Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

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.

I dissagree with your logic and your theory. I understand your efforts to protect Furhman at all cost but you cannot get rid of his history and his words no matter how much effort you put into it.
Clarke said Furhman should have never been a cop in the first place. Square that with your opinion.

[William Anthony]

Hence the word "attempts".

The word attempts is inappropriate in this happenstance. I have not remotely accused MF of planting evidence or attempted to so do. However, I have simply stated that the evidence allows that inference not that he did not that I am attempting to say he did but simply that the evidence supports a reasonable inference that he did. You see my comment is directed toward the evidence as opposed go saying he did or did not, since neither was a choice, as he was not charged with any criminal charge related to evidence manipulating/planting. Hence, the defense merely introduce evidence sufficient, as enumerated in my prior post, to allow a reasonable inference that MF planted evidence and to say that I attempted to say MF planted evidence is inaccurate and inappropriate.

[William Anthony]

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

You see, it all depends on, who one finds more credible and why. I have had the opportunity to consider the posts of the testimonies presented by GreenIce and Martin and those discrepancies in the officer's testimony allow me to draw the reasonable inference that it was not Ms. Arnelle who lied.

[William Anthony]

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.

This idea that the brilliant Bailey went to jail sometimes after the trial had no impact on how the jury related to him during the trial, IMHO. The fact that the magnificent one was able to overcome the adversity only adds to his magnificence, IMHO. The civil trial had not commenced when the statement was made about the messenger.

[tv]

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.

It's true that Arnelle wasn't convicted of any crime but neither were Vannatter, Lange or any of the defense's so-called conspiracists so why is it okay to accuse them of lying (and planting evidence) but it's not okay to say Arnelle is lying? Unfortunately for Arnelle's fans she is a part of both trials and her testimony clearly proves she is lying. Her lie is worse than Mark Fuhrman's. Mark Fuhrman was found to be lying about ONE thing which didn't even pertain to the trial and was remote history. Arnelle lied at least THREE times on matters that directly relate to whether or not her father committed a double murder.

[William Anthony]

It's true that Arnelle wasn't convicted of any crime but neither were Vannatter, Lange or any of the defense's so-called conspiracists so why is it okay to accuse them of lying (and planting evidence) but it's not okay to say Arnelle is lying? Unfortunately for Arnelle's fans she is a part of both trials and her testimony clearly proves she is lying. Her lie is worse than Mark Fuhrman's. Mark Fuhrman was found to be lying about ONE thing which didn't even pertain to the trial and was remote history. Arnelle lied at least THREE times on matters that directly relate to whether or not her father committed a double murder.

Ms. Arnelle was not charged with any crime. I do not believe that I have ever said that anyone lied except MF but I may be wrong and have said it in the heat of battle. I have never accused them but have pointed to the evidence that supports a reasonable inference that there was a conspiracy and evidence was planted and I have requested a link, which has remained missing, to show that Simpson contacted Ms. Arnelle, which would allow an inference that she was either asked or to to become an accessory after the fact to the crime of murder. Ms. Arnelle took no oath to serve and protect.

[tv]

Hence the word "attempts".

The poster that you quoted said "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". I don't understand the need to parse words and meanings -- either you think he planted evidence, you don't think he planted evidence or you don't know. To say it's an "opinion backed up by evidence" but "I have never accused MF of planting evidence..." is twisted logic. I believe in putting my cards on the table -- maybe that's why I don't understand this approach.

[William Anthony]

The poster that you quoted said "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". I don't understand the need to parse words and meanings -- either you think he planted evidence, you don't think he planted evidence or you don't know. To say it's an "opinion backed up by evidence" but "I have never accused MF of planting evidence..." is twisted logic. I believe in putting my cards on the table -- maybe that's why I don't understand this approach.

The need to parse words and meanings is a means of communication and an effective means, IMHO, as it aids in understanding. Anyone can throw out an opinion, like saying someone lied. However, in my mind, the opinion has more validity when it is drawn from an inference supported by evidence. An opinion in and of itself states that there is a certain amount of uncertainty to the opinion and is not a fact and the same with an inference. I think "twisted logic" would be to not realize this. I personally choose cautiousness before accusing someone, as I believe it is a sin to bear false witness against thy neighbor. However, this does not mean that others should exercise that same caution before "putting their cards on the table".

[martin II]

I Have actually been in a game and threw down my cards that i thought was a winner only to find that they were not.

[martin II]

The poster that you quoted said "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". I don't understand the need to parse words and meanings -- either you think he planted evidence, you don't think he planted evidence or you don't know. To say it's an "opinion backed up by evidence" but "I have never accused MF of planting evidence..." is twisted logic. I believe in putting my cards on the table -- maybe that's why I don't understand this approach.

One can have a opinion based on the lie the person told and his words on the tape he made.

[William Anthony]

I Have actually been in a game and threw down my cards that i thought was a winner only to find that they were not.

Martin,

Were you part of the criminal prosecution team?

[martin II]

Martin,

Were you part of the criminal prosecution team?

No but i lost after making a big bet as they did.

[martin II]

William

i remember the prosecution betting on a mountain of evidence but that was before the defense had a opportunity to cross any of the prosecutions witnesses and the mountain dissapeared.

[weezer]

The poster that you quoted said "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". I don't understand the need to parse words and meanings -- either you think he planted evidence, you don't think he planted evidence or you don't know. To say it's an "opinion backed up by evidence" but "I have never accused MF of planting evidence..." is twisted logic. I believe in putting my cards on the table -- maybe that's why I don't understand this approach.

hallelujah! :beer:

[tv]

hallelujah! :beer:

Hi weezer! :seeya: I just don't understand a poster's reluctance to admit that he thinks Mark Fuhrman planted evidence. Could it be that he doesn't want to commit himself to a theory that he knows is not true? There is just as much evidence that martians landed in Brentwood and planted the glove behind Kato's room but that doesn't make it so.

[William Anthony]

William

i remember the prosecution betting on a mountain of evidence but that was before the defense had a opportunity to cross any of the prosecutions witnesses and the mountain dissapeared.

