destruction of personal property of a suspect. The alleged actions of this other officer are not relevant to any of the issues in this case. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

13. Tearing up of driver's licenses: As noted above, the alleged actions of another officer have no relevance to any of the issues in this case. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

14. Beating of suspects: No factual basis has been offered to prove the existence of an incident involving Fuhrman where a suspect was beaten to death. The proffer is rejected for the same reason stated as to Incident 9.

[William Anthony]

Ito's Final Decision on the Fuhrman Tapes

Foundation Testimony By McKinny: McKinny was adamant that her screenplay was intended as a fictional work.

Use of Racial Epithets: relevant and admissible as impeachment

Incidents Of Alleged Misconduct: That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.

Perhaps, I should have been more clear in explaining things. Let's begin with the premise, as I have stated, that August 31 comes before September 6 in any given year. Therefore, on the date of September 6, arguments were set forth asking judge Ito to reconsider his prior ruling. Here is a portion.

"Now, your Honor, we believe that in order to assess the credibility of Detective Fuhrman with respect to these issues in terms of his conduct on the morning of June 13th, this evidence must be considered and you must ask the question whether you would believe this police officer in light of this evidence, and we believe that we're entitled to a finding for our appellate record of your conclusion with respect to the credibility of Detective Fuhrman, and we believe the most rational way for you to make that finding is for you to permit us to call Detective Fuhrman to the witness stand as part of this renewed motion to suppress and engage the most powerful engine that we have to expose the truth; and that is to cross-examine him and to confront him with his prior statements to Miss McKinny."

We know that the defense was allowed to call MF to the stand on September 6, following the soliloquy by Mounger. Ergo, judge Ito did reconsider what some say was his final ruling on the tapes and questioning was allowed as to MF's conduct and the defense could argue planting of the glove.


"MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, over the break, I talked to Mr. Fuhrman, and it is our position that because I am walking into this trial after eight months, I am unfamiliar with all of the testimony. I have been handling my own cases and not followed this trial intimately. I have come into this court asking for the McKinny tapes and a copy of the transcripts so that I might review them with my client, although I have reviewed most of them. I have tried to correlate that information and interview my client, and I'm unable to put it in the context which it deserves. Based upon this court's July 31st--I'm sorry--August 31st ruling and the words specifically I believe on page 5, on the information I do know and the information especially I do not know, I have advised Mr. Fuhrman that he should not answer any questions before this court. Therefore, it is my understanding that he will assert his 5th amendment privilege if asked any questions."

Ergo, all prior rulings made by judge Ito were irrelevant, immaterial, superfluous and moot.

[martin II]

Martin and William,

Vanatter's grand jury testimony is very interesting. This is part of it:

A. WE KNOCKED AT THE OTHER GUEST QUARTER DOOR AND
2 AROUSED THE FEMALE WHO IDENTIFIED HERSELF AS ARNELL
3 SIMPSON, THE DAUGHTER OF O.J. SIMPSON.
4 Q. DID YOU THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER?
5 A. YES.
6 Q. AND AFTER YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH HER,
7 WHAT DID YOU DO?
8 A. WE GAINED ADMITTANCE TO THE HOUSE AND, WITH HER
9 ASSISTANCE, CONTACTED MR. SIMPSON BY TELEPHONE.
10 Q. DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SIMPSON OR WERE YOU
11 PRESENT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE DID SO?
12 A. I WAS PRESENT, YES.
13 Q. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT?
14 A. IT WAS BEGINNING TO LIGHTEN UP.
15 WE WALKED OUTSIDE TO MAKE SURE NOTHING WAS
16 WRONG WITH THE RESIDENCE AND EVERYTHING WAS OKAY, AND WE
17 WERE LOOKING AROUND THE HOUSE TO MAKE SURE NOTHING HAD
18 OCCURRED AT THE HOME.
19 AND ON THE -- WHICH WOULD BE THE SOUTH SIDE OF
20 THE RESIDENCE, IN THIS WALKWAY --
21 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS POINTING
22 TO THE AREA JUST BELOW THE GARAGE BETWEEN THE SOUTHERNMOST
23 PORTION OF THE GARAGE WALL AND THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THE
24 PROPERTY, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY MARKED BY ANOTHER WITNESS
25 WITH A CIRCLE AND A LINE.
26 THE WITNESS: IT'S A VERY NARROW WALKWAY BETWEEN THE
27 HOUSE AND THE FENCE THAT APPARENTLY SEPARATES THE TWO
28 PROPERTIES FROM THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE SOUTH OF

332

1 THAT LOCATION.
2 I WAS DIRECTED BY ANOTHER DETECTIVE WHO
3 PRECEDED ME IN THERE TO A MAN'S GLOVE THAT WAS LYING IN
4 THIS AREA.



IMO, it is clear that Vanatter is giving the impression that he was outside when approached about the glove.


Also, when you read his grand jury testimony, you can see where he refuses to directly answer the question when did he search the outside of the the home. He is asked if he searched outside before or after Arnelle was told. It is clear, he is saying two detectives were with Arnelle and two detectives were on the outside.

IMO, this supports Arnelle saying she led two detectives into the house.

Also, in his prelim testimony, I think VA says that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence. That she just came there that night to sleep. If that is the case, why didn't Petrocelli jump all over that?

GI
Thanks

Bob had previously said Vanatter was not present in the kitchen when the detective was talking to oj and did not know that CR had informed them that oj was on a scheduled trip. The fact that he was present supports the defense claim that Vanatter just flat out lied when he told the judge oj was on a unscheduled trip.Vanatter WAS PRESENT and he knew the trip was scheduled well in advance just as Phillips knew.

It seems that vanatter was searching the house and the property without a search warrant.The maid was not expected to be outside.

He also seems to be saying that he was at the south walkway looking around
and then was led into the walkway by ANOTHER DETECTIVE. Why didn't he name Furhman as the detective that showed him the glove.

Arnell never told Vanatter that Rockingham was not her primary residence.

[weezer]

15. Testimony for events not witnesses: The proffer does not suggest any actual basis in fact. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

16. Coercing statements from suspects: The proffer is not factually connected to any specific incident. This case does not involve coerced statements. The proffer is irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

17. Baton use in different parts of the City: This case does not involve the use of force, batons or otherwise. The proffer is irrelevant to the issues in this case. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

18. Automobile stops: This case does not involve an automobile stop where there was no probable cause. The proffer is irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

[William Anthony]

15. Testimony for events not witnesses: The proffer does not suggest any actual basis in fact. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

16. Coercing statements from suspects: The proffer is not factually connected to any specific incident. This case does not involve coerced statements. The proffer is irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

17. Baton use in different parts of the City: This case does not involve the use of force, batons or otherwise. The proffer is irrelevant to the issues in this case. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

18. Automobile stops: This case does not involve an automobile stop where there was no probable cause. The proffer is irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

All of which was rendered irrelevant, immaterial, superfluous and moot by the arguments and decision made on September 6th, 6 days later.

[William Anthony]

When one considers that in 6 days judge Ito completely changed his prior ruling based on oral arguments, can there be any doubt of the magnificent one's magnificence?

[William Anthony]

September 6th-MF

"DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

MR. UELMEN: Have you ever falsified a police report?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

MR. UELMEN: Is it your intention to assert your 5th amendment privilege with respect to all questions that I ask you?

DET. FUHRMAN: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Can I have a moment?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, further questions don't serve any purpose since my client has already answered that he will not answer any question and will assert his 5th amendment privilege. Anything further can only be a show.

MR. UELMEN: I only have one other question, your Honor.

THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Uelmen?

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?

DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.

THE COURT: All right. Based upon the witness' answers, the representation by his counsel, Mr. Mounger--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People make an objection to the last question and ask the court to strike it as being improper and does nothing but headline.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. All right. Miss Clark, do you have any questions of this witness?

MS. CLARK: No questions."

[martin II]

Ito's Final Decision on the Fuhrman Tapes

Foundation Testimony By McKinny: McKinny was adamant that her screenplay was intended as a fictional work.

Use of Racial Epithets: relevant and admissible as impeachment

Incidents Of Alleged Misconduct: That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.

LHM'S original work was based on "Men against women" in the LAPD.research for a screen play.That is what she hired Furhman for.He surprised her completely when he changed the subject of the research and started talking about his experiences as a LAPD police officer into the tape recorder.

The defense used the tape to show the jury that the detective involed in finding most of the evidence could not be trusted to tell the truth.
Bailey got furhman to say he never used the n word.The defense said we have evidence that Furhman lied on the stand.The judge allowed the tape to see if this was true. The tapes proved the defense claim. Furhman lied.
There were different opinions on this issue but the decision was in the hands of Ito and he was convinced that it was legal and proper that the tapes be heard.imo

[martin II]

Ito's Final Decision on the Fuhrman Tapes

Foundation Testimony By McKinny: McKinny was adamant that her screenplay was intended as a fictional work.

Use of Racial Epithets: relevant and admissible as impeachment

Incidents Of Alleged Misconduct: That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.


Now i am confused.
The above info and the following items is from where.Are they from law or personal opinions?

[William Anthony]

Now i am confused.
The above info and the following items is from where.Are they from law or personal opinions?

Excellent. That is the first step in analyzing legal reasoning, IMHO, as it has been my experience that I learn best by trying to reconcile the statements within an opinion. This provides an excellent learning opportunity for us all, IMHO. We can begin with what the judge let in from the tapes in what was termed but was not his final ruling.

"Having found Fuhrman's use of the subject racial epithet to be relevant and admissible, the court must then analyze each usage under Evidence Code Section 352: "The court in its discretion may exclude evidence of its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." The specific racial epithet at issue is perhaps the single most insulting, inflammatory and provocative term in use in modern day America. The court's examination of each of these 41 uses reveals not only the racial epithet itself, but a context that only adds to the insulting and inflammatory nature. For example:

#5: "...all these ******s in L.A. City government...all of them should be lined up against a wall and f***ing shot."

#6 " You know these people here, we got all this money going to Ethiopia. For what? To feed a bunch of dumb n****rs that their own government won't even feed."

#32 "What if I've just been raped by two buck n***rs, and a female shows up?"

#34 "It's pretty clear-cut who the a**holes are. You go to Pacoima, you got bikers and n****rs."

The probative value of the evidence of Fuhrman's use of racial epithets comes from the fact that he has testified that he had not used the term in the last ten years, thereby implicating his credibility. Because of Fuhrman's discovery of a bloody glove at the Rockingham residence and its scientific significance, he is a significant although not essential witness against the defendant. As such, the defendant is entitled to effectively cross examine him. However, as noted above, the court retains some discretion in controlling the inquiry. The defense may present McKinley's testimony as follows:

a. Her acquaintanceship with Fuhrman.
b. The nature and purpose of their relationship.
c. That McKinny has had tape recorded and transcribed conversations with Fuhrman for the nine year period between April of 1983 and July of 1994.
d. That during the course of those conversations between 1985 and1986 Fuhrman used the term "n****r" in a disparaging manner 41 times.

The defense may play and display the following excerpt as impeachment:

#8 "We have no n****rs where I grew up."

#13 Q: "Why do they live in that area?"
A: "That's where n****rs live."

The court finds the probative value of the remaining examples to be substantially and overwhelmingly outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. Evidence Code Section 352. Just as a defendant with prior felony convictions testifying before a jury is not entitled to a false aura of credibility, neither is Fuhrman. It is apparent by the prosecution's offer to stipulate that Fuhrman had used the subject racial epithet in a disparaging manner within the relevant time period that the prosecution recognizes the danger of presenting what might now appears to be false evidence or perjured testimony. See In re Sassounian (1995) 9 C4th 535. Having now recognized the problems with presenting Fuhrman as a witness, the concession is appropriate."

The court exercised its discretion in excluding from the jury all other uses of the N-word by MF due to the inflammatory nature of the use. Some of those excluded uses included MF's admitted misconduct. The court reconciled the right to confront MF on his credibility but excluding evidence of his misconduct under the concept of deciding which evidence is unduly prejudicial is within the court's discretion.

[weezer]

"THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the second example first, the discussion within the context of the screenplay, the question being from Miss McKinny as to how would a certain cover-up be portrayed for the purposes of the screenplay, that's clearly in the discussion of the creation of a fictional screenplay. As such, it's not relevant. The objection will be sustained. As to the issue of the department's cover-up of the performance of women as police officers, interesting topic, but not for this trial. The objection likewise is sustained on the basis of relevancy. All right. Next issue. . ."

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I found this portion of the judge's ruling to be quizzical;

"The Fuhrman tapes and transcripts raise a number of complex and compelling issues. This court's focus, however, is legally restricted to just two issues: 1) Is Orenthal James Simpson guilty of the murders of Ronald L. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, and 2) How should these tapes impact upon the testimony by and about now retired Los Angeles Police Department Detective Mark Fuhrman."

I have found that words of judges often reveal their true feelings. The focus of this court in the present instance should have been the admissibility of the tapes. The court was not required to render a verdict on guilt or not guilt but to make sure that the evidence was more probative than prejudicial and whether or not is was relevant to prove or disprove an issue in the trial. Therefore, I think reason 2 was the only proper issue before the judge at that time, although I think the judge may not have written the ruling artfully and meant by number one the court had to ensure that both parties receive a fair trial. I will continue, if you are interested and you or others may see something I miss.

[William Anthony]

"THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the second example first, the discussion within the context of the screenplay, the question being from Miss McKinny as to how would a certain cover-up be portrayed for the purposes of the screenplay, that's clearly in the discussion of the creation of a fictional screenplay. As such, it's not relevant. The objection will be sustained. As to the issue of the department's cover-up of the performance of women as police officers, interesting topic, but not for this trial. The objection likewise is sustained on the basis of relevancy. All right. Next issue. . ."

It became relevant on September 6th.

[martin II]

September 6th-MF

"DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

MR. UELMEN: Have you ever falsified a police report?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

MR. UELMEN: Is it your intention to assert your 5th amendment privilege with respect to all questions that I ask you?

DET. FUHRMAN: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Can I have a moment?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, further questions don't serve any purpose since my client has already answered that he will not answer any question and will assert his 5th amendment privilege. Anything further can only be a show.