I kept looking for it but never did see it.

[William Anthony]

Hi weezer! :seeya: I just don't understand a poster's reluctance to admit that he thinks Mark Fuhrman planted evidence. Could it be that he doesn't want to commit himself to a theory that he knows is not true? There is just as much evidence that martians landed in Brentwood and planted the glove behind Kato's room but that doesn't make it so.

I don't understand as I have already said that I think MF planted evidence, which is the same as saying it is my opinion/reasonable inference based on the evidence. However, that is quite different from saying that MF planted evidence or attempting to say, which admits that I did not say MF planted evidence, shrug.

[martin II]

I don't understand as I have already said that I think MF planted evidence, which is the same as saying it is my opinion/reasonable inference based on the evidence. However, that is quite different from saying that MF planted evidence or attempting to say, which admits that I did not say MF planted evidence, shrug.

Based on the facts that police watch had five unresolved cases against MF for abuse and planting and the civil case against him that the city of LA paid $100,l000 to resolve another case and based on what he said he did as a LAPD police officer in the tapes in the simpson case i believe as some jury members believed that he planted evidence in the oj case.imo

Since Ms Arnell Simpson was never charged with any crime of lying for any of her testimony it is not
proper or fair to call her a coconsipritor or claim she lied as some has done here just because she is A simnpson family member.

[William Anthony]

Why are you attacking william for his opinions by dragging another poster into what you want to say to him. All of that because he has not answered as you think he should. This has gotten very funny. hahaha

There has been a persistent and common misconception pertaining to what I have said and to what some claim or want to believe I said. Should God see fit to grant my wish, I think that these type of exercises will help me when I become a licensed lawyer.

[William Anthony]

Based on the facts that police watch had five unresolved cases against MF for abuse and planting and the civil case against him that the city of LA paid $100,l000 to resolve another case and based on what he said he did as a LAPD police officer in the tapes in the simpson case i believe as some jury members believed that he planted evidence in the oj case.imo

Since Ms Arnell Simpson was never charged with any crime of lying for any of her testimony it is not
proper or fair to call her a coconsipritor or claim she lied as some has done here just because she is A simnpson family member.

Martin,

There is a lot of evidence and information to support that reasonable inference, IMHO.

[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.


You’re the one who took an insignificant name Phillips used to call the room that he said he entered when Arnelle let him into the house to make up a false claim and a false accusation.

No one in court saw the layout you mistakenly believed was shown in court. The layout that was shown in court did not label any of the rooms so each detective either called the room they entered a name based on their own personal experience or they described what it looked like. Phillips called it a living room. Lange called it a rear den. The others described it as the bar area.

*The fact is that Phillips testified he entered the house through a rear door of the house along with Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter.
*The fact is that Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle enter the house with the three detectives.
*The fact is that Kaelin did testify what door he entered when he said he walked in behind Arnelle and when he was asked “When you entered the house, what area did you go to?” and he answered “When you go into that door, there’s a bar area, and I went to the bar area.”

There was only one back door used by Arnelle, the detectives and Kaelin that morning; the door that leads from the pool area into the family room and bar area. The door that could only be locked or unlocked from the inside of the house, the door that had no alarm key pad near it, the first door that led into the house after walking past Kaelin’s room.

The claims you made are false, your accusation that Phillips lied about this is false, and if that’s still your opinion then your opinion is wrong,

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You see, it all depends on, who one finds more credible and why. I have had the opportunity to consider the posts of the testimonies presented by GreenIce and Martin and those discrepancies in the officer's testimony allow me to draw the reasonable inference that it was not Ms. Arnelle who lied.


Kato Kaelin, Arnelle’s friend, corroborated the detectives’ testimony. That makes five witnesses who contradict what Arnelle said she did. No witness corroborates Arnelle’s testimony. It seems that once again you have let your personal feelings dictate what you want to believe despite the fact that the actual evidence in this case contradicts your belief.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I don't understand as I have already said that I think MF planted evidence, which is the same as saying it is my opinion/reasonable inference based on the evidence. However, that is quite different from saying that MF planted evidence or attempting to say, which admits that I did not say MF planted evidence, shrug.

There is absolutely no evidence there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. Mark Fuhrman never said he saw two gloves at Bundy. The evidence you use to support your belief is imaginary evidence based on what you want to imagine Fuhrman meant, not what he said. This is another example of how you let your personal beliefs dictate what you want to believe despite the fact that the actual evidence in this case contradicts your belief.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Kato Kaelin, Arnelle’s friend, corroborated the detectives’ testimony. That makes five witnesses who contradict what Arnelle said she did. No witness corroborates Arnelle’s testimony. It seems that once again you have let your personal feelings dictate what you want to believe despite the fact that the actual evidence in this case contradicts your belief.

bobaugust

All you need to do is reread the testimonies to which I referred that were previously posted. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings, although judging from your next disrespectful post, which I will address it seems that you have let you personal feelings enter into it. I don't ask that you agree with how I read the testimony. This does not even have anything to do with reasonable doubt, which I firmly believe in. It has to do with whether there is incontrovertible evidence to call someone a liar to me. I think the discrepancies in the testimonies will not allow me to so do but that does not stop nor is it intended to stop you and others from engaging in the liar calling conduct.

[William Anthony]

There is absolutely no evidence there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. Mark Fuhrman never said he saw two gloves at Bundy. The evidence you use to support your belief is imaginary evidence based on what you want to imagine Fuhrman meant, not what he said. This is another example of how you let your personal beliefs dictate what you want to believe despite the fact that the actual evidence in this case contradicts your belief.

bobaugust

I have provided the evidence that MF said he saw more than one glove at Bundy. You may "imagine" that he did not say the word "them", when asked about one glove but he did not even lie and say he didn't use the word. Please, don't disrespect me by saying that "I imagine evidence", which is just another way of saying I lied about the evidence, to me? we can disagree as to what the evidence meant without being disrespectful and, if we cannot do that, then the ignore button is available. Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

[martin II]

You’re the one who took an insignificant name Phillips used to call the room that he said he entered when Arnelle let him into the house to make up a false claim and a false accusation.

No one in court saw the layout you mistakenly believed was shown in court. The layout that was shown in court did not label any of the rooms so each detective either called the room they entered a name based on their own personal experience or they described what it looked like. Phillips called it a living room. Lange called it a rear den. The others described it as the bar area.

*The fact is that Phillips testified he entered the house through a rear door of the house along with Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter.
*The fact is that Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle enter the house with the three detectives.
*The fact is that Kaelin did testify what door he entered when he said he walked in behind Arnelle and when he was asked “When you entered the house, what area did you go to?” and he answered “When you go into that door, there’s a bar area, and I went to the bar area.”

There was only one back door used by Arnelle, the detectives and Kaelin that morning; the door that leads from the pool area into the family room and bar area. The door that could only be locked or unlocked from the inside of the house, the door that had no alarm key pad near it, the first door that led into the house after walking past Kaelin’s room.

The claims you made are false, your accusation that Phillips lied about this is false, and if that’s still your opinion then your opinion is wrong,

bobaugust

I read and posted Phillips court testimony. You did not like what he said because it conflicted what you had thought he said or what you said he said.

I nor you can change his testimnony.

He testified that he entered the house by a door at the north end of the house into the living room. You said he entered by a door at the south end of the house.

Pardon me but i prefer to believe him as he was the one that entered the door not you unless you were also there and the prosecution did not know it.:):cool:

[martin II]

Kato Kaelin, Arnelle’s friend, corroborated the detectives’ testimony. That makes five witnesses who contradict what Arnelle said she did. No witness corroborates Arnelle’s testimony. It seems that once again you have let your personal feelings dictate what you want to believe despite the fact that the actual evidence in this case contradicts your belief.

bobaugust

Kato never said which door he entered the house through.Fact.:cool:

[martin II]

The prosecution used a house room layout and asked Phillips to point to the room he entered.He pointed to the living room which was on the north side of the house. You cannot change his testimony or say he did not know what he was testifying to.Otherwise we can say that none of them knew what they were saying and they all entered the front door behind Arnell.

[bobaugust]

All you need to do is reread the testimonies to which I referred that were previously posted. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings, although judging from your next disrespectful post, which I will address it seems that you have let you personal feelings enter into it. I don't ask that you agree with how I read the testimony. This does not even have anything to do with reasonable doubt, which I firmly believe in. It has to do with whether there is incontrovertible evidence to call someone a liar to me. I think the discrepancies in the testimonies will not allow me to so do but that does not stop nor is it intended to stop you and others from engaging in the liar calling conduct.

William, the only disrespectful postings made here are the ones that have been removed. There are always minor discrepancies when different witnesses testify to experiencing the same event. The different names the detectives called the room they entered in no way changes their testimony that Arnelle Simpson opened the back door of her father’s house to let them into the house. Kato Kaelin corroborates the detectives’ testimony. There is no witness who corroborates Arnelle’s testimony.

I could understand it if you argue that Arnelle was not lying but simply mistaken even though I would disagree with that. But if you're saying you believe that Arnelle was telling the truth, then it’s obvious you're letting your personal feelings dictate what you want to believe and not what the evidence is in this case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have provided the evidence that MF said he saw more than one glove at Bundy. You may "imagine" that he did not say the word "them", when asked about one glove but he did not even lie and say he didn't use the word. Please, don't disrespect me by saying that "I imagine evidence", which is just another way of saying I lied about the evidence, to me? we can disagree as to what the evidence meant without being disrespectful and, if we cannot do that, then the ignore button is available. Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

You say that Fuhrman said he saw more than one glove under the plant leaves at Bundy. That’s phonetically correct if you are referring to a knit hat as more, but if you are again claiming that Fuhrman said he saw two gloves and a knit hat under the plant leaves you are wrong. Before Fuhrman said the word “them” he had answered the question about “one glove” with the words “one glove.” Fuhrman used the word “them” referring to the evidence he did see under the plant leaves from his vantage point, a knit hat and a glove. At the time of this testimony there was no misunderstanding regarding what he said. It wasn’t until the criminal trial when a defense attorney deceivingly tried to get Fuhrman to admit to something that wasn’t true by insinuating that the word “them” referred to two gloves and a knit hat under the plant leaves. Pure rubbish!

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I read and posted Phillips court testimony. You did not like what he said because it conflicted what you had thought he said or what you said he said.

I nor you can change his testimnony.

He testified that he entered the house by a door at the north end of the house into the living room. You said he entered by a door at the south end of the house.

Pardon me but i prefer to believe him as he was the one that entered the door not you unless you were also there and the prosecution did not know it.:):cool:

Phillips never said he entered a door at the north end of the house into the living room.

If you think he said that post the testimony.

February 16, 1995 Ronald Phillips

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.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Kato never said which door he entered the house through.Fact.:cool:

Wrong. Kaelin said the he entered the door that led into the bar area.

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.
Q WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES.
*
Q AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?
A WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

[bobaugust]

The prosecution used a house room layout and asked Phillips to point to the room he entered.He pointed to the living room which was on the north side of the house. You cannot change his testimony or say he did not know what he was testifying to.Otherwise we can say that none of them knew what they were saying and they all entered the front door behind Arnell.

Post the testimony where Phillips pointed to the living room on the unlabeled prosecution exhibit as the room he entered. Include the date please.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William, the only disrespectful postings made here are the ones that have been removed. There are always minor discrepancies when different witnesses testify to experiencing the same event. The different names the detectives called the room they entered in no way changes their testimony that Arnelle Simpson opened the back door of her father’s house to let them into the house. Kato Kaelin corroborates the detectives’ testimony. There is no witness who corroborates Arnelle’s testimony.

I could understand it if you argue that Arnelle was not lying but simply mistaken even though I would disagree with that. But if you're saying you believe that Arnelle was telling the truth, then it’s obvious you're letting your personal feelings dictate what you want to believe and not what the evidence is in this case.

bobaugust

I beg to differ as to the only posts being removed are the one that are disrespectful. There are posts that have been removed for various reasons and every disrespectful post is not reported by me, as I tend to fight my own battles. Those discrepancies, which you may call "minor", allow me to say that a reasonable inference can be drawn that Ms. Arnelle did not lie. The testimony is that Ms. Arnelle used a key.