MR. UELMEN: I only have one other question, your Honor.

THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Uelmen?

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?

DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.

THE COURT: All right. Based upon the witness' answers, the representation by his counsel, Mr. Mounger--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People make an objection to the last question and ask the court to strike it as being improper and does nothing but headline.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. All right. Miss Clark, do you have any questions of this witness?

MS. CLARK: No questions."

This is really funny.The guy that lives on talking.That used up a box of tapes talking about his experience as a LAPD cop. Does not want to talk.

[William Anthony]

A key part of the defense case is the allegation that Fuhrman, motivated by hatred of blacks/ African Americans and interracial couples, transported a bloody leather glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing the blame upon the defendant for the savage murders of Ronald L. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. In an earlier related ruling issued 20 January 1995, this court tentatively ruled that the defense may present the testimony of one Kathleen Bell concerning sometime between 1985 and 1986:

The Redondo Beach incident occurred sometime between 1985 and 1986. It is alleged that Fuhrman made a comment from which one might infer racial animus, contempt of interracial couples and willingness to manufacture probable cause to stop a motor vehicle....If the defendant can make an offer of proof as to what evidence they will produce to suggest the moving of evidence and the court is satisfied by that offer of proof, the prosecution's objections will be denied.

It is important to note that the basis of the 20 January 1995 ruling was 1) the unique combination of racial animus, interracial couples and a willingness to fabricate, and 2) the Kathleen Bell offer of proof which included all three elements....18 examples of misconduct argued to be relevant on the issue of Fuhrman's credibility and willingness to fabricate.... Interestingly, the proffers do not address what evidence supports the allegation that the Rockingham glove was moved. (3) The court therefore has 61 incidents to evaluate."

The court recognized that the incidents were relevant based on Ms. Bell's testimony but went on to exclude them and it is interesting to see how it was excluded but brought back in oral argument.

"Now, your Honor, we believe that in order to assess the credibility of Detective Fuhrman with respect to these issues in terms of his conduct on the morning of June 13th, this evidence must be considered and you must ask the question whether you would believe this police officer in light of this evidence, and we believe that we're entitled to a finding for our appellate record of your conclusion with respect to the credibility of Detective Fuhrman, and we believe the most rational way for you to make that finding is for you to permit us to call Detective Fuhrman to the witness stand as part of this renewed motion to suppress and engage the most powerful engine that we have to expose the truth; and that is to cross-examine him and to confront him with his prior statements to Miss McKinny."

That is all that is necessary since the August 31st ruling was rendered irrelevant, immaterial, superfluous and moot. The problem is that judge Ito could no longer reconcile his ruling.

[William Anthony]

This is really funny.The guy that lives on talking.That used up a box of tapes talking about his experience as a LAPD cop. Does not want to talk.

Mounger told him to shut up, IMHO.

[weezer]

I intended to post the date of the ruling: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 9:37 A.M.

"THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the second example first, the discussion within the context of the screenplay, the question being from Miss McKinny as to how would a certain cover-up be portrayed for the purposes of the screenplay, that's clearly in the discussion of the creation of a fictional screenplay. As such, it's not relevant. The objection will be sustained. As to the issue of the department's cover-up of the performance of women as police officers, interesting topic, but not for this trial. The objection likewise is sustained on the basis of relevancy. All right. Next issue. . ."

[martin II]

Some continue to talk about screenplay.

If i remember Bailey's question to Mr. Furhman was "have you used the N word in the last 10 years". It was not have you used the n word in a screenplay or have you used the n word the last time you planted evidence. So the screen play claim means nothing.

He knew he had used the word and must have known there was a reason for the question. Yet he just lied. Maby because he knew the use of the word was very common and he would not be held responsible as everyone he worked with uses the word. I don't think he had time to think about the tapes he had made before he answered but he really got caught with his pants down by Bailey.imo

[martin II]

Mounger told him to shut up, IMHO.

Taking the 5th was a smart move by Furhmans lawyer. If he hadn't his other activities would have come to light and i am sure he wanted to evade that.
Furhman could not stand a frisk as they say.

[William Anthony]

I intended to post the date of the ruling: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 9:37 A.M.

"THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the second example first, the discussion within the context of the screenplay, the question being from Miss McKinny as to how would a certain cover-up be portrayed for the purposes of the screenplay, that's clearly in the discussion of the creation of a fictional screenplay. As such, it's not relevant. The objection will be sustained. As to the issue of the department's cover-up of the performance of women as police officers, interesting topic, but not for this trial. The objection likewise is sustained on the basis of relevancy. All right. Next issue. . ."

Ah, yes let's continue from your quote and see how judge Ito reconsidered this.

"THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the second example first, the discussion within the context of the screenplay, the question being from Miss McKinny as to how would a certain cover-up be portrayed for the purposes of the screenplay, that's clearly in the discussion of the creation of a fictional screenplay. As such, it's not relevant. The objection will be sustained. As to the issue of the department's cover-up of the performance of women as police officers, interesting topic, but not for this trial. The objection likewise is sustained on the basis of relevancy. All right. Next issue.

MR. UELMEN: The next issue, your Honor, is the renewal of the Defendant's motion to suppress.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: And I think an appropriate place to begin is with the legal standard to be applied in terms of the impact of newly discovered evidence. And we believe that the leading case on this question is People versus Ramsey cited in our brief at page 7, which quite clearly holds:

"Where additional evidence is presented, the findings of the magistrate to the extent they are affected by the additional evidence are not binding on the superior court. This allows the superior court to exercise its independent judgment on issues on which additional evidence is introduced." The additional evidence that we wish to introduce relates directly to the credibility of Detective Mark Fuhrman. And our position quite simply is that your Honor, in considering this evidence, is not bound by whatever findings were made with respect to Detective Fuhrman's credibility in the municipal court, but that you are to exercise your independent judgment on the issue of his credibility. Now, the Prosecution has contended that what we are offering with this additional proffer is simply evidence going to his general credibility. And I want to point out to the court the very clear relationship between the portions of the McKinny transcripts and tapes that we are proffering as new evidence on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman and the testimony that he presented on the motion to suppress.
....Now, in that context, it is significant that this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in the context of the McKinny tapes and transcripts offers the following comments. This is Miss McKinny, and I'm reading from her transcript no. 1, pages 24 to 25. "So if you ripped up his identification, you're not going to mention that you ripped it up, are you?" And he answers: "Never, but that doesn't mean I didn't say I didn't. Nobody asked." And the interviewer, Miss McKinny asks: "How about if somebody asks?" And Fuhrman says:...
"I stopped making any record of what I was doing as soon as I was taken off the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning." Perfect setup. No way to double-check any of his activity in terms of what happened after he was relieved from the case. And, your Honor, this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in his exchange with Miss McKinny--and this is on the tape 6--6A. I'm reading from page 3 to page 4. "This is embarrassing." This is Detective Fuhrman speaking."

As you will see, led by the magnificent one the argument was made in another form and MF's conduct and credibility was called into question and MF took the stand. Ergo all statements made by the judge prior to that were irrelevant, immaterial, superfluous and moot. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Taking the 5th was a smart move by Furhmans lawyer. If he hadn't his other activities would have come to light and i am sure he wanted to evade that.
Furhman could not stand a frisk as they say.

When Darden called him, MF should have taken the 5th and told them you know the problem I have with my slipping/non-slipping tongue, IMHO.:biggrin:

[martin II]

Ms Bells testimony conflicted with furhman's and presented the opportunity for Furhmans credibility to be questioned.

[weezer]

ruling on Fuhrman planting theory:

". . . This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . ."

[martin II]

When Darden called him, MF should have taken the 5th and told them you know the problem I have with my slipping/non-slipping tongue, IMHO.:biggrin:

I agree. IF he had a truthful bone in his body he could have just said "YES I HAVE" and left the clean up to Darden and Clarke.

I am also thinking that if the jury and the public had some ideas about furhman and racism and were kinda on the fence Clarke confirmed those ideas in her closing argument when she said he should have never been allowed to be a cop. I guess most told themselves well i guess it was true.

[martin II]

ruling on Fuhrman planting theory:

". . . This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . ."

After furthur research in his law library or findlaw Ito decided his previous comments needed review and altering.

[William Anthony]

I agree. IF he had a truthful bone in his body he could have just said "YES I HAVE" and left the clean up to Darden and Clarke.

I am also thinking that if the jury and the public had some ideas about furhman and racism and were kinda on the fence Clarke confirmed those ideas in her closing argument when she said he should have never been allowed to be a cop. I guess most told themselves well i guess it was true.

I have no problem with Ms. Clark and she spoke the truth in that instance, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

After furthur research in his law library or findlaw Ito decided his previous comments needed review and altering.

I think judge Ito used all the legal reasoning he could to keep LE from being further embarrassed but the defense relentlessly put forth the best legal arguments, forcing Ito to have the chips fall where they may.

[martin II]

Which was changed on September 6th as MF crawled (figuratively) to the witness stand and slithered off (figuratively) after being asked and giving this answer.

"MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?

DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege."

I guess he was saying Mr Uelmen i cain't talk about what i did in front of everyone. Although people know taking the 5th was his legal right most
assumed he had planted and manufactured evidence by his non answer.

[bobaugust]

What do you think about phillips? Or are we expected to ignor his testimony?

Phillips testified that Ms ARNELL unlocked the door to let them in. There were no outside locks on any back door to unlock.Only the front door had a outside loock.
I posted PHILLIPS testimony on unlocking the door above.Its conclusive that they did not enter a back door and Ms Arnell did not lie.

No one is ignoring Phillips testimony; most people understand what he said.

All the detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door since they all saw Arnelle carrying keys when she went to the back door. They were all mistaken. Kaelin said he saw Arnelle with a key leading the detectives and saw Arnelle walk into the house. Kaelin said he followed them in through the same door. Arnelle, all the detectives, and Kaelin entered the house into the family room. Lange called it a rear den, Phillips called it a living room, Vannatter, Fuhrman and Kaelin said bar area.

Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I guess he was saying Mr Uelmen i cain't talk about what i did in front of everyone. Although people know taking the 5th was his legal right most
assumed he had planted and manufactured evidence by his non answer.

People who assume that Fuhrman planted evidence because he answered that question and every question he was asked by taking the fifth are making a wrong assumption.

bobaugust

[weezer]

MR. UELMEN:. . .In fact, we have inquiries going on right now where on the basis of the discovery of forged evidence, we're going back to cases that were tried years ago to get to the bottom of it, to get to the truth of it. And that's precisely what we propose to do here.

THE COURT: All right. Given that offer, what do you think the likelihood is that Detective Fuhrman would be--former Detective Fuhrman would be available to testify? error on the judge ito's part? the defense had no proof of what they were offering only the promise of what was to come and as we all know, there was no proof.

MR. UELMEN: There's only one way to find out, your Honor. Let's bring him in, put him on the witness stand and put the questions to him. . .

. . .THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Mounger, Mr. Darryl Mounger is also here with us, counsel for Mr. Fuhrman. Good afternoon, counsel. . .

MR. MOUNGER: Well, your Honor, first, I would ask that, similar to the issue when Mr. Kardashian was asked to be a witness, because of the position that Detective Fuhrman is in, I would first like to see if the court could allow it, the questions, the exact questions that they plan on asking him because asking him to testify at this point in time may have a difference depending upon the questions that are asked.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, do you have an additional copy of your specific offer of proof regarding this issue available?

. . .MR. UELMEN: I'm sure we can have a copy duplicated, but we don't believe a witness is entitled to a preview of the questions that they're going to be asked on cross-examination. The whole purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of the witness in reacting to questions as they are put and--. . .

[martin II]

No one is ignoring Phillips testimony; most people understand what he said.

All the detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door since they all saw Arnelle carrying keys when she went to the back door. They were all mistaken. Kaelin said he saw Arnelle with a key leading the detectives and saw Arnelle walk into the house. Kaelin said he followed them in through the same door. Arnelle, all the detectives, and Kaelin entered the house into the family room. Lange called it a rear den, Phillips called it a living room, Vannatter, Fuhrman and Kaelin said bar area.

Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

That may be how you see it.But phillips was a seasoned cop that could be expected to say what he did.You, and outsider cannot change what his words
meant. I see no reason to change the english Phillips used. His words are his words.
We know that there were no back doors with outside locks and the prosecution made no effort to challange Arnell testimony of the no locks on back door issue as they knew she was accurate. There were no outside locks on any back door so it was not possibility for Ms Arnell to unlock any door but the front door.

The cops gave different versions as to how they got into the house because they were lying.

[weezer]

"THE COURT: All right. We've been rejoined now by counsel Darryl Mounger who represents Mark Fuhrman. Good afternoon again, counsel.

MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, over the break, I talked to Mr. Fuhrman, and it is our position that because I am walking into this trial after eight months, I am unfamiliar with all of the testimony. I have been handling my own cases and not followed this trial intimately. I have come into this court asking for the McKinny tapes and a copy of the transcripts so that I might review them with my client, although I have reviewed most of them. I have tried to correlate that information and interview my client, and I'm unable to put it in the context which it deserves. Based upon this court's July 31st--I'm sorry--August 31st ruling and the words specifically I believe on page 5, on the information I do know and the information especially I do not know, I have advised Mr. Fuhrman that he should not answer any questions before this court. Therefore, it is my understanding that he will assert his 5th amendment privilege if asked any questions.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, for the purposes of the record, will you accept that representation?

MR. UELMEN: No, your Honor. We believe it's necessary for him to assert the privilege from the witness stand in response to a question.

THE COURT: All right. Since there's an unwillingness to accept and stipulate to that, it will be necessary for Mr. Fuhrman to resume the witness stand for the purpose of this motion and to assert the privilege."

[martin II]

MR. UELMEN:. . .In fact, we have inquiries going on right now where on the basis of the discovery of forged evidence, we're going back to cases that were tried years ago to get to the bottom of it, to get to the truth of it. And that's precisely what we propose to do here.

THE COURT: All right. Given that offer, what do you think the likelihood is that Detective Fuhrman would be--former Detective Fuhrman would be available to testify? error on the judge ito's part? the defense had no proof of what they were offering only the promise of what was to come and as we all know, there was no proof.