I am arguing that Ms. Arnelle did not lie by the evidence. You are the one that claimed she did and the reason for her to lie was to cover the fact that she was an accessory after the fact in the charge of murder. I have asked you to support that with a link to any phone record of a call between Ms. Simpson and Simpson before LE arrived and allegedly found a wet sweatsuit. No one has provided the requested link and, therefore, it is my opinion, "it’s obvious you're letting your personal feelings dictate what you want to believe and not what the evidence is in this case."

[William Anthony]

You say that Fuhrman said he saw more than one glove under the plant leaves at Bundy. (correction, this is what I actually said, "[B]I have provided the evidence that MF said he saw more than one glove at Bundy[."/B])
That’s phonetically correct if you are referring to a knit hat as more, but if you are again claiming that Fuhrman said he saw two gloves and a knit hat under the plant leaves you are wrong. Before Fuhrman said the word “them” he had answered the question about “one glove” with the words “one glove.” Fuhrman used the word “them” referring to the evidence he did see under the plant leaves from his vantage point, a knit hat and a glove. At the time of this testimony there was no misunderstanding regarding what he said. It wasn’t until the criminal trial when a defense attorney deceivingly tried to get Fuhrman to admit to something that wasn’t true by insinuating that the word “them” referred to two gloves and a knit hat under the plant leaves. Pure rubbish!

bobaugust

Bobaugust,

you know that I have provided the evidence that MF was specifically asked about seeing one glove when he said the word them and had not been asked about a cap in two pages of the transcript. You may believe the word of a convicted perjurer but I choose not to.

[martin II]

Phillips never said he entered a door at the north end of the house into the living room.

If you think he said that post the testimony.

February 16, 1995 Ronald Phillips

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.

bobaugust

Bob He said he WALKED IN THROUGH THE LIVING ROOM from the door.He walked through a door and he was in the living room.
The only door that led to the living room was the french doors at the north end of the house.These doors had locks on the inside very high.

All the back doors DID NOT HAVE OUTSIDE LOCKS on them.So the only door that did was the front door.

I have posted this testimony too much already. I was wrong as i thought posting the testimnony would show you that you were wrong in what you thought but i see that is not the case.You want to stick to what you think happened not what testimony tells you. So i am finished this this useless exercise. yee ya:cool:

[martin II]

Post the testimony where Phillips pointed to the living room on the unlabeled prosecution exhibit as the room he entered. Include the date please.

bobaugust

It is his testimony Clarke questioned him . But Bob You know what testimnony it was i have posted it.So why keep this going on and on and on.
Phillips testimony will never change.

[martin II]

I beg to differ as to the only posts being removed are the one that are disrespectful. There are posts that have been removed for various reasons and every disrespectful post is not reported by me, as I tend to fight my own battles. Those discrepancies, which you may call "minor", allow me to say that a reasonable inference can be drawn that Ms. Arnelle did not lie. The testimony is that Ms. Arnelle used a key.

I am arguing that Ms. Arnelle did not lie by the evidence. You are the one that claimed she did and the reason for her to lie was to cover the fact that she was an accessory after the fact in the charge of murder. I have asked you to support that with a link to any phone record of a call between Ms. Simpson and Simpson before LE arrived and allegedly found a wet sweatsuit. No one has provided the requested link and, therefore, it is my opinion, "it’s obvious you're letting your personal feelings dictate what you want to believe and not what the evidence is in this case."

You are correct 'The testiomony is that MS Arnell used a key The only door in the house that one could use a key was the front door. There was no outside locks on any back door.

Ms Arnell opened the front door and the detectives walked in behind her as they had requested that she get her keys to let them in. imo

[William Anthony]

You are correct 'The testiomony is that MS Arnell used a key The only door in the house that one could use a key was the front door. There was no outside locks on any back door.

Ms Arnell opened the front door and the detectives walked in behind her as they had requested that she get her keys to let them in. imo

Thank GreenIce and you for pointing this out. :patriot:

[bobaugust]

I beg to differ as to the only posts being removed are the one that are disrespectful. There are posts that have been removed for various reasons and every disrespectful post is not reported by me, as I tend to fight my own battles. Those discrepancies, which you may call "minor", allow me to say that a reasonable inference can be drawn that Ms. Arnelle did not lie. The testimony is that Ms. Arnelle used a key.

I am arguing that Ms. Arnelle did not lie by the evidence. You are the one that claimed she did and the reason for her to lie was to cover the fact that she was an accessory after the fact in the charge of murder. I have asked you to support that with a link to any phone record of a call between Ms. Simpson and Simpson before LE arrived and allegedly found a wet sweatsuit. No one has provided the requested link and, therefore, it is my opinion, "it’s obvious you're letting your personal feelings dictate what you want to believe and not what the evidence is in this case."

Before Arnelle left her room Vannatter testified he asked her if she had a key to the house and said she obtained a key and led them down the walkway to the rear door. All three detectives testified Arnelle used the key to unlock the door since they all assumed that the door was locked. They were wrong. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle leading the detectives with a key and he actually saw her walk into the house. Kaelin said he and Fuhrman then followed them into the house using the same door that led into the bar area.

The fact that detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the door does not change the fact that Arnelle opened that door. The fact that that door could only be locked and unlocked from the inside tells us that someone had previously been in the house and unlocked that door. The fact that there wasn’t an alarm key pad near that door and no one heard the house alarm go off or any warning beeps tells us the house alarm had been previously turned off.

That is evidence that someone had been in Simpson’s house sometime after Kaelin had turned the house alarm on when Simpson called him from the airport at about 11:40 PM the night of the murders and before the police entered the estate that morning.

Since neither the prosecutors nor the police ever figured this out there was no investigation conducted to see if Simpson had called Arnelle from Chicago using a pay phone either at the Chicago airport or the Chicago hotel. When the police first searched Simpson’s house the day after the murders they never knew that Simpson had been wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders so the freshly washed dark colored sweat suit found in Simpson’s washing machine was never collected.

All of this shows how clever or lucky Simpson was in covering up what he did. Arnelle though wasn’t as clever so she had to lie under oath to avoid admitting that she destroyed incriminating blood evidence and she too go away with it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

you know that I have provided the evidence that MF was specifically asked about seeing one glove when he said the word them and had not been asked about a cap in two pages of the transcript. You may believe the word of a convicted perjurer but I choose not to.

You provided evidence that Simpson was asked about one glove and I provided evidence that he answered the question with the words “one glove” He used the word “them” to answer the other part of the question concerning the evidence he saw under the plant leaves from his vantage point, a knit hat and a glove. The fact is that knit hat and the glove were together under the plant leaves. There is absolutely no evidence that there were two gloves under the plant leaves when the police arrived at Bundy. Furman’s testimony that he saw a knit hat and one glove under the plant leaves is corroborated by the police officers who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman ever arrived there. That is the evidence in this case and no matter how badly you want it to be or imagine it to be different does not change it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bob He said he WALKED IN THROUGH THE LIVING ROOM from the door.He walked through a door and he was in the living room.
The only door that led to the living room was the french doors at the north end of the house.These doors had locks on the inside very high.

All the back doors DID NOT HAVE OUTSIDE LOCKS on them.So the only door that did was the front door.

I have posted this testimony too much already. I was wrong as i thought posting the testimnony would show you that you were wrong in what you thought but i see that is not the case.You want to stick to what you think happened not what testimony tells you. So i am finished this this useless exercise. yee ya:cool:

No, Phillips did not say he walked in through the living room, he said he walked in through the living room AREA. Phillips called the family room the living room. He never said he came in a different door than the others. He said he walked in the door that Arnelle opened along with Lange and Vannatter.

There were no labels on the prosecution diagram designating the names of the rooms. Each detective called the family room a name based on their own personal experience. Phillips called it the living room, Lange called it the rear den, Are you going to accuse Lange of lying about this too?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It is his testimony Clarke questioned him . But Bob You know what testimnony it was i have posted it.So why keep this going on and on and on.
Phillips testimony will never change.

I don’t know what you posted. You say it is the testimony Clark questioned him. The testimony I posted is the testimony of Clark questioning him. So I looked up Phillips testimony where Cochran questioned him and I found where Cochran asked Phillips about some music and candles burning in the living room area. It seems Cochran also referred to the family room as the living room area unless Simpson kept his stereo system and coffee table in his living room.

February 16, 1995 Ronald Phillips

Q OKAY. NOW, WHILE YOU WERE INSIDE THE HOUSE, DID YOU HEAR -- DID YOU GO IN THE LIVING ROOM AREA AT SOME POINT?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU HEAR ANY MUSIC PLAYING IN THE LIVING ROOM?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE WAS THAT MUSIC EMANATING FROM?
A WELL, I DIDN'T EXACTLY GO OVER AND LOOK AND SEE. I BELIEVE IT WAS COMING FROM A STEREO IN THE LIVING ROOM SOMEWHERE.
Q ALL RIGHT. DID YOU SEE SOME CANDLES SOME WHERE IN THE LIVING ROOM AREA OR DOWNSTAIRS AREA?
A YEAH. THEY WERE ON A COFFEE TABLE OR SOME TYPE OF TABLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM.
Q AND HOW MANY CANDLES DID YOU SEE?
A THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY THERE WERE.
Q ANY PICTURES EVER TAKEN OF THESE CANDLES?
A NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I DIDN'T DIRECT ANYBODY TO TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You are correct 'The testiomony is that MS Arnell used a key The only door in the house that one could use a key was the front door. There was no outside locks on any back door.

Ms Arnell opened the front door and the detectives walked in behind her as they had requested that she get her keys to let them in. imo

Right, and superman Kato Kaelin, standing outside his room talking to Fuhrman saw Arnelle and three, not two detectives enter the front door of the house using his x-ray vision and then he grabbed Mark Fuhrman and flew over the house landing on the front porch and entered behind them. Nice fantasy.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact that detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the door does not change the fact that Arnelle opened that door. The fact that that door could only be locked and unlocked from the inside tells us that someone had previously been in the house and unlocked that door. The fact that there wasn’t an alarm key pad near that door and no one heard the house alarm go off or any warning beeps tells us the house alarm had been previously turned off.

That is evidence that someone had been in Simpson’s house sometime after Kaelin had turned the house alarm on when Simpson called him from the airport at about 11:40 PM the night of the murders and before the police entered the estate that morning.

Since neither the prosecutors nor the police ever figured this out there was no investigation conducted to see if Simpson had called Arnelle from Chicago using a pay phone either at the Chicago airport or the Chicago hotel. When the police first searched Simpson’s house the day after the murders they never knew that Simpson had been wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders so the freshly washed dark colored sweat suit found in Simpson’s washing machine was never collected.

All of this shows how clever or lucky Simpson was in covering up what he did. Arnelle though wasn’t as clever so she had to lie under oath to avoid admitting that she destroyed incriminating blood evidence and she too go away with it.

bobaugust

What makes you think that four detectives were mistaken that Ms. Arnelle used a key. She said she used a key. The only door that a key could be used on was the front door. Do not forget the 40 second time to go to the keypad and disarm the system.

The evidence is that Ms. Arnelle went in through the front door and disarmed the alarm.

I give LE more credit than you do, if your theory is correct. LE would have soon found out that the sweatsuit was important and that Ms. Arnelle was an accessory after the fact and checked the phone records.

There is no evidence that Simpson called anyone and cajoled them into being an accessory to murder. To say that Ms. Arnelle lied and was an accessory to murder, when there is no evidence is rank speculation.