MR. UELMEN: There's only one way to find out, your Honor. Let's bring him in, put him on the witness stand and put the questions to him. . .

. . .THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Mounger, Mr. Darryl Mounger is also here with us, counsel for Mr. Fuhrman. Good afternoon, counsel. . .

MR. MOUNGER: Well, your Honor, first, I would ask that, similar to the issue when Mr. Kardashian was asked to be a witness, because of the position that Detective Fuhrman is in, I would first like to see if the court could allow it, the questions, the exact questions that they plan on asking him because asking him to testify at this point in time may have a difference depending upon the questions that are asked.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, do you have an additional copy of your specific offer of proof regarding this issue available?

. . .MR. UELMEN: I'm sure we can have a copy duplicated, but we don't believe a witness is entitled to a preview of the questions that they're going to be asked on cross-examination. The whole purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of the witness in reacting to questions as they are put and--. . .

Not true

[William Anthony]

People who assume that Fuhrman planted evidence because he answered that question and every question he was asked by taking the fifth are making a wrong assumption.

bobaugust

The evidence strongly suggests that MF planted evidence in this case, which he did not deny on the stand and under oath.

[weezer]

People who assume that Fuhrman planted evidence because he answered that question and every question he was asked by taking the fifth are making a wrong assumption.

bobaugust

considering the testimony and court records show exactly opposite, I wonder why they do that? and do they also believe ac was involved because he also pleaded the 5th? :shrug:

[William Anthony]

"THE COURT: All right. We've been rejoined now by counsel Darryl Mounger who represents Mark Fuhrman. Good afternoon again, counsel.

MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, over the break, I talked to Mr. Fuhrman, and it is our position that because I am walking into this trial after eight months, I am unfamiliar with all of the testimony. I have been handling my own cases and not followed this trial intimately. I have come into this court asking for the McKinny tapes and a copy of the transcripts so that I might review them with my client, although I have reviewed most of them. I have tried to correlate that information and interview my client, and I'm unable to put it in the context which it deserves. Based upon this court's July 31st--I'm sorry--August 31st ruling and the words specifically I believe on page 5, on the information I do know and the information especially I do not know, I have advised Mr. Fuhrman that he should not answer any questions before this court. Therefore, it is my understanding that he will assert his 5th amendment privilege if asked any questions.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, for the purposes of the record, will you accept that representation?

MR. UELMEN: No, your Honor. We believe it's necessary for him to assert the privilege from the witness stand in response to a question.

THE COURT: All right. Since there's an unwillingness to accept and stipulate to that, it will be necessary for Mr. Fuhrman to resume the witness stand for the purpose of this motion and to assert the privilege."

Exactly, and the court had to reconsider its position on planting as the defense was allowed to ask MF if he manipulated or planted evidence in this case.

[William Anthony]

considering the testimony and court records show exactly opposite, I wonder why they do that? and do they also believe ac was involved because he also pleaded the 5th? :shrug:

I thought that was your position on AC. However, the evidence in the trial was so strong, imho, that MF planted evidence in this case, he should have answered yes.

[weezer]

Judge Ito on Fuhrman planting: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

[William Anthony]

"THE COURT: All right. We've been rejoined now by counsel Darryl Mounger who represents Mark Fuhrman. Good afternoon again, counsel.

MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, over the break, I talked to Mr. Fuhrman, and it is our position that because I am walking into this trial after eight months, I am unfamiliar with all of the testimony. I have been handling my own cases and not followed this trial intimately. I have come into this court asking for the McKinny tapes and a copy of the transcripts so that I might review them with my client, although I have reviewed most of them. I have tried to correlate that information and interview my client, and I'm unable to put it in the context which it deserves. Based upon this court's July 31st--I'm sorry--August 31st ruling and the words specifically I believe on page 5, on the information I do know and the information especially I do not know, I have advised Mr. Fuhrman that he should not answer any questions before this court. Therefore, it is my understanding that he will assert his 5th amendment privilege if asked any questions.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, for the purposes of the record, will you accept that representation?

MR. UELMEN: No, your Honor. We believe it's necessary for him to assert the privilege from the witness stand in response to a question.

THE COURT: All right. Since there's an unwillingness to accept and stipulate to that, it will be necessary for Mr. Fuhrman to resume the witness stand for the purpose of this motion and to assert the privilege."

I don't think you understand. The argument was MF's credibility and his conduct as admitted on the tapes of his propensity to harass and abuse certain citizens and his conduct in this case. On that basis, the defense felt they had the right to question him and, if necessary, use the tapes for impeachment,which MF fully understood.

[weezer]

Judge Ito on Fuhrman planting: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

[Hotwater]

Baiting comments removed. Stick to the discussion please.

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito on Fuhrman planting: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

It seems that no matter how much water you lead someone to... This was all changed on September 6th, when the defense was allowed to ask MF, if he manipulated/planted evidence in this case.

[martin II]

William

I am not sure why the discussion is about ITO long ago decision that uncovered Furhmans lies. I understand the desire to try to clean up Furhmans image by attacking judge ITO. But the world knows he was convicted of purjery. Attacking ITO does not change that especially when the argument is faulty.
i'm finished with this issue.

[bobaugust]

That may be how you see it.But phillips was a seasoned cop that could be expected to say what he did.You, and outsider cannot change what his words
meant. I see no reason to change the english Phillips used. His words are his words.
We know that there were no back doors with outside locks and the prosecution made no effort to challange Arnell testimony of the no locks on back door issue as they knew she was accurate. There were no outside locks on any back door so it was not possibility for Ms Arnell to unlock any door but the front door.

The cops gave different versions as to how they got into the house because they were lying.

You just can’t seem to grasp the fact that another witness, Kato Kaelin, corroborated the detective’s testimony. Kato Kaelin testified that he saw Arnelle lead the detectives to the back door with a key in her hand and enter that back door. Kaelin testified he followed Arnelle and the three detectives into the house using that same door. Kaelin’s testimony not only proved Arnelle lied about this it proves all your speculation false as to what door you imagine Phillips used that morning.

Arnelle Simpson lied about, this not the police.

bobaugust

[martin II]

No one is ignoring Phillips testimony; most people understand what he said.

All the detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door since they all saw Arnelle carrying keys when she went to the back door. They were all mistaken. Kaelin said he saw Arnelle with a key leading the detectives and saw Arnelle walk into the house. Kaelin said he followed them in through the same door. Arnelle, all the detectives, and Kaelin entered the house into the family room. Lange called it a rear den, Phillips called it a living room, Vannatter, Fuhrman and Kaelin said bar area.

Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

I have no idea what you mean by most people understand what he said.

He said he entered the house into the living room.The only way he could have done that is through the french doors on the North end of the house.
Vanatter said he entered the house by some door at the south end of the house.

These claims are in conflict and i don't understand why you are of the belief that you can just change what Phillips said into something that you would have liked him to have said and expect others to just agree with you.

If you are not interested in the truth or facts that is another issue. The fact that the detectives gave different versions of what they did leads me to believe they lied. You can continue to ignore the facts and say Ms Arnell lied but i think in your fact check you know that is not true.imo

[William Anthony]

William

I am not sure why the discussion is about ITO long ago decision that uncovered Furhmans lies. I understand the desire to try to clean up Furhmans image by attacking judge ITO. But the world knows he was convicted of purjery. Attacking ITO does not change that especially when the argument is faulty.
i'm finished with this issue.

Martin,

I did not see it as attacking Ito. I saw it as some agreeing with his ruling but failing to consider that he obviously reconsidered his ruling after hearing the oral arguments. Truly, the only person convicted of telling a lie was MF and to call anyone else a liar without stating it as an opinion is against the rules, according to my understanding, unless calling someone a liar is not bashing.

[martin II]

Judge Ito on Fuhrman planting: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

The judge saught and received nore informed legal advice. Judges changes earlier decisions all the time. The civil trial judge changed a previous decision he made. So i am not sure what the point is.Ito made a decison he then changed it after more informed argument from the defense.

[weezer]

September 6 -- Judge Ito on Fuhrman planting: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

[William Anthony]

The judge saught and received nore informed legal advice. Judges changes earlier decisions all the time. The civil trial judge changed a previous decision he made. So i am not sure what the point is.Ito made a decison he then changed it after more informed argument from the defense.

I see why you want to drop the issue. The bottom line is that after he made the statements so often quoted, he obviously changed his ruling as he allowed the questioning in that area. I think that to continue to post the superfluous comment is just baiting.

[weezer]

Judge Ito ruled on Fuhrman planting on August 31 and September 6 that: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

The ruling never changed.

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito ruled on Fuhrman planting on August 31 and September 6 that: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

The ruling never changed.

Ah, yes let's continue from your quote and see how judge Ito reconsidered this.

"THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the second example first, the discussion within the context of the screenplay, the question being from Miss McKinny as to how would a certain cover-up be portrayed for the purposes of the screenplay, that's clearly in the discussion of the creation of a fictional screenplay. As such, it's not relevant. The objection will be sustained. As to the issue of the department's cover-up of the performance of women as police officers, interesting topic, but not for this trial. The objection likewise is sustained on the basis of relevancy. All right. Next issue.

MR. UELMEN: The next issue, your Honor, is the renewal of the Defendant's motion to suppress.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: And I think an appropriate place to begin is with the legal standard to be applied in terms of the impact of newly discovered evidence. And we believe that the leading case on this question is People versus Ramsey cited in our brief at page 7, which quite clearly holds:

"Where additional evidence is presented, the findings of the magistrate to the extent they are affected by the additional evidence are not binding on the superior court. This allows the superior court to exercise its independent judgment on issues on which additional evidence is introduced." The additional evidence that we wish to introduce relates directly to the credibility of Detective Mark Fuhrman. And our position quite simply is that your Honor, in considering this evidence, is not bound by whatever findings were made with respect to Detective Fuhrman's credibility in the municipal court, but that you are to exercise your independent judgment on the issue of his credibility. Now, the Prosecution has contended that what we are offering with this additional proffer is simply evidence going to his general credibility. And I want to point out to the court the very clear relationship between the portions of the McKinny transcripts and tapes that we are proffering as new evidence on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman and the testimony that he presented on the motion to suppress.
....Now, in that context, it is significant that this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in the context of the McKinny tapes and transcripts offers the following comments. This is Miss McKinny, and I'm reading from her transcript no. 1, pages 24 to 25. "So if you ripped up his identification, you're not going to mention that you ripped it up, are you?" And he answers: "Never, but that doesn't mean I didn't say I didn't. Nobody asked." And the interviewer, Miss McKinny asks: "How about if somebody asks?" And Fuhrman says:...
"I stopped making any record of what I was doing as soon as I was taken off the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning." Perfect setup. No way to double-check any of his activity in terms of what happened after he was relieved from the case. And, your Honor, this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in his exchange with Miss McKinny--and this is on the tape 6--6A. I'm reading from page 3 to page 4. "This is embarrassing." This is Detective Fuhrman speaking."

As you will see, led by the magnificent one the argument was made in another form and MF's conduct and credibility was called into question and MF took the stand. Ergo all statements made by the judge prior to that were irrelevant, immaterial, superfluous and moot.

[William Anthony]

Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

Prove it. The only proven liar was MF.

[martin II]

Judge Ito ruled on Fuhrman planting on August 31 and September 6 that: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

The ruling never changed.

The defense questioned furhman.

[William Anthony]

The defense questioned furhman.

"MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?

DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.

THE COURT: All right. Based upon the witness' answers, the representation by his counsel, Mr. Mounger--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People make an objection to the last question and ask the court to strike it as being improper and does nothing but headline.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. All right. Miss Clark, do you have any questions of this witness?"

They questioned him over objection the answer stood. :);):cool::rose:

[weezer]

Judge Ito ruled on Fuhrman planting on August 31 and September 6 that: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

The ruling never changed.

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito ruled on Fuhrman planting on August 31 and September 6 that: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

The ruling never changed.

The ruling changed. They questioned him over objection the answer stood.:);):cool::rose:

[weezer]

The Simpson defense team was sanctioned twice by Judge Lance Ito for violating California law. Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas were fined $950 each for telling the Court there was no audiotape of investigator Bill Pavelic’s interview with Rosa Lopez.

sounds like being found guilty of lying to me. . .:shrug:

[martin II]

Judge Ito ruled on Fuhrman planting on August 31 and September 6 that: "This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

The ruling never changed.

Since furhman testified, what is your point?

[William Anthony]

The Simpson defense team was sanctioned twice by Judge Lance Ito for violating California law. Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas were fined $950 each for telling the Court there was no audiotape of investigator Bill Pavelic’s interview with Rosa Lopez.

sounds like being found guilty of lying to me. . .:shrug:

Sounds like human error and mistake to me, with the vast amount of discovery material in a case that lasted nine months. The only one proven to have lied was MF.:shrug::);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Since furhman testified, what is your point?

The point was the period, signifying the end, that came at the end of his taking of the 5th.:biggrin:

[socaldiva]

The Simpson defense team was sanctioned twice by Judge Lance Ito for violating California law. Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas were fined $950 each for telling the Court there was no audiotape of investigator Bill Pavelic’s interview with Rosa Lopez.

sounds like being found guilty of lying to me. . .:shrug:

Good catch! :beer:

[William Anthony]

Sounds like human error and mistake to me, with the vast amount of discovery material in a case that lasted nine months. The only one proven to have lied was MF. :shrug:;):cool::)

[weezer]

Good catch! :beer:

thanks! I think what makes it doubly damning is the fact that this is the witness used in opeing statements that was going to provide proof that orenthal was home. . .:rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

The defense did not have to prove Simpson was home but the prosecution had to prove he wasn't and they failed to do so, IMHO.

September 26th by the intelligently beautiful Ms. Marcia Clark.

"Firey speeches that may stir up feelings of anger or pity. Although your feelings may be aroused, as may be natural and understandable for all of us, as the instruction tells you as the trier of fact, you, the judges, are to remain neutral and impartial and not be influenced by such passion or sentiment, no matter how sorely tempted you may be to do so. And this applies to both sides, both sides. Although the brutal and callous way in which Ron and Nicole were murdered may understandably make you feel sorry, pity, even anger, it would be wrong to find the Defendant guilty just because you felt sorry for them. On the other hand, although it would be completely understandable if you were to feel angry and disgusted with Mark Fuhrman, as we all are, still it would be wrong to find the Defendant guilty--not guilty just because of that anger and disgust. So as you listen to the arguments of counsel, please remember when you weigh the evidence and you consider all of the evidence, remember that appeal to passion and emotion is an invitation to ignore your responsibility as a juror. To be fair we must examine all of the evidence in a calm and a rational and a logical way. Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Just so it is clear. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worse LAPD has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by LAPD? Yes. Should LAPD have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there were no such person on the planet? Yes.

That was brutally scathing.

[socaldiva]

thanks! I think what makes it doubly damning is the fact that this is the witness used in opeing statements that was going to provide proof that orenthal was home. . .:rolleyes:

Another good point. You're at the top of your game today :D

[William Anthony]

September 27th,

if you can't trust the messengers, watch out for their messages. Vannatter, the man who carries the blood. Fuhrman, the man who finds the glove. Remember those two phrases; Vannatter, the man who carries the blood, Fuhrman, the man who found the glove. Now, Detective Vannatter has been a police officer for 27, 28 years, experienced LAPD robbery-homicide man who was put on this case because of his experience, presumably because they had the resources downtown. You know what time he got there and what happened. One of the things that has been totally unexplainable to me is the fact that here you have Mr. Simpson cooperating fully, gives his blood, gives 8 cc's of blood we now know. Vannatter--the blood is then turned over to Vannatter. Now, we know that he could have booked that blood in Parker Center or could have gone over to piper tech. You see these two residences. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. And, your Honor, this is--okay. This is just the board, apparently not numbered. He's at Parker Center right over here in the police building, right down here, 150 North Los Angeles Street (Indicating). He takes this blood. He could have gone a couple of floors and booked the blood, the manual requires. But he didn't do that, did he? He could have gone over to piper tech, another facility right downtown here and booked that blood (Indicating). This is the reference sample of Mr. O.J. Simpson. He doesn't do that. What he does is, he goes way out in this area marked Brentwood heights. It must be 20, 25 miles, 27 miles, to go way out there carrying the blood in this unsealed gray envelope supposedly. Why is he doing that? Why is Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood out there? Why is he doing that? Doesn't make any sense. Violates their own rules. Why is he doing that in this case? Has he ever done it in any other case? No."

"That is preposterous. So if you believe the Prosecution's theory--and they told you all this about a bloody trail--where's the blood back there, ladies and gentlemen? There's not one drop of blood. Where's the blood back there? Where's the trail that leads to that glove? And further, look at this. Look at this, ladies and gentlemen. That's not something I'm making up. You see this with your own eyes. Look at the glove. Now, when that glove is picked up, remember seeing any blood on the ground? No blood on that shrubbery, no blood on anything there. Where's the blood? Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony?"

"MR. COCHRAN: 527. 1250, your Honor. The point of that was, we have said and I told you at the beginning and I told you in opening statement and told you again today, this was a rush to judgment. At 12:00 o'clock on June 13th, Vannatter told Thompson to handcuff O.J. Simpson or to hook him up. Vannatter lied about that because he said in his testimony he never told him that. Thompson was very clear that he told him. He didn't do that on his own. But it shows this rush to judgment. Vannatter did not want to admit that and never did. We will talk more about him when we discuss the officers together. "

[William Anthony]

Some say the prosecution was on top of its game but still lost. It's a shame to be on top of your game and still lose, because your game is naturally weak as was the prosecution's. :);):cool:

[weezer]

Another good point. You're at the top of your game today :D

do you love how folks try to re-write history? :no::no:

". . .Cochran said police ignored at least two witnesses who offered information that could clear Simpson. The witnesses included a woman called Mary Anne Gerchas, a jewelery store owner, who said as she walking near the murder scene the night of June 12th, where she saw four men, wearing knit caps run from the crime scene and speed off in an unmarked vehicle. Another woman called Rosa Lopez, who worked as a housekeeper for one of Simpson's neighbors, claimed she saw Simpson's car at home that night at the time of the murders. Subsequently both these witnesses turned out to be totally unreliable and were never called by the defense. . ."

[weezer]

". . .The amount of the fines imposed on Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas was only $50 below the threshold that would have required Judge Ito to report both offenders to the state bar. But more stinging than the fines themselves was the judge's language.

By repeatedly assuring prosecutors and the court that the defense had handed over everything that California's reciprocal discovery law requires, he wrote, Mr. Cochran, responsible for the defense team's conduct, "made untrue representations in reckless disregard of the truth."

And Mr. Douglas, he noted, not only was in charge of discovery matters for the defense but also is now a repeat offender, having been punished for discovery violations earlier in the Simpson case. . ."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/04/us/judge-fines-two-lawyers-for-simpson.html?pagewanted=all

[fgump2]

Sounds like human error and mistake to me, with the vast amount of discovery material in a case that lasted nine months. The only one proven to have lied was MF.:shrug::);):cool:

Rosa Lopez's testimony was a waste of everybody's time. The only thing it proved was that the defense was trying to drag red herrings accross the trail and confuse the issue on it.

The NG people here want us to believe two things:
The prosecution had a weak case
The defense was outstanding - especially Cochran

A person who believes both of these things should at least wonder why Cochran had 17 discovery violations in his opening speech, and why the bothered with a witness who was as useless as Rosa Lopez. I read that the Nat Enquirer wouldn't run a story on her because what she said had so little credibility.

I thought that the defense should have used a forensic memory expert to weaken the defense's case on three things:
- The value of the memory of the witnesses who said they saw no sign of a cut on Simpson during the LA to Chicago trip.
- The time line arguements about who heard what at what times, for example Heidestra said he heard some sounds that probably were involved with the killings at a certain time. A good memory expert would probably say that the average person's memory of the exact time on these things could easily be off by more than 10 minutes. Heidestra had no reason to think the time of night was important till a good many hours later.
- Rosa Lopez's testimon. A forensic memory expert would say that her memories are unlikely to be accurate of the sort of thing she claimed to remember with accuracy. For example that Simpson's bronco was at a certain location at a certain time.

I think in the case of Rosa Lopez, most people would be able to understand that her testimony was a waste of time without a forensic memory testifying about it.

[William Anthony]

". . .The amount of the fines imposed on Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas was only $50 below the threshold that would have required Judge Ito to report both offenders to the state bar. But more stinging than the fines themselves was the judge's language.

By repeatedly assuring prosecutors and the court that the defense had handed over everything that California's reciprocal discovery law requires, he wrote, Mr. Cochran, responsible for the defense team's conduct, "made untrue representations in reckless disregard of the truth."

And Mr. Douglas, he noted, not only was in charge of discovery matters for the defense but also is now a repeat offender, having been punished for discovery violations earlier in the Simpson case. . ."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/04/us/judge-fines-two-lawyers-for-simpson.html?pagewanted=all

So, where is the charge of perjury or telling a lie? Judge Ito made a similar statement about Vannatter but upheld the search warrant, meaning he stopped short of calling Vannatter a liar but the prosecution, the defense and another judge did not fall short of calling MF a liar. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Rosa Lopez's testimony was a waste of everybody's time. The only thing it proved was that the defense was trying to drag red herrings accross the trail and confuse the issue on it.

The NG people here want us to believe two things:
The prosecution had a weak case
The defense was outstanding - especially Cochran

A person who believes both of these things should at least wonder why Cochran had 17 discovery violations in his opening speech, and why the bothered with a witness who was as useless as Rosa Lopez. I read that the Nat Enquirer wouldn't run a story on her because what she said had so little credibility.

I thought that the defense should have used a forensic memory expert to weaken the defense's case on three things:
- The value of the memory of the witnesses who said they saw no sign of a cut on Simpson during the LA to Chicago trip.
- The time line arguements about who heard what at what times, for example Heidestra said he heard some sounds that probably were involved with the killings at a certain time. A good memory expert would probably say that the average person's memory of the exact time on these things could easily be off by more than 10 minutes. Heidestra had no reason to think the time of night was important till a good many hours later.
- Rosa Lopez's testimon. A forensic memory expert would say that her memories are unlikely to be accurate of the sort of thing she claimed to remember with accuracy. For example that Simpson's bronco was at a certain location at a certain time.

I think in the case of Rosa Lopez, most people would be able to understand that her testimony was a waste of time without a forensic memory testifying about it.

I am a reasonable doubter, which I guess would technically make me a NG. I agree with the two things you have mentioned as to what I believe but I don't want anyone to believe anything except there is a God.

Having had the personal experience of being in court representing myself on four occasions and going to court for discovery motions and listening to others there for discovery motions, I know that this things happens quite often and some of them are tactical.

As far as the forensic memory expert goes, one was not needed, because the defense won. With all those sanctions the magnificent one still one and proved he was on top of his game.

[William Anthony]

People try to rewrite history by saying that Simpson is guilty of murder, IMHO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
". . .The amount of the fines imposed on Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas was only $50 below the threshold that would have required Judge Ito to report both offenders to the state bar.

Yet some still refer to those two as part of a "dream team". What a joke.

[weezer]

Yet some still refer to those two as part of a "dream team". What a joke.

they were orenthal's dream team. I think it simply shows that the defense was not above using whatever means -- including lying and cheating -- to get their client off.

[martin II]

". . .The amount of the fines imposed on Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas was only $50 below the threshold that would have required Judge Ito to report both offenders to the state bar. But more stinging than the fines themselves was the judge's language.

By repeatedly assuring prosecutors and the court that the defense had handed over everything that California's reciprocal discovery law requires, he wrote, Mr. Cochran, responsible for the defense team's conduct, "made untrue representations in reckless disregard of the truth."

And Mr. Douglas, he noted, not only was in charge of discovery matters for the defense but also is now a repeat offender, having been punished for discovery violations earlier in the Simpson case. . ."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/04/us/judge-fines-two-lawyers-for-simpson.html?pagewanted=all


Fines imposed on defense: $3,000
Fines imposed on prosecution: $850
Fines imposed on others: $1,800


Cochran's comment.

"I'll live with what the judge does," he said. "We'll pay that and move on. We're big boys, big men, and we'll move right on. He didn't find it to be a lie, and he knows I wouldn't lie to him."

The prosecution would have been pleased to pay that if they had won.Thats not too much for a win..

[martin II]

Rosa Lopez's testimony was a waste of everybody's time. The only thing it proved was that the defense was trying to drag red herrings accross the trail and confuse the issue on it.

The NG people here want us to believe two things:
The prosecution had a weak case
The defense was outstanding - especially Cochran

A person who believes both of these things should at least wonder why Cochran had 17 discovery violations in his opening speech, and why the bothered with a witness who was as useless as Rosa Lopez. I read that the Nat Enquirer wouldn't run a story on her because what she said had so little credibility.

I thought that the defense should have used a forensic memory expert to weaken the defense's case on three things:
- The value of the memory of the witnesses who said they saw no sign of a cut on Simpson during the LA to Chicago trip.
- The time line arguements about who heard what at what times, for example Heidestra said he heard some sounds that probably were involved with the killings at a certain time. A good memory expert would probably say that the average person's memory of the exact time on these things could easily be off by more than 10 minutes. Heidestra had no reason to think the time of night was important till a good many hours later.
- Rosa Lopez's testimon. A forensic memory expert would say that her memories are unlikely to be accurate of the sort of thing she claimed to remember with accuracy. For example that Simpson's bronco was at a certain location at a certain time.

I think in the case of Rosa Lopez, most people would be able to understand that her testimony was a waste of time without a forensic memory testifying about it.

You seem to know what was needed in the trial when the prosecution,defense and the judge did not know.

hhhmmmmm

[socaldiva]

they were orenthal's dream team. I think it simply shows that the defense was not above using whatever means -- including lying and cheating -- to get their client off.

Exactly, yet some act as though they uncovered the truth of the murders. Far from it. All they were successful at was manipulating a few that wanted to believe their fantasy. imo

[weezer]

Exactly, yet some act as though they uncovered the truth of the murders. Far from it. All they were successful at was manipulating a few that wanted to believe their fantasy. imo

I understand the argument that the defense didn't have to show proof of anything -- that the prosecution carried the burden. but there is one part that I've not been able to reconcile -- the defense took evidence and did their own testing yet they never used any of it to dispute the accusations. I think there was much more going on with the 'dream team' than we can even imagine.

[martin II]

Rosa Lopez's testimony was a waste of everybody's time. The only thing it proved was that the defense was trying to drag red herrings accross the trail and confuse the issue on it.

The NG people here want us to believe two things:
The prosecution had a weak case
The defense was outstanding - especially Cochran

A person who believes both of these things should at least wonder why Cochran had 17 discovery violations in his opening speech, and why the bothered with a witness who was as useless as Rosa Lopez. I read that the Nat Enquirer wouldn't run a story on her because what she said had so little credibility.

I thought that the defense should have used a forensic memory expert to weaken the defense's case on three things:
- The value of the memory of the witnesses who said they saw no sign of a cut on Simpson during the LA to Chicago trip.
- The time line arguements about who heard what at what times, for example Heidestra said he heard some sounds that probably were involved with the killings at a certain time. A good memory expert would probably say that the average person's memory of the exact time on these things could easily be off by more than 10 minutes. Heidestra had no reason to think the time of night was important till a good many hours later.
- Rosa Lopez's testimon. A forensic memory expert would say that her memories are unlikely to be accurate of the sort of thing she claimed to remember with accuracy. For example that Simpson's bronco was at a certain location at a certain time.

I think in the case of Rosa Lopez, most people would be able to understand that her testimony was a waste of time without a forensic memory testifying about it.

Your comment about Heidstra is not true.He left home to walk his dogs at the same time each night and he arrived back home at the same time.He used his clock when he left and his clock and the nightly tv news when he returned.

The neighbors that pinpointed the time of the dog barking was looking at a clock. So there was little guessing about these times.

Forensic memory experts were not used in either trial or any trial that i can remember so your confidence in one may be misplaced or just faulty. imo

[socaldiva]

I understand the argument that the defense didn't have to show proof of anything -- that the prosecution carried the burden. but there is one part that I've not been able to reconcile -- the defense took evidence and did their own testing yet they never used any of it to dispute the accusations. I think there was much more going on with the 'dream team' than we can even imagine.