[William Anthony]

You provided evidence that Simpson was asked about one glove and I provided evidence that he answered the question with the words “one glove” He used the word “them” to answer the other part of the question concerning the evidence he saw under the plant leaves from his vantage point, a knit hat and a glove. The fact is that knit hat and the glove were together under the plant leaves. There is absolutely no evidence that there were two gloves under the plant leaves when the police arrived at Bundy. Furman’s testimony that he saw a knit hat and one glove under the plant leaves is corroborated by the police officers who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman ever arrived there. That is the evidence in this case and no matter how badly you want it to be or imagine it to be different does not change it.

bobaugust

Let's see what the true testimony was and not what you claim you provided.

"Q: BY MR. BAILEY: NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN CROSS-EXAMINATION MR. UELMEN DIRECTED SOME QUESTIONS TO YOU ABOUT YOUR ACTIVITIES AT BUNDY AND YOU DESCRIBED, AS YOU DID FOR US -- PAGE 64 AT THE TOP -- THAT: "HAVING BEEN UNABLE TO SEE THE BODIES FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION TO A SATISFACTORY DEGREE, RISKE TOOK YOU AROUND DOROTHY UP THE ALLEY AND IN THROUGH THE HOUSE SO YOU COULD COME OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND HAVE A BETTER VANTAGE POINT AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS WITHOUT WALKING THROUGH THE BLOOD," CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THE TOP OF PAGE 64 YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES, I AM.

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

A: YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

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

A: SINGULAR, YES.

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

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

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

A: THAT PAGE, NO.

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

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

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

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I DO NOT.

Let's look at the testimony the day before.

"Q: BUT YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY THERE IS MENTION OF THIS VIEW, THE LACERATION AND THE GLOVE AND THE FENCE ON THE NORTH PROPERTY? ARE YOU SATISFIED OF THAT?

A: WELL, I'M NOT SURE IF I TESTIFIED TO THAT OR NOT. I THINK WE WERE WORKING UP TO THAT. WE MIGHT HAVE. I MIGHT BE INCORRECT.

Q: WE WORKED UP TO IT?

A: IN OTHER WORDS, WE WERE CHRONOLOGICALLY GOING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO. "

Q: PAGE 65, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: THE COURT REPORTER NEEDS TO CHANGE HER PAPER.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. "

I ask you to remember the jury instruction on reasonable doubt.

[weezer]

so IF arnelle led them through the front door, why didn't she turn the alarm off outside before she entered? the detectives said they didn't hear a beep when they entered the house and don't remember her turning an alarm off. but I'm wondering why she would have waited to get inside before she turned it off? wouldn't it have made more sense to turn it off from the outside? wouldn't that have been the first indicator that her dad was not there? the alarm would have been on.

[martin II]

so IF arnelle led them through the front door, why didn't she turn the alarm off outside before she entered? the detectives said they didn't hear a beep when they entered the house and don't remember her turning an alarm off. but I'm wondering why she would have waited to get inside before she turned it off? wouldn't it have made more sense to turn it off from the outside? wouldn't that have been the first indicator that her dad was not there? the alarm would have been on.


She didn't wait. I have read no testimony that the detectives didn't hear and noise when she disarmed the alarm. Anyway the beep on a alarm is not that loud and their memory is faulty because they could not remember what doors they used.Or could not agree.

Since we know there were no outside locks on any back door no one enrtered the house by a back door and no back door was left unlocked because all the back doors had inside locks.
We know le asked Ms Arnell if she had a ket to the house and she said yes and she went inside her room to get her keys. She then led them to the front of the house with keys in hand, (Kato said she had keys in her hand) she went to the front door disarmed the alarm used her keys to unlock the front door and all walked into the kitchen area.Phillips said she UNLOCKED the door.
I assume she did this with a key.

Phillip testified that he entered the house (i assume by a door) to the living room and walked to the kitchen. The only door that led to the living room
was the two french doors located at the north end of the house and they too had inside locks up high.So Phillip could not have come through the french doors from the outside because there were no outside locks on those doors.Vanhatter and lang could not have entered the house from the three doors to the south of the house because none of those doors had outside locks either.

The only door with a outside lock was the front door and since Phillips said Ms Arnell unlocked the door that he used it had to be the front door.

Why Le gave different versions of what door they used i don't know but they did. There was mass confusion between them about something as simnple as what door they entered by. But we know that is was impossible for them to enter any back door.

But they did need to try to create some fantasy about someone using the washing machine and the only way to do that was by lying about how they entered the house and they could not even tell the same story about that.imo

le searched all over ojs house and took pictures. They knew there were no outside locks on any back doors, or someone knew, yet they tried this trick anyway.imo

[weezer]

anyone have a link to arnelle's testimony where she said she disarmed the alarm inside the house? I still think it's very interesting that she didn't disarm the alarm outside -- seems odd that she didn't.

[tv]

so IF arnelle led them through the front door, why didn't she turn the alarm off outside before she entered? the detectives said they didn't hear a beep when they entered the house and don't remember her turning an alarm off. but I'm wondering why she would have waited to get inside before she turned it off? wouldn't it have made more sense to turn it off from the outside? wouldn't that have been the first indicator that her dad was not there? the alarm would have been on.The detectives didn't see her turn an alarm off or hear a beep because the alarm was off. I have no doubt that she entered the back door with the detectives. She had keys in her hand so they had the impression that she unlocked the door. Even IF she took them through the front the fact that no alarm beeped or was disarmed means someone was in the house after Kato set the alarm. It makes no sense that she would have disarmed it from the inside.The detectives had no reason to lie about what door they entered. Arnelle had a very good reason for lying.

[fgump2]

Let's see what the true testimony was and not what you claim you provided.

"Q: BY MR. BAILEY: NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN CROSS-EXAMINATION MR. UELMEN DIRECTED SOME QUESTIONS TO YOU ABOUT YOUR ACTIVITIES AT BUNDY AND YOU DESCRIBED, AS YOU DID FOR US -- PAGE 64 AT THE TOP -- THAT: "HAVING BEEN UNABLE TO SEE THE BODIES FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION TO A SATISFACTORY DEGREE, RISKE TOOK YOU AROUND DOROTHY UP THE ALLEY AND IN THROUGH THE HOUSE SO YOU COULD COME OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND HAVE A BETTER VANTAGE POINT AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS WITHOUT WALKING THROUGH THE BLOOD," CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THE TOP OF PAGE 64 YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES, I AM.