No, they didnt' have to prove anything, but they could have used their scientific tests to refute the prosecution's. I can only think of one reason not to.

[martin II]

they were orenthal's dream team. I think it simply shows that the defense was not above using whatever means -- including lying and cheating -- to get their client off.

You don't think le and the prosecution did not cheat, lie and manipulate evidence. I know they did.imo

[weezer]

No, they didnt' have to prove anything, but they could have used their scientific tests to refute the prosecution's. I can only think of one reason not to.

exactly. the defense based their case on an ability to manipulate the jury based on hatred for LE. so they used sloppy collection, yada-yada-yada. why not use their test results to absolutely show LE had planted and/or lied? the simple answer to this is they couldn't. they got the same results so they fell back to cochran's money game -- go after LE.

[socaldiva]

exactly. the defense based their case on an ability to manipulate the jury based on hatred for LE. so they used sloppy collection, yada-yada-yada. why not use their test results to absolutely show LE had planted and/or lied? the simple answer to this is they couldn't. they got the same results so they fell back to cochran's money game -- go after LE.

Yep. They couldn't fight the science of the murders, because it would have pointed to Simpson, so they had to do their smoke & mirrors routine & create a false illusion of a police conspiracy. There's no honor or brilliance in what they did. jmo

[weezer]

Yep. They couldn't fight the science of the murders, because it would have pointed to Simpson, so they had to do their smoke & mirrors routine & create a false illusion of a police conspiracy. There's no honor or brilliance in what they did. jmo

I remember reading someplace that the lead defense was a good lawyer but not good citizen. so I understand that you want your client to win and I understand that you use all the tricks you can -- and I also understand that for the lawyers it's a game. the more points you score the more money you can demand.

with that all aside, I still wonder what the defense testing results were and why they were never, ever released and/or used to exonerate orenthal.

[GreenIce]

Rosa Lopez's testimony was a waste of everybody's time. The only thing it proved was that the defense was trying to drag red herrings accross the trail and confuse the issue on it.

The NG people here want us to believe two things:
The prosecution had a weak case
The defense was outstanding - especially Cochran

A person who believes both of these things should at least wonder why Cochran had 17 discovery violations in his opening speech, and why the bothered with a witness who was as useless as Rosa Lopez. I read that the Nat Enquirer wouldn't run a story on her because what she said had so little credibility.

I thought that the defense should have used a forensic memory expert to weaken the defense's case on three things:
- The value of the memory of the witnesses who said they saw no sign of a cut on Simpson during the LA to Chicago trip.
- The time line arguements about who heard what at what times, for example Heidestra said he heard some sounds that probably were involved with the killings at a certain time. A good memory expert would probably say that the average person's memory of the exact time on these things could easily be off by more than 10 minutes. Heidestra had no reason to think the time of night was important till a good many hours later.
- Rosa Lopez's testimon. A forensic memory expert would say that her memories are unlikely to be accurate of the sort of thing she claimed to remember with accuracy. For example that Simpson's bronco was at a certain location at a certain time.

I think in the case of Rosa Lopez, most people would be able to understand that her testimony was a waste of time without a forensic memory testifying about it.

fgump2,

First off, it comes as no surprise to any one that eye witness testimony is not as accurate as we think it is. This has been proven over and over again. That being said, if you apply a memory expert to the defense's case, then you have to apply the same to the DA's witnesses. The jury in this case already heard the testimony of at least two witnesses who were mistaken during their testimony, Park and Kato.

In regards to Rosa Lopez. It is not what she saw that was most important, it was what she heard. Rosa Lopez never gave the time the defense investigator said she did, that was his mistake. He thought it took five minutes to make a cup of tea or coffee in the microwave. What also is important about Rosa's testimony is that she puts MF behind Kato's wall on the other side of the fence. She has an interview with MF that he made no report about.

Since the DA's did adopt the defense's timeline, then she was accurate on when she did see the Bronco. Also, it was not so much the time she saw the Bronco but if she remembered how it was parked.

It was the DA's who insisted on using a dog for their best line witness, it was the defense who used a human being for their's. This same witness was found by the DA's and he was written a letter on how important he was to their case. They dropped him and never turned over this information to the defense. They had to find him on their own.

No one is disputing that defense was fined as well as the DA's. However, the DA's were given the benefit of doubt even when it was clear that Judge Ito did not believe them. While he would use stern terms in his rulings for the DA's, he always allowed it and it always just fell a tad short of being thrown out.

However, the violations of JC in his opening had nothing to do with the evidence in this case. It had no bearing on the socks, the blood on the back gate or in the Bronco. It had nothing to do with MF.

The DA's did not have a weak case, however, they did have weak excuses for their experts and the four lead detectives.

While JC may have these violations, he never put a witness on the stand that he knew was going to lie, the same can't be said of the DA's. So when it comes to violations, I think the DA's were much worse in that regard.

Also, how was Rosa Lopez impeached---because of an airline reservation? Does this make her liar? Does her wanting to return to her native country because of her testimony means she was lying or she was terrified of the media attention of her testimony? Do you believe that Jill S was lying because she sold her story?

What I find interesting is why the DA's did not use him yet Darden gives him credibility in the defense's case in chief. Again, this makes no sense to me.

I believe the defense did an outstanding job. Robert Shaipo deserves a lot of the credit, he insisted on a speedy trial and from the first witness the DA's called, they defense put them on the defensive. Never did the DA's have an upper hand in the trial. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The ruling changed. They questioned him over objection the answer stood.:);):cool::rose:

William,

What about the special instruction Ito wrote in regards to MF? Wasn't it something like they could consider why he was not "available" to take the stand after the jury heard portions of the tape?

Granted, this was overuled by a higher court, but isn't Ito singing a different tune on MF?

[GreenIce]

GI
Thanks

Bob had previously said Vanatter was not present in the kitchen when the detective was talking to oj and did not know that CR had informed them that oj was on a scheduled trip. The fact that he was present supports the defense claim that Vanatter just flat out lied when he told the judge oj was on a unscheduled trip.Vanatter WAS PRESENT and he knew the trip was scheduled well in advance just as Phillips knew.

It seems that vanatter was searching the house and the property without a search warrant.The maid was not expected to be outside.

He also seems to be saying that he was at the south walkway looking around
and then was led into the walkway by ANOTHER DETECTIVE. Why didn't he name Furhman as the detective that showed him the glove.

Arnell never told Vanatter that Rockingham was not her primary residence.

Martin,

I think Arnelle testifies that only two detectives followed her into the house.

However, it appears to me that the lead detectives heard nothing. Ever notice how they testify that after asking direct questions, they never got a response or that they didn't hear it, or only heard part of it?

I would think you ask a direct question, you are going to stick around listen for an answer. IMO.

[fgump2]

What makes no sense is why would Nicole would spend so much time at ojs house tanning herself at his pool and inviting him to Bundy sometimes for overnight stays if she was afraid of him.If he was going to kill her.She was a smart lady.:cool:

To answer that question a person would have to know a lot about abused and frightened women - or at least know more about Nicole's frame of mind than I do. They would also want to know what Nicole wrote and said at different times, and when she went over to the Rockingham house.

I consider it a fact that she was apprehensive about Orenthal's angry and violent behavior during most of their realtionship, certainly as early as the early 80s. Some of her acquantances said that.
It is also possible that she brought some of that on and exagerated parts of it. I don't pretend to understand either Nicole or Orenthal. The relationship between the Orenthal and Nicole was volatile. She was attracted to both him and his money. Maybe she thought she could disarm his anger by going over there.

If she was attracted to the idea of being a celebrity, that would have been an additional complication.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

First off, it comes as no surprise to any one that eye witness testimony is not as accurate as we think it is. This has been proven over and over again. That being said, if you apply a memory expert to the defense's case, then you have to apply the same to the DA's witnesses. The jury in this case already heard the testimony of at least two witnesses who were mistaken during their testimony, Park and Kato.

In regards to Rosa Lopez. It is not what she saw that was most important, it was what she heard. Rosa Lopez never gave the time the defense investigator said she did, that was his mistake. He thought it took five minutes to make a cup of tea or coffee in the microwave. What also is important about Rosa's testimony is that she puts MF behind Kato's wall on the other side of the fence. She has an interview with MF that he made no report about.

Since the DA's did adopt the defense's timeline, then she was accurate on when she did see the Bronco. Also, it was not so much the time she saw the Bronco but if she remembered how it was parked.

It was the DA's who insisted on using a dog for their best line witness, it was the defense who used a human being for their's. This same witness was found by the DA's and he was written a letter on how important he was to their case. They dropped him and never turned over this information to the defense. They had to find him on their own.

No one is disputing that defense was fined as well as the DA's. However, the DA's were given the benefit of doubt even when it was clear that Judge Ito did not believe them. While he would use stern terms in his rulings for the DA's, he always allowed it and it always just fell a tad short of being thrown out.

However, the violations of JC in his opening had nothing to do with the evidence in this case. It had no bearing on the socks, the blood on the back gate or in the Bronco. It had nothing to do with MF.

The DA's did not have a weak case, however, they did have weak excuses for their experts and the four lead detectives.

While JC may have these violations, he never put a witness on the stand that he knew was going to lie, the same can't be said of the DA's. So when it comes to violations, I think the DA's were much worse in that regard.

Also, how was Rosa Lopez impeached---because of an airline reservation? Does this make her liar? Does her wanting to return to her native country because of her testimony means she was lying or she was terrified of the media attention of her testimony? Do you believe that Jill S was lying because she sold her story?

What I find interesting is why the DA's did not use him yet Darden gives him credibility in the defense's case in chief. Again, this makes no sense to me.

I believe the defense did an outstanding job. Robert Shaipo deserves a lot of the credit, he insisted on a speedy trial and from the first witness the DA's called, they defense put them on the defensive. Never did the DA's have an upper hand in the trial. IMO.
A witness can be a waste of time without lying. I don't think most people would talke seriously her testimony about saying she saw the Bronco once at 10:15 and then came back and saw it again at 10:25 or 10:30 or whatever. I probably don't remember her testimony exactly, but it was similar to that.

If she can remember that sort of thing accurately without giving reasons for remembering those details, then she has an outstanding memory. I don't think one needs to study forensic memory to realize that most people wouldn't accurately remember details like that a half a day later. I wouldn't.
Another problem with her is that the Nat. Enq rejected her because they
found her too confused. That doesn't mean she was a dishonest or bad person. One of the Nat. Enq. editors said "She didn't meet our standards for credibility". This doens't make her a bad person. Her english was weak, and it may have contributed to the tension she felt. She also talked to the Nat. Enq and mentioned nothing about talking to Mark Fuhrman. I think the defense was using her to confuse the jury and the prosecution.

[fgump2]

September 27th,

if you can't trust the messengers, watch out for their messages. Vannatter, the man who carries the blood. Fuhrman, the man who finds the glove. Remember those two phrases; Vannatter, the man who carries the blood, Fuhrman, the man who found the glove. Now, Detective Vannatter has been a police officer for 27, 28 years, experienced LAPD robbery-homicide man who was put on this case because of his experience, presumably because they had the resources downtown. You know what time he got there and what happened. One of the things that has been totally unexplainable to me is the fact that here you have Mr. Simpson cooperating fully, gives his blood, gives 8 cc's of blood we now know. Vannatter--the blood is then turned over to Vannatter. Now, we know that he could have booked that blood in Parker Center or could have gone over to piper tech. You see these two residences. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. And, your Honor, this is--okay. This is just the board, apparently not numbered. He's at Parker Center right over here in the police building, right down here, 150 North Los Angeles Street (Indicating). He takes this blood. He could have gone a couple of floors and booked the blood, the manual requires. But he didn't do that, did he? He could have gone over to piper tech, another facility right downtown here and booked that blood (Indicating). This is the reference sample of Mr. O.J. Simpson. He doesn't do that. What he does is, he goes way out in this area marked Brentwood heights. It must be 20, 25 miles, 27 miles, to go way out there carrying the blood in this unsealed gray envelope supposedly. Why is he doing that? Why is Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood out there? Why is he doing that? Doesn't make any sense. Violates their own rules. Why is he doing that in this case? Has he ever done it in any other case? No."

"That is preposterous. So if you believe the Prosecution's theory--and they told you all this about a bloody trail--where's the blood back there, ladies and gentlemen? There's not one drop of blood. Where's the blood back there? Where's the trail that leads to that glove? And further, look at this. Look at this, ladies and gentlemen. That's not something I'm making up. You see this with your own eyes. Look at the glove. Now, when that glove is picked up, remember seeing any blood on the ground? No blood on that shrubbery, no blood on anything there. Where's the blood? Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony?"

"MR. COCHRAN: 527. 1250, your Honor. The point of that was, we have said and I told you at the beginning and I told you in opening statement and told you again today, this was a rush to judgment. At 12:00 o'clock on June 13th, Vannatter told Thompson to handcuff O.J. Simpson or to hook him up. Vannatter lied about that because he said in his testimony he never told him that. Thompson was very clear that he told him. He didn't do that on his own. But it shows this rush to judgment. Vannatter did not want to admit that and never did. We will talk more about him when we discuss the officers together. "

If you can't trust the messenger - what about Cochran's 17 discovery violations in is opening speech? He never explained or apologized for that. What about Simpson being caught in lies in the civil trial, one of which that he never hit Nicole? And of course there is Bailey going to jail afterwards.

[socaldiva]

Around the time of the murders, Nicole was not going to Bundy for overnight stays or tanning herself by the pool. She was finished with OJ & those trained in domestic violence will tell you that's often the most dangerous of times. Next thing you know, she's murdered & everything points to OJ.

[bobaugust]

I have no idea what you mean by most people understand what he said.

He said he entered the house into the living room.The only way he could have done that is through the french doors on the North end of the house.
Vanatter said he entered the house by some door at the south end of the house.

These claims are in conflict and i don't understand why you are of the belief that you can just change what Phillips said into something that you would have liked him to have said and expect others to just agree with you.