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

A: YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

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

A: SINGULAR, YES.

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

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

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

A: THAT PAGE, NO.

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

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

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

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I DO NOT.

Let's look at the testimony the day before.

"Q: BUT YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY THERE IS MENTION OF THIS VIEW, THE LACERATION AND THE GLOVE AND THE FENCE ON THE NORTH PROPERTY? ARE YOU SATISFIED OF THAT?

A: WELL, I'M NOT SURE IF I TESTIFIED TO THAT OR NOT. I THINK WE WERE WORKING UP TO THAT. WE MIGHT HAVE. I MIGHT BE INCORRECT.

Q: WE WORKED UP TO IT?

A: IN OTHER WORDS, WE WERE CHRONOLOGICALLY GOING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO. "

Q: PAGE 65, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: THE COURT REPORTER NEEDS TO CHANGE HER PAPER.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. "

I ask you to remember the jury instruction on reasonable doubt.

I list several reasons why Fuhrman was unlikely to see a second glove there even in the unlikely case that there was a second glove there.
- Fuhrman had a flashlight that was a lot less powerful than some of the other cops that were there earlier. Fuhrman had a penlight flashlight, and some of the other cops who were there first had large 4 cell flashlights more than a foot long. Some of the jurors said that Fuhrman was probably lying about seeing blood on the Bronco at Rockingham because he had such a weak flashlight. As Rantala pointed out in her book, it is a little odd to think that Fuhrman had very good night vision at Bundy and bad night vision at Rockingham. The defense seems to have gotten the jury to believe that, unfortunately.
The gloves were a fairly dark color so the power of the flashlight would have made more of a difference than if the gloves were a light color.
- Fuhrman would have had somewhat weaker night vision than some of the patrol officers (non detectives) because he was older (detectives are usually older than the partol officers) and night vision acuity drops off steadlly after about 21. Also Fuhrman would have been sleepy because that was his normal bed time so that would have cut into his night vision a bit also. Most of the partol officers would have been more alert because that was there normal work time.
- The left hand glove and the hat that everyone agrees were there were near two dead bodies, and it was regarded as a fight scene. The cops would have looked that area over very carefully. I think that some NG people have posted that the cops would have given it a cursory look. I very much doubt that, since this was a death scene, and the killer apparantly dropped two items there, I think that cops would have looked very carefully at the area near the glove and the hat. I am guessing that any big city cop who has dealt with a lot of crimce scenes would agree with that. In other words a fight scene with two dead bodies would be visually examined very carefully; expecially near an area where the killer seems to have dropped something.

[bobaugust]

What makes you think that four detectives were mistaken that Ms. Arnelle used a key. She said she used a key. The only door that a key could be used on was the front door. Do not forget the 40 second time to go to the keypad and disarm the system.

The evidence is that Ms. Arnelle went in through the front door and disarmed the alarm.

I give LE more credit than you do, if your theory is correct. LE would have soon found out that the sweatsuit was important and that Ms. Arnelle was an accessory after the fact and checked the phone records.

There is no evidence that Simpson called anyone and cajoled them into being an accessory to murder. To say that Ms. Arnelle lied and was an accessory to murder, when there is no evidence is rank speculation.

Evidently you never saw the edit I made on the post you responded to. This is what I said at the start of that post.

“Before Arnelle left her room Vannatter testified he asked her if she had a key to the house and said she obtained a key and led them down the walkway to the rear door. All three detectives testified Arnelle used the key to unlock the door since they all assumed that the door was locked. They were wrong. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle leading the detectives with a key and he actually saw her walk into the house. Kaelin said he and Fuhrman then followed them into the house using the same door that led into the bar area.”

What makes me believe the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door is that door can only be locked or unlocked from the inside. You are correct there is a 40 second delay sensor on that door. If the alarm is set and the door is opened a beeping sound will sound for 40 seconds to turn the alarm off at one of the keypads. No one testified they heard that beeping and no one said they saw Arnelle go to a key pad and disarm the alarm.

The most important fact that you keep ignoring is that Kato Kaelin, Arnelle’s friend, corroborated the detectives’ testimony, not Arnelle’s. Who corroborates Arnelle’s story that she took two detectives around the house to the front door and turned off the house alarm? No one!

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Let's see what the true testimony was and not what you claim you provided.



Lets see the actual testimony from the preliminary not the criminal trial defense’s lame attempt to get Fuhrman to admit to something that was not true. It doesn’t matter how many pages back in the transcript it was when Clark asked Fuhrman the same question about what Fuhrman was able to see from that vantage point. When Uelmen asked Fuhrman about the glove he saw from that vantage point Fuhrman’s answer included the knit hat since he saw both pieces of evidence together.

You also conveniently forget that the officers who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman and Phillips even arrived there testified to seeing the same evidence as Fuhrman testified to seeing under the plant leaves, a knit hat and a glove.

July 5, 1994 Mark Fuhrman

Clark’s questions

Q FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT, LOOKING DOWN ON THE VICTIMS, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?

A YES, LOOKING DOWN, DIRECTLY BELOW THE LANDING, THERE -- I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A HEEL PRINT WHICH APPEARED TO BE GOING IN A WESTBOUND DIRECTION, AWAY FROM THE BODIES, TOWARDS THE ALLEY. THERE WAS ALSO A KNIT CAP OR WHAT APPEARED TO BE A KNIT CAP, DARK CAP-TYPE OBJECT, AND WHAT LOOKED LIKE A GLOVE AT THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM IN THE SHRUBBERY AREA JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE FEMALE VICTIM.

Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GLOVE ANY BETTER?

A AT THAT TIME, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE IT. THERE WAS ANOTHER LOCATION FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE THAT I GOT A BETTER VIEW OF IT, A LITTLE LATER. AND THEN I NOTICED THAT IT WAS A DARK BROWN -- OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BLACK IN THE LIGHT THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IT -- AND IT DID APPEAR TO BE A STOCKING CAP WHEN I GOT A CLOSER LOOK.

Q SO IT WAS A -- IT LOOKED TO YOU TO BE A DARK BROWN OR EVEN BLACK LEATHER GLOVE, AND A -- DID YOU SAY WHAT COLOR THE HAT WAS?

A IT WAS VERY DARK. MAYBE DARK BLUE OR BLACK.

Q KNIT CAP?

A IT APPEARED TO BE KNIT, YES.


Questions by Uelmen

Q How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
Q When did you first observe it?
A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy. There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q All right.The glove was located at the feet of the male victim?
A Yes.
Q What --
A At the foot. At one of the feet.
Q Was it obscured by any sort of plant?
A There was a plant that kind of cascaded over the top of one portion of it, yes. That's why it was easier to see from that location to the north.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

anyone have a link to arnelle's testimony where she said she disarmed the alarm inside the house? I still think it's very interesting that she didn't disarm the alarm outside -- seems odd that she didn't.

fbgweezer, Petrocelli wrote,

“In the criminal trial, Cochran put Arnelle Simpson on the stand and she testified that she and Detectives Lange and Phillips had entered the house by circling the property to the front and going in the front door. She said two other officers were still interrogating Kato Kaelin in his room at the time.

In her version, she said she chose the front entry because she wanted to turn off the alarm system, using a keypad that was located outside that door. Now, one might wonder why she would care about the alarm system; she was in the company of police detectives, why worry about tripping a house alarm? The alarm could be deactivated once inside the house. She said in her deposition that she was "nervous and scared."

bobaugust

[weezer]

fbgweezer, Petrocelli wrote,

“In the criminal trial, Cochran put Arnelle Simpson on the stand and she testified that she and Detectives Lange and Phillips had entered the house by circling the property to the front and going in the front door. She said two other officers were still interrogating Kato Kaelin in his room at the time.

In her version, she said she chose the front entry because she wanted to turn off the alarm system, using a keypad that was located outside that door. Now, one might wonder why she would care about the alarm system; she was in the company of police detectives, why worry about tripping a house alarm? The alarm could be deactivated once inside the house. She said in her deposition that she was "nervous and scared."

bobaugust

thank you bob. something about this just doesn't make any sense. Five people testified they all followed arnelle through the back door. Five people testified that arnelle had keys. One person testified arnelle unlocked the door -- we can assume he thought that since she was carrying keys. Did anybody testify that arnelle stopped, turned off the alarm, and then unlocked the door?

[martin II]

fbgweezer, Petrocelli wrote,

“In the criminal trial, Cochran put Arnelle Simpson on the stand and she testified that she and Detectives Lange and Phillips had entered the house by circling the property to the front and going in the front door. She said two other officers were still interrogating Kato Kaelin in his room at the time.

In her version, she said she chose the front entry because she wanted to turn off the alarm system, using a keypad that was located outside that door. Now, one might wonder why she would care about the alarm system; she was in the company of police detectives, why worry about tripping a house alarm? The alarm could be deactivated once inside the house. She said in her deposition that she was "nervous and scared."

bobaugust

I think that if a person had a habit of entering the front door, they would do the same regardless of who is with them. If her experience was entering the house by the frone door because there were no outside locks on the back doors then she was forced to go to the front door and disarm that alarm.

There were no outside locks on any back doors so she had no option but to go to the front door.

[martin II]

thank you bob. something about this just doesn't make any sense. Five people testified they all followed arnelle through the back door. Five people testified that arnelle had keys. One person testified arnelle unlocked the door -- we can assume he thought that since she was carrying keys. Did anybody testify that arnelle stopped, turned off the alarm, and then unlocked the door?

Kato testified that Ms Arnell had keys in her hand as she led the way to the door. Phillips testified that she unlocked the door. no one heard a alarm go off so she had to disarm the front door alarm.

Since there were no outside locks on any back doors. it was impossible for her to use a key or unlock those doors. The front door was the only door that could be unlocked from the outside.

[William Anthony]

I list several reasons why Fuhrman was unlikely to see a second glove there even in the unlikely case that there was a second glove there.
- Fuhrman had a flashlight that was a lot less powerful than some of the other cops that were there earlier. Fuhrman had a penlight flashlight, and some of the other cops who were there first had large 4 cell flashlights more than a foot long. Some of the jurors said that Fuhrman was probably lying about seeing blood on the Bronco at Rockingham because he had such a weak flashlight. As Rantala pointed out in her book, it is a little odd to think that Fuhrman had very good night vision at Bundy and bad night vision at Rockingham. The defense seems to have gotten the jury to believe that, unfortunately.
The gloves were a fairly dark color so the power of the flashlight would have made more of a difference than if the gloves were a light color.
- Fuhrman would have had somewhat weaker night vision than some of the patrol officers (non detectives) because he was older (detectives are usually older than the partol officers) and night vision acuity drops off steadlly after about 21. Also Fuhrman would have been sleepy because that was his normal bed time so that would have cut into his night vision a bit also. Most of the partol officers would have been more alert because that was there normal work time.
- The left hand glove and the hat that everyone agrees were there were near two dead bodies, and it was regarded as a fight scene. The cops would have looked that area over very carefully. I think that some NG people have posted that the cops would have given it a cursory look. I very much doubt that, since this was a death scene, and the killer apparantly dropped two items there, I think that cops would have looked very carefully at the area near the glove and the hat. I am guessing that any big city cop who has dealt with a lot of crimce scenes would agree with that. In other words a fight scene with two dead bodies would be visually examined very carefully; expecially near an area where the killer seems to have dropped something.

To me, there is no reason to speculate to draw an inference, I only need to rely on the testimony. IIRC, judges tell jurors, they are not to speculate. This is one reason why the verdict was not guilty from that sophisticated jury, IMHO, as they upheld their oath.

[William Anthony]

Evidently you never saw the edit I made on the post you responded to. This is what I said at the start of that post.

“Before Arnelle left her room Vannatter testified he asked