If you are not interested in the truth or facts that is another issue. The fact that the detectives gave different versions of what they did leads me to believe they lied. You can continue to ignore the facts and say Ms Arnell lied but i think in your fact check you know that is not true.imo

Phillips testified he entered the house with Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter through the back door. That door led into the family room. The fact that Phillips called the family room the living room does not change that fact. The fact that Lange called the family room a rear den does not change that fact. The fact that Kaelin testified that he saw Arnelle lead the three detectives through that door proves your accusations false that the police lied about this.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Prove it. The only proven liar was MF.

Arnelle testified that she led two detectives around Simpson’s house to the front door and turned off the house alarm before letting the detectives into the house. That was untrue The four detectives testimony and Kato Kaelin’s testimony proved Arnelle was not telling the truth. The question isn’t if Arnelle lied, the question is why did she lie.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

A witness can be a waste of time without lying. I don't think most people would talke seriously her testimony about saying she saw the Bronco once at 10:15 and then came back and saw it again at 10:25 or 10:30 or whatever. I probably don't remember her testimony exactly, but it was similar to that.

If she can remember that sort of thing accurately without giving reasons for remembering those details, then she has an outstanding memory. I don't think one needs to study forensic memory to realize that most people wouldn't accurately remember details like that a half a day later. I wouldn't.
Another problem with her is that the Nat. Enq rejected her because they
found her too confused. That doesn't mean she was a dishonest or bad person. One of the Nat. Enq. editors said "She didn't meet our standards for credibility". This doens't make her a bad person. Her english was weak, and it may have contributed to the tension she felt. She also talked to the Nat. Enq and mentioned nothing about talking to Mark Fuhrman. I think the defense was using her to confuse the jury and the prosecution.

fgump2,

First off, what are the exact standards of the Nat Enq? This is the same rag that bought and published topless photos of Nicole and Marcia Clark? that Nat Enq? The same rag that had no problem waving a checkbook infront of anybody? The Nat Enq was not going to shoot their money making cow of a story by publishing any thing that contradicted their belief in the case.

She testified that she heard voices and "hard" shoes walking on Simpson's driveway very early in the morning. Kato heard the gate phone ringing and ringing and ringing when he went to bed that night.

Her testimony was she saw it about 10:00 p.m. However, that was not the value of her testimony. Again, the defense did have to use Rosa or any other witness to confuse the jury. What I find interesting is that when this information was leaked about Rosa and what allegedly she was going to testify, low and behold the DA's got a witness who contradicted what Rosa may have testified! Amazing how that worked.

It is true that MF did question Rosa, he did walk along the property line and he did not report his interview with Rosa to the LAPD. She had valuable information---MF buried it---why?

[GreenIce]

Arnelle testified that she led two detectives around Simpson’s house to the front door and turned off the house alarm before letting the detectives into the house. That was untrue The four detectives testimony and Kato Kaelin’s testimony proved Arnelle was not telling the truth. The question isn’t if Arnelle lied, the question is why did she lie.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Arnelle had to go the front of the house because she needed to get her phone book, which was in her car. It appears to me that in the civil trial that photos were produced of the doors that the detectives claimed they entered and those doors were either nailed shut or did not have outside locks on them.

Simpson had a child who died because those doors were easily opened do you really think he would take that chance again? Do you really think Nicole would have risked Sydney and Justin falling into the pool?

All for detectives were proven liars. Arnelle had no reason to lie and not one DA or detective wrote that Arnelle was nothing less then cooperative. The only person who has this fantasy is Petrocelli.

The only way Arnelle could have been involved was if she knew about the murders before hand. Also, Kato testified that if you were laying on his bed, you could see inside the main house if lights were on, we know Kato didn't sleep that well that night. He heard her come in, never heard her leave.

Bottom lies, cops proven liars and covering each other's butts, Arnelle no reason to lie, did not act in any manner that would give the impression that she knew anything. You need more proof then 4 liars that carry a shield.

The real question is why are the detectives lying about what door? I find it rather interesting how their testimony changed for hearing to hearing, trial to trial. Arenelle's testimony never changed. And those are the facts.

[GreenIce]

Arnelle testified that she led two detectives around Simpson’s house to the front door and turned off the house alarm before letting the detectives into the house. That was untrue The four detectives testimony and Kato Kaelin’s testimony proved Arnelle was not telling the truth. The question isn’t if Arnelle lied, the question is why did she lie.

bobaugust

Vanatter did not testify to that in the grand jury. He was very vague on those questions. No matter which way you look at it, Vanatter was vague and never gave a direct answer until the criminal trial. His testimony was very misleading.

The only proof you need is to read just how vague all the detectives answers were regarding Arnelle's response to their questions. The detectives had to justify their illegal entry. Arnelle had to justify nothing.

Mark Fuhrman's testimony is different from Kato's. Explain that.

[GreenIce]

Phillips testified he entered the house with Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter through the back door. That door led into the family room. The fact that Phillips called the family room the living room does not change that fact. The fact that Lange called the family room a rear den does not change that fact. The fact that Kaelin testified that he saw Arnelle lead the three detectives through that door proves your accusations false that the police lied about this.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Wasn't it the DA's who labeled the exhibit? Are you telling me that the detectives, looking at that board, seeing which rooms were labeled what, got them mixed up? Are you kidding me? Are you saying they don't know the difference between these types of rooms? This is really sad. IMO.

[GreenIce]

If you can't trust the messenger - what about Cochran's 17 discovery violations in is opening speech? He never explained or apologized for that. What about Simpson being caught in lies in the civil trial, one of which that he never hit Nicole? And of course there is Bailey going to jail afterwards.

fgump2,

The DA's never apologized for putting MF on the stand and everyone of them knew he was going to lie. It was never proven that Simpson lied about hitting Nicole. It was proven that he took responsibility for any injury to Nicole regardless how she got it.

[martin II]

To answer that question a person would have to know a lot about abused and frightened women - or at least know more about Nicole's frame of mind than I do. They would also want to know what Nicole wrote and said at different times, and when she went over to the Rockingham house.

I consider it a fact that she was apprehensive about Orenthal's angry and violent behavior during most of their realtionship, certainly as early as the early 80s. Some of her acquantances said that.
It is also possible that she brought some of that on and exagerated parts of it. I don't pretend to understand either Nicole or Orenthal. The relationship between the Orenthal and Nicole was volatile. She was attracted to both him and his money. Maybe she thought she could disarm his anger by going over there.

If she was attracted to the idea of being a celebrity, that would have been an additional complication.


CF testified as to some reasons nicole liked to be with oj but it makes no sense that she wouild think oj was going to kill her and be at his house as frequently as she was. The rummor that he was going to kill her is just that rummors.

Nicole even said that she used that phrase when talking about her mother.'SHE WILL KILL ME IF SHE KNEW I WAS SMOKING" she used that frequently.

[weezer]

Around the time of the murders, Nicole was not going to Bundy for overnight stays or tanning herself by the pool. She was finished with OJ & those trained in domestic violence will tell you that's often the most dangerous of times. Next thing you know, she's murdered & everything points to OJ.

IIRC, it was arnelle who testified that she had not seen Nicole at Rockingham in the month prior to her death. Does that coincide with the orenthal's threatening IRS letter and other stuff?

[martin II]

Nicole asked him to come to her house 1-2 weeks before she was killed to care for her. She didn't think he was going to kill her then and no other time. She was trying to getr back into the rockingham house when she made the IRS request.

[tv]

IIRC, it was arnelle who testified that she had not seen Nicole at Rockingham in the month prior to her death. Does that coincide with the orenthal's threatening IRS letter and other stuff?

Yes, I believe it does. Nicole wanted to use the Rockingham address so she could avoid the taxes that would have wiped her out. Simpson was okay with it until he realized she was done with him so he punished her by denying her use of the address. It wasn't his respect for the law that made him send her the IRS letter -- it was pure spite imo. Never mind that it hurt his children because right after getting settled at Bundy the children were going to have to move again. IIRC, Nicole had decided on a place in Malibu -- away from her abuser.

[martin II]

Yes, I believe it does. Nicole wanted to use the Rockingham address so she could avoid the taxes that would have wiped her out. Simpson was okay with it until he realized she was done with him so he punished her by denying her use of the address. It wasn't his respect for the law that made him send her the IRS letter -- it was pure spite imo. Never mind that it hurt his children because right after getting settled at Bundy the children were going to have to move again. IIRC, Nicole had decided on a place in Malibu -- away from her abuser.

Nicole had been trying to get back to Rockingham eversince she left. The irs letter was just another attempt as oj had moved on.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Arnelle had to go the front of the house because she needed to get her phone book, which was in her car. It appears to me that in the civil trial that photos were produced of the doors that the detectives claimed they entered and those doors were either nailed shut or did not have outside locks on them.

Simpson had a child who died because those doors were easily opened do you really think he would take that chance again? Do you really think Nicole would have risked Sydney and Justin falling into the pool?

All for detectives were proven liars. Arnelle had no reason to lie and not one DA or detective wrote that Arnelle was nothing less then cooperative. The only person who has this fantasy is Petrocelli.

The only way Arnelle could have been involved was if she knew about the murders before hand. Also, Kato testified that if you were laying on his bed, you could see inside the main house if lights were on, we know Kato didn't sleep that well that night. He heard her come in, never heard her leave.

Bottom lies, cops proven liars and covering each other's butts, Arnelle no reason to lie, did not act in any manner that would give the impression that she knew anything. You need more proof then 4 liars that carry a shield.

The real question is why are the detectives lying about what door? I find it rather interesting how their testimony changed for hearing to hearing, trial to trial. Arenelle's testimony never changed. And those are the facts.

They were all lying because they were creating a false story about the weashing machine but they screwed that up also.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Wasn't it the DA's who labeled the exhibit? Are you telling me that the detectives, looking at that board, seeing which rooms were labeled what, got them mixed up? Are you kidding me? Are you saying they don't know the difference between these types of rooms? This is really sad. IMO.

Phillips was look at the door display. He said he went into the living room which would be through the french doors with no outside loocks on the noirth side of the hoiuse.. He was not confused as he was looking at the diagram.

Vanhatter said he went in a door at the south side of the house and Kato never said which door he entered.

Bob wants to say phillips did not mean to say what he said.
Nonsense.

[martin II]

September 27th,

if you can't trust the messengers, watch out for their messages. Vannatter, the man who carries the blood. Fuhrman, the man who finds the glove. Remember those two phrases; Vannatter, the man who carries the blood, Fuhrman, the man who found the glove. Now, Detective Vannatter has been a police officer for 27, 28 years, experienced LAPD robbery-homicide man who was put on this case because of his experience, presumably because they had the resources downtown. You know what time he got there and what happened. One of the things that has been totally unexplainable to me is the fact that here you have Mr. Simpson cooperating fully, gives his blood, gives 8 cc's of blood we now know. Vannatter--the blood is then turned over to Vannatter. Now, we know that he could have booked that blood in Parker Center or could have gone over to piper tech. You see these two residences. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. And, your Honor, this is--okay. This is just the board, apparently not numbered. He's at Parker Center right over here in the police building, right down here, 150 North Los Angeles Street (Indicating). He takes this blood. He could have gone a couple of floors and booked the blood, the manual requires. But he didn't do that, did he? He could have gone over to piper tech, another facility right downtown here and booked that blood (Indicating). This is the reference sample of Mr. O.J. Simpson. He doesn't do that. What he does is, he goes way out in this area marked Brentwood heights. It must be 20, 25 miles, 27 miles, to go way out there carrying the blood in this unsealed gray envelope supposedly. Why is he doing that? Why is Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood out there? Why is he doing that? Doesn't make any sense. Violates their own rules. Why is he doing that in this case? Has he ever done it in any other case? No."

"That is preposterous. So if you believe the Prosecution's theory--and they told you all this about a bloody trail--where's the blood back there, ladies and gentlemen? There's not one drop of blood. Where's the blood back there? Where's the trail that leads to that glove? And further, look at this. Look at this, ladies and gentlemen. That's not something I'm making up. You see this with your own eyes. Look at the glove. Now, when that glove is picked up, remember seeing any blood on the ground? No blood on that shrubbery, no blood on anything there. Where's the blood? Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony?"

"MR. COCHRAN: 527. 1250, your Honor. The point of that was, we have said and I told you at the beginning and I told you in opening statement and told you again today, this was a rush to judgment. At 12:00 o'clock on June 13th, Vannatter told Thompson to handcuff O.J. Simpson or to hook him up. Vannatter lied about that because he said in his testimony he never told him that. Thompson was very clear that he told him. He didn't do that on his own. But it shows this rush to judgment. Vannatter did not want to admit that and never did. We will talk more about him when we discuss the officers together. "

Vanatter told the cop to
HOOK HIM UP'

No doubt. The fact that he lied just shows that he was quick to lie and it did not make a differance who he was lying on.

[weezer]

the defense failed to meet the sub-standards to prove planting by LE in the criminal trial and when given the opportunity to use it as a defense in the civil trial, a second set of orenthal's attornies were unable to produce evidence that there was planting of evidence by LE. :shrug:

[martin II]

do you love how folks try to re-write history? :no::no:

". . .Cochran said police ignored at least two witnesses who offered information that could clear Simpson. The witnesses included a woman called Mary Anne Gerchas, a jewelery store owner, who said as she walking near the murder scene the night of June 12th, where she saw four men, wearing knit caps run from the crime scene and speed off in an unmarked vehicle. Another woman called Rosa Lopez, who worked as a housekeeper for one of Simpson's neighbors, claimed she saw Simpson's car at home that night at the time of the murders. Subsequently both these witnesses turned out to be totally unreliable and were never called by the defense. . ."

There was a neighbor of nicole that was on Bundy on 6/12 Don't remember his name but he said he saw a white van in front of nicoles house close to dorothy and 2-3 people got into the van and it drove off.At about the time of the murders.
Then there was the skate border that passed nicoles house at about 9:30
on 6/12 that saw a white male with slick back hair hidding in the bushes in front of nucoles front gate.

[The Boys]

It does not appear to be any evidence connecting the Beautiful Ms. Arnelle to any criminal activity related to the murders and, consequently, to continue to accuse her of a crime, albeit via an opinion, constitutes repeated bashing, IMHO.

It's no different that your repeated attempts to accuse Fuhrman of planting evidence. You can't have it both ways, so which one do you want?

[martin II]

the defense failed to meet the sub-standards to prove planting by LE in the criminal trial and when given the opportunity to use it as a defense in the civil trial, a second set of orenthal's attornies were unable to produce evidence that there was planting of evidence by LE. :shrug:


Furhman's history of planting evidence and his words of planting on the tapes made him the prime suspect for planting. When asked if he manufactured or planted evidence in the criminal case he refused to answer.

[martin II]

It's no different that your repeated attempts to accuse Fuhrman of planting evidence. You can't have it both ways, so which one do you want?

The differance is Furhman had a active case against him for planting evidence and he spoke from his mouth what he did as a LAPD officer which included plant evidence abusing citizens and lying on the stand.He then lied on the stand.

Ms Arnell was never accused of breaking any law and was not accused of planting any evidence.

[martin II]

gi

Vanatter P Hearing

Vanatter says they rang the bell at ojs Ashford gate for a while and got no response.They got the house phone number from Westec.He called the phone and got a answering machine with ojs voice saying "this is oj i am not home leave a message"
With no answer to the buzzer and then a phone message saying i am not home why didn't they just leave.

[The Boys]

The differance is Furhman had a active case against him for planting evidence and he spoke from his mouth what he did as a LAPD officer which included plant evidence abusing citizens and lying on the stand.He then lied on the stand.

Ms Arnell was never accused of breaking any law and was not accused of planting any evidence.

There's no difference martin. It doesn't matter if Fuhrman had an active case against him --- people are accusing him of planting in THIS case martin --- THIS case, which is the Simpson case. If I use your logic that would be the same as saying Simpson should be in the clink now in Nevada because people think he's a murderer but the bottom line is that whether he killed those 2 poeple in 1994 has NOTHING to do with whether he robbed someone 14 years or so later in Vegas.

See?

[martin II]

the defense failed to meet the sub-standards to prove planting by LE in the criminal trial and when given the opportunity to use it as a defense in the civil trial, a second set of orenthal's attornies were unable to produce evidence that there was planting of evidence by LE. :shrug:

It seems that the defense was succeful in the idea of planting with the jury.
A jury member said Furhman could have planted the glove and more than one said vanatter lied to them. The judge in the civil trial did not allow any argument on planting by the defense.imo

[martin II]

There's no difference martin. It doesn't matter if Fuhrman had an active case against him --- people are accusing him of planting in THIS case martin --- THIS case, which is the Simpson case. If I use your logic that would be the same as saying Simpson should be in the clink now in Nevada because people think he's a murderer but the bottom line is that whether he killed those 2 poeple in 1994 has NOTHING to do with whether he robbed someone 14 years or so later in Vegas.

See?

Wrong

The city of LA paid a plaintiff $100,000 to settle the case of planting against Furhman just before the oj case started. They did not want Furhman defending himsef in a case where he was accused of planting a knife on a defendant when he had to be a prosecution witness.The tapes of Furhman speaking out of his mouth the vile language and a description of what he did as a LAPD officer was enough for most to see him as person that would plant evidence.

Ms Arnell had none of that kind of history and she was defending herself in no court for any of her actions. She was not charged with any crime as a result of her testimony in the criminal trial and there was no evidence that she lied.

I see a great deal of differance in the two since Furhman was a convicted perjurier and Ms Arnell was not.
Furhman had a history of planting.Ms Arnell didn't.

[GreenIce]

gi

Vanatter P Hearing

Vanatter says they rang the bell at ojs Ashford gate for a while and got no response.They got the house phone number from Westec.He called the phone and got a answering machine with ojs voice saying "this is oj i am not home leave a message"
With no answer to the buzzer and then a phone message saying i am not home why didn't they just leave.

Martin,

Kato heard the ringing after 1:30 a.m. and fell asleep before 5:30 a.m. IMO, I think it most likely MF, RP or BR. There has to be a reason why Brad Roberts was buried in the this trial.

The detectives knew where OJ was for anyone to say any different is just plain crazy. Sydney Simpson knew where her father was, Ron Phillips and Mark Fuhrman had the cops who were watching her ask her where her father was. Ron Phillips refused to turn over this cell phone records. The reason he gave is just like everything else in this case, unbelieveable.

Every one of the detectives were caught in scores of lies and no matter how many times they said it was the truth, they were lies.

[GreenIce]

Nicole had been trying to get back to Rockingham eversince she left. The irs letter was just another attempt as oj had moved on.

Martin,

Please do not pay attention to any of the posts whining about Nicole and the IRS letter. Bottom line, Nicole was a smart woman. She knew what she was doing and she knew her relationship with Simpson was not working out. She put herself in that situation and the blame is a million percent on her--and she knew it. She didn't roll up into a ball and cry, she got pissed and took action, positive action.

Some posters like to forget that the IRS letter was the fire that Nicole needed to snap out of her routine of always depending on OJ to take care of her. It appears to me that the last 2 weeks of her life, she was getting it together. She put the condo on the market, she was looking for a business to invest in.

It is clear that Nicole wanted to make it on her own and she had no bigger supporter then OJ Simpson. I have never known a man to be upset if his chid support payments go down!

[GreenIce]

It seems that the defense was succeful in the idea of planting with the jury.
A jury member said Furhman could have planted the glove and more than one said vanatter lied to them. The judge in the civil trial did not allow any argument on planting by the defense.imo

Martin,

IIRC, Judge Fujisaki did allow the defense to argue the glove was planted. I think that was the only evidence he allowed it. However, IMO, even if he allowed it all the evidence, it would not have made a difference to the jury. Like Deena Mullin said, it wasn't how the glove to Rockingham, it was what was found on the glove is what mattered to her. It seemed to me like she was saying that the second glove picked up by MF at the Bundy crime scene was still a glove with Ron's, Nicole's and OJ's blood on it so does it really matter if was planted at Rockingham?

[bobaugust]

fgump2,

First off, what are the exact standards of the Nat Enq? This is the same rag that bought and published topless photos of Nicole and Marcia Clark? that Nat Enq? The same rag that had no problem waving a checkbook infront of anybody? The Nat Enq was not going to shoot their money making cow of a story by publishing any thing that contradicted their belief in the case.

She testified that she heard voices and "hard" shoes walking on Simpson's driveway very early in the morning. Kato heard the gate phone ringing and ringing and ringing when he went to bed that night.

Her testimony was she saw it about 10:00 p.m. However, that was not the value of her testimony. Again, the defense did have to use Rosa or any other witness to confuse the jury. What I find interesting is that when this information was leaked about Rosa and what allegedly she was going to testify, low and behold the DA's got a witness who contradicted what Rosa may have testified! Amazing how that worked.

It is true that MF did question Rosa, he did walk along the property line and he did not report his interview with Rosa to the LAPD. She had valuable information---MF buried it---why?

Kaelin didn’t testify he heard the phone in Simpson’s house ringing when he went to sleep, he said it was during the night after he went to sleep. Kaelin guessed the time to be about 3:00 or 4:00 but it could have been later. Kaelin most likely heard the police ringing the gate buzzer after they arrived at about 5:00a.m.

Rosa Lopez did testify that she went out of the house at 10:00 and saw the Bronco parked on Rockingham. Cochran had told the jury in his opening statement that Lopez would testify the Bronco was parked there at 10:15.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

Kato heard the ringing after 1:30 a.m. and fell asleep before 5:30 a.m. IMO, I think it most likely MF, RP or BR. There has to be a reason why Brad Roberts was buried in the this trial.

The detectives knew where OJ was for anyone to say any different is just plain crazy. Sydney Simpson knew where her father was, Ron Phillips and Mark Fuhrman had the cops who were watching her ask her where her father was. Ron Phillips refused to turn over this cell phone records. The reason he gave is just like everything else in this case, unbelieveable.

Every one of the detectives were caught in scores of lies and no matter how many times they said it was the truth, they were lies.


What is strange is that one after another they were caught under defense cross but it seemed to make no differance for them. It was as if they thought
the jury would give them unlimited opportunities to tell the truth. Their lies did make it more difficult for the DA to tell a believable story to the jury and the public which is why so many people viewing the case blammed the prosecution and le for the loss.
At one point Furhman credited B Roberts with finding a lot of the evidence but for some strange reason he was put into the background and made to be quite. Maby he was not willing to lie but it was obvious that the porosecution
felt that he was not a important witness for them.imo

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Arnelle had to go the front of the house because she needed to get her phone book, which was in her car. It appears to me that in the civil trial that photos were produced of the doors that the detectives claimed they entered and those doors were either nailed shut or did not have outside locks on them.

Simpson had a child who died because those doors were easily opened do you really think he would take that chance again? Do you really think Nicole would have risked Sydney and Justin falling into the pool?

All for detectives were proven liars. Arnelle had no reason to lie and not one DA or detective wrote that Arnelle was nothing less then cooperative. The only person who has this fantasy is Petrocelli.

The only way Arnelle could have been involved was if she knew about the murders before hand. Also, Kato testified that if you were laying on his bed, you could see inside the main house if lights were on, we know Kato didn't sleep that well that night. He heard her come in, never heard her leave.

Bottom lies, cops proven liars and covering each other's butts, Arnelle no reason to lie, did not act in any manner that would give the impression that she knew anything. You need more proof then 4 liars that carry a shield.

The real question is why are the detectives lying about what door? I find it rather interesting how their testimony changed for hearing to hearing, trial to trial. Arenelle's testimony never changed. And those are the facts.

Arnelle didn’t have to go to the front of the house because she needed her phone book. Arnelle testified that after she let the detectives in the house and went to the kitchen, she said she went out a door in the kitchen (labeled breakfast nook on the diagram) to her car to get her phone book. Arnelle said that Lange went with her and that’s when he told her about Nicole.

Neither Lang nor any other detective ever said Arnelle left the house to get her phone book. Lange testified he told Arnelle about Nicole when Phillips was talking on the phone with Simpson. Kaelin testified that when he was in the bar area talking to Vannatter he heard Arnelle scream from the kitchen. He said Vannatter finished his interview and then told him Nicole had been murdered. Kaelin said Arnelle came from the kitchen into the bar area, they hugged, and then he and Arnelle returned to the kitchen where Arnelle made a phone call and started crying while she spoke with Nicole’s mother. Kaelin said he remained in the house until after the kids arrived when he asked permission to return to his room to change his clothes since he was still wearing a t-shirt and pajama bottoms. Arnelle testified that during all that time Kaelin was still outside his room talking to Mark Fuhrman.

I have no idea what Simpson’s small children who weren’t living with him at that time had to do with Arnelle unlocking the back door so she could go back to her room.

The three detectives who Arnelle let into the house had no reason to lie about this and the fact that you seem to keep forgetting is that Kato Kaelin corroborates the detectives’ testimony not Arnelle’s.

Arnelle had every reason to lie if she was the one had been in the house before the police arrived and had mistakenly forgot to turn the house alarm back on when she left the house by unlocking and exiting through the back door to return to her room instead of going back to the front door and go the long way back to her room by walking around the house.

The fact is that police found a load of wet laundry in Simpson’s washing machine that included Arnelle’s underwear and dark colored sweat suit.

Petrocelli wrote,
“The housekeeper Gigi Gaurin hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the laundry basket as Arnelle's. Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she had gotten home Sunday morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that night or any night.”

“If Arnelle was not telling the truth and she did, in fact, go through the back door with the four officers and Kato Kaelin, then that tells me someone definitely was in the house. That someone might have been Arnelle, and if it wasn't Arnelle, she may well know who it was. Why otherwise would she create the fiction of her journey to the front door?”

“What had needed washing so badly that it was done in an empty house after Simpson was gone? What had been washed? How many loads? Who ran them?”


The bottom line is that Kato Kaelin’s testimony corroborates the four detectives’ testimony and proves that Arnelle Simpson lied about which door she let the detectives into the house. Kaelin’s testimony also shows that either Arnelle lied or she was mistaken about other things she testified happened that morning.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Wasn't it the DA's who labeled the exhibit? Are you telling me that the detectives, looking at that board, seeing which rooms were labeled what, got them mixed up? Are you kidding me? Are you saying they don't know the difference between these types of rooms? This is really sad. IMO.

The link I provided shows two layouts. The one that is black and white is labeled “Prosecution Exhibit” and was used in court. The more detailed colored layout was made by Dick Wagner. The link I provided was to Wagner’s web site.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Phillips was look at the door display. He said he went into the living room which would be through the french doors with no outside loocks on the noirth side of the hoiuse.. He was not confused as he was looking at the diagram.

Vanhatter said he went in a door at the south side of the house and Kato never said which door he entered.

Bob wants to say phillips did not mean to say what he said.
Nonsense.

The link I provided shows two layouts. The one that is black and white is labeled “Prosecution Exhibit” and was used in court. The more detailed colored layout was made by Dick Wagner. The link I provided was to Wagner’s web site.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

Please do not pay attention to any of the posts whining about Nicole and the IRS letter. Bottom line, Nicole was a smart woman. She knew what she was doing and she knew her relationship with Simpson was not working out. She put herself in that situation and the blame is a million percent on her--and she knew it. She didn't roll up into a ball and cry, she got pissed and took action, positive action.

Some posters like to forget that the IRS letter was the fire that Nicole needed to snap out of her routine of always depending on OJ to take care of her. It appears to me that the last 2 weeks of her life, she was getting it together. She put the condo on the market, she was looking for a business to invest in.

It is clear that Nicole wanted to make it on her own and she had no bigger supporter then OJ Simpson. I have never known a man to be upset if his chid support payments go down!

I believe OJS irs letter did two things for Nicole. It told her the free ride was over and it caused her to understand that she was on her own. She then did what you say she did and that was good for her. I have no doubt that he would have given her assistance in her business as he had done this before.IMO

[martin II]

Arnelle didn’t have to go to the front of the house because she needed her phone book. Arnelle testified that after she let the detectives in the house and went to the kitchen, she said she went out a door in the kitchen (labeled breakfast nook on the diagram) to her car to get her phone book. Arnelle said that Lange went with her and that’s when he told her about Nicole.

Neither Lang nor any other detective ever said Arnelle left the house to get her phone book. Lange testified he told Arnelle about Nicole when Phillips was talking on the phone with Simpson. Kaelin testified that when he was in the bar area talking to Vannatter he heard Arnelle scream from the kitchen. He said Vannatter finished his interview and then told him Nicole had been murdered. Kaelin said Arnelle came from the kitchen into the bar area, they hugged, and then he and Arnelle returned to the kitchen where Arnelle made a phone call and started crying while she spoke with Nicole’s mother. Kaelin said he remained in the house until after the kids arrived when he asked permission to return to his room to change his clothes since he was still wearing a t-shirt and pajama bottoms. Arnelle testified that during all that time Kaelin was still outside his room talking to Mark Fuhrman.

I have no idea what Simpson’s small children who weren’t living with him at that time had to do with Arnelle unlocking the back door so she could go back to her room.

The three detectives who Arnelle let into the house had no reason to lie about this and the fact that you seem to keep forgetting is that Kato Kaelin corroborates the detectives’ testimony not Arnelle’s.

Arnelle had every reason to lie if she was the one had been in the house before the police arrived and had mistakenly forgot to turn the house alarm back on when she left the house by unlocking and exiting through the back door to return to her room instead of going back to the front door and go the long way back to her room by walking around the house.

The fact is that police found a load of wet laundry in Simpson’s washing machine that included Arnelle’s underwear and dark colored sweat suit.

Petrocelli wrote,
“The housekeeper Gigi Gaurin hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the laundry basket as Arnelle's. Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she had gotten home Sunday morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that night or any night.”

“If Arnelle was not telling the truth and she did, in fact, go through the back door with the four officers and Kato Kaelin, then that tells me someone definitely was in the house. That someone might have been Arnelle, and if it wasn't Arnelle, she may well know who it was. Why otherwise would she create the fiction of her journey to the front door?”

“What had needed washing so badly that it was done in an empty house after Simpson was gone? What had been washed? How many loads? Who ran them?”


The bottom line is that Kato Kaelin’s testimony corroborates the four detectives’ testimony and proves that Arnelle Simpson lied about which door she let the detectives into the house. Kaelin’s testimony also shows that either Arnelle lied or she was mistaken about other things she testified happened that morning.

bobaugust

bob

i have no problem with you expressing your opinions of events. we just have different opinions of events and what testimony meant.

[martin II]

Martin,

IIRC, Judge Fujisaki did allow the defense to argue the glove was planted. I think that was the only evidence he allowed it. However, IMO, even if he allowed it all the evidence, it would not have made a difference to the jury. Like Deena Mullin said, it wasn't how the glove to Rockingham, it was what was found on the glove is what mattered to her. It seemed to me like she was saying that the second glove picked up by MF at the Bundy crime scene was still a glove with Ron's, Nicole's and OJ's blood on it so does it really matter if was planted at Rockingham?

I guess she also ignored defense cross showing le lies. Maby she realized that the prosecution had not proved that oj dropped the glove and just told herself
she would give them a pass.

[GreenIce]

Arnelle didn’t have to go to the front of the house because she needed her phone book. Arnelle testified that after she let the detectives in the house and went to the kitchen, she said she went out a door in the kitchen (labeled breakfast nook on the diagram) to her car to get her phone book. Arnelle said that Lange went with her and that’s when he told her about Nicole.

Neither Lang nor any other detective ever said Arnelle left the house to get her phone book. Lange testified he told Arnelle about Nicole when Phillips was talking on the phone with Simpson. Kaelin testified that when he was in the bar area talking to Vannatter he heard Arnelle scream from the kitchen. He said Vannatter finished his interview and then told him Nicole had been murdered. Kaelin said Arnelle came from the kitchen into the bar area, they hugged, and then he and Arnelle returned to the kitchen where Arnelle made a phone call and started crying while she spoke with Nicole’s mother. Kaelin said he remained in the house until after the kids arrived when he asked permission to return to his room to change his clothes since he was still wearing a t-shirt and pajama bottoms. Arnelle testified that during all that time Kaelin was still outside his room talking to Mark Fuhrman.

I have no idea what Simpson’s small children who weren’t living with him at that time had to do with Arnelle unlocking the back door so she could go back to her room.

The three detectives who Arnelle let into the house had no reason to lie about this and the fact that you seem to keep forgetting is that Kato Kaelin corroborates the detectives’ testimony not Arnelle’s.

Arnelle had every reason to lie if she was the one had been in the house before the police arrived and had mistakenly forgot to turn the house alarm back on when she left the house by unlocking and exiting through the back door to return to her room instead of going back to the front door and go the long way back to her room by walking around the house.

The fact is that police found a load of wet laundry in Simpson’s washing machine that included Arnelle’s underwear and dark colored sweat suit.

Petrocelli wrote,
“The housekeeper Gigi Gaurin hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the laundry basket as Arnelle's. Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she had gotten home Sunday morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that night or any night.”

“If Arnelle was not telling the truth and she did, in fact, go through the back door with the four officers and Kato Kaelin, then that tells me someone definitely was in the house. That someone might have been Arnelle, and if it wasn't Arnelle, she may well know who it was. Why otherwise would she create the fiction of her journey to the front door?”

“What had needed washing so badly that it was done in an empty house after Simpson was gone? What had been washed? How many loads? Who ran them?”


The bottom line is that Kato Kaelin’s testimony corroborates the four detectives’ testimony and proves that Arnelle Simpson lied about which door she let the detectives into the house. Kaelin’s testimony also shows that either Arnelle lied or she was mistaken about other things she testified happened that morning.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Who in the criminal trial testied to the contents of the washing machine and what the clothing items were?

Did Arnelle testify about the contents of the washing machine?

Also, you have Clark saying the clothes were in the hamper and MF saying they were in the washing machine, so who is telling the truth? And as much as I hate to say this, since the gloves were obviously taken out of the hamper and placed on the floor, who's to say that the same wasn't done with dark clothes being put in the washing machine.

We have been over this a million times, there is in proof that the dark clothes that were seen were in fact sweats, that they were a man's extra large. There are no individual pictures of each item that was taken out of the washing machine.

I don't know who started or how it came about that Fung said he saw them, looked at them and put them back because he could not see blood on them, makes no sense because he didn't see any blood on the socks either.

Also, the second search warrant clearly states that no one remembers them being seen but if they come across them, they want to collect them.

Another problem with Petrocelli, he has no proof that Simpson ever contacted Arnelle that night and told her what to do. Not one of the detectives who wrote a book never say a word about Arnelle in regards to her being inside the house or that she knew about the murders or did anything to help her father. I would think they would be screaming this at the top of their lungs if they thought Arnelle was involved somehow.

And rest assured, the Goldmans never would have left this be dropped. They would have demanded charges be brought against her and if they weren't, they would hound her in the media every chance they got. They didn't.

[bobaugust]

bob

i have no problem with you expressing your opinions of events. we just have different opinions of events and what testimony meant.

Right, your opinion is that the police lied despite the fact that their testimony is corroborated and my opinion is that the evidence in this case proves Arnelle Simpson lied about this not the police.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Who in the criminal trial testied to the contents of the washing machine and what the clothing items were?

Did Arnelle testify about the contents of the washing machine?

Also, you have Clark saying the clothes were in the hamper and MF saying they were in the washing machine, so who is telling the truth? And as much as I hate to say this, since the gloves were obviously taken out of the hamper and placed on the floor, who's to say that the same wasn't done with dark clothes being put in the washing machine.

We have been over this a million times, there is in proof that the dark clothes that were seen were in fact sweats, that they were a man's extra large. There are no individual pictures of each item that was taken out of the washing machine.

I don't know who started or how it came about that Fung said he saw them, looked at them and put them back because he could not see blood on them, makes no sense because he didn't see any blood on the socks either.

Also, the second search warrant clearly states that no one remembers them being seen but if they come across them, they want to collect them.

Another problem with Petrocelli, he has no proof that Simpson ever contacted Arnelle that night and told her what to do. Not one of the detectives who wrote a book never say a word about Arnelle in regards to her being inside the house or that she knew about the murders or did anything to help her father. I would think they would be screaming this at the top of their lungs if they thought Arnelle was involved somehow.

And rest assured, the Goldmans never would have left this be dropped. They would have demanded charges be brought against her and if they weren't, they would hound her in the media every chance they got. They didn't.

Gigi Guarin was shown a small portion of the video tape that showed a laundry basket and a pair of panties. Gigi testified the laundry basket was Arnelle’s and on cross examination she agreed that all the clothing in the basket were Arnelle’s clothes.

No I don’t have Clark saying the clothes (a dark colored sweat suit) was in the hamper. Clark wrote in her book that she saw a crime photograph of Fung in Simpson’s bathroom holding some black items he had taken out of Simpson’s clothes hamper. Clark questioned if these dark objects could be sweats but other photographs show that they were more likely black towels that Simpson used in his master bath. Clark never included that photo in her book. Fuhrman did include a photo in his book to support what he wrote, that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson’s washing machine.

When Simpson’s house was searched the police didn’t know that Simpson had been wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders. Fuhrman wrote the freshly washed dark colored sweats were looked at for blood by detectives but none was seen. Dennis Fung examined the washing machine for blood but found only rust marks.

*The evidence is that Kaelin turned the house alarm on after Simpson called him from the airport at about 11:40 PM and gave him the alarm code and instructions.
*The evidence is that when Arnelle Simpson let the detectives into her father’s house by opening the back door of the house at about 6:00 AM no alarm went off and no beeping was heard.
*The evidence is that the back door could only be locked or unlocked from the inside and had no alarm key pad near it.
*The evidence is that someone was in Simpson’s house and turned the house alarm off before the police arrived at Rockingham that morning,

Someone who knew the house alarm code, someone who had access to Arnelle Simpson’s laundry basket, someone who washed Arnelle’s clothing and a dark colored sweat suit that were found in Simpson’s washing machine. Someone who made the mistake of not going back out of the house the way they came in, through the front door, and never turned the house alarm back on, someone who unlocked the back door and left the house through that door. Someone who lied to cover up the mistake they made and the clothing they washed to help the killer of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson by disposing of incriminating blood evidence.

All of this evidence points to that someone being Arnelle Simpson.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It's no different that your repeated attempts to accuse Fuhrman of planting evidence. You can't have it both ways, so which one do you want?

I have never accused MF of planting evidence and I have asked those before you to post any post claiming I did. I extend to you that same invitation. What I have said and what I continue to say is that the evidence allows me to draw the reasonable inference that MF did plant the glove. I will again list that evidence, which allows me to draw that inference in case you missed it.

MF "investigated" the area behind Kato's quarters and saw no evidence of anyone being back there before he was.
The evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant evidence.
The evidence that MF was alone when he found the glove.
The evidence that MF caused 18 sets of shoe prints to trample through the scene.
The evidence that there was a blood trail, allowing the reasonable inference that Simpson was only bleeding on Rockingham, since no blood was found behind Kato's quarters.
The evidence of the missing blood, not that MF planted that evidence, but that there can be a reasonable inference drawn that another officer used the blood to protect MF's misconduct, as a reasonable inference drawn from the evidence.

You see that drawing an inference is different in my mind from saying that MF in fact planted evidence but is more of an opinion backed up by the evidence.

[William Anthony]

There's no difference martin. It doesn't matter if Fuhrman had an active case against him --- people are accusing him of planting in THIS case martin --- THIS case, which is the Simpson case. If I use your logic that would be the same as saying Simpson should be in the clink now in Nevada because people think he's a murderer but the bottom line is that whether he killed those 2 poeple in 1994 has NOTHING to do with whether he robbed someone 14 years or so later in Vegas.

See?

I agree with your premise. However, the evidence, Nevada LE personnel stating that California didn't get him but they would. Therefore, the evidence is that whether he robbed someone 14 years later in Nevada had to do with people's feeling that Simpson was acquitted of double murder 14 years earlier. Additionally, we can take into account the statement of the jury foreman, wanting that particular jury to render a verdict on that particular date.

[martin II]

Right, your opinion is that the police lied despite the fact that their testimony is corroborated and my opinion is that the evidence in this case proves Arnelle Simpson lied about this not the police.

bobaugust

I have posted the actual words of phillips testimony. You don't like what he said so you say that is not what he meant.
No one accused Ms Arnell of lying in any of her testimony.
Although Kato never tyestified what door he entered you continue to say he did.

Now you are telling me what my opinion is.

Thats why i dissagree with your theory.

[The Boys]

Wrong

The city of LA paid a plaintiff $100,000 to settle the case of planting against Furhman just before the oj case started. They did not want Furhman defending himsef in a case where he was accused of planting a knife on a defendant when he had to be a prosecution witness.The tapes of Furhman speaking out of his mouth the vile language and a description of what he did as a LAPD officer was enough for most to see him as person that would plant evidence.

Ms Arnell had none of that kind of history and she was defending herself in no court for any of her actions. She was not charged with any crime as a result of her testimony in the criminal trial and there was no evidence that she lied.

I see a great deal of differance in the two since Furhman was a convicted perjurier and Ms Arnell was not.
Furhman had a history of planting.Ms Arnell didn't.

See the great deal of difference all you want in your eyes, but there isn't any. The crime Fuhrman was convicted of is perjury, not planting evidence and yet the endless --to quote a word from one of GreenIce's recent posting -- "whiny" posts go on accusing him of planting in this case.

Didn't happen.

[The Boys]

I have never accused MF of planting evidence and I have asked those before you to post any post claiming I did. I extend to you that same invitation. What I have said and what I continue to say is that the evidence allows me to draw the reasonable inference that MF did plant the glove. I will again list that evidence, which allows me to draw that inference in case you missed it.

MF "investigated" the area behind Kato's quarters and saw no evidence of anyone being back there before he was.
The evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant evidence.
The evidence that MF was alone when he found the glove.
The evidence that MF caused 18 sets of shoe prints to trample through the scene.
The evidence that there was a blood trail, allowing the reasonable inference that Simpson was only bleeding on Rockingham, since no blood was found behind Kato's quarters.
The evidence of the missing blood, not that MF planted that evidence, but that there can be a reasonable inference drawn that another officer used the blood to protect MF's misconduct, as a reasonable inference drawn from the evidence.

You see that drawing an inference is different in my mind from saying that MF in fact planted evidence but is more of an opinion backed up by the evidence.

Hence the word "attempts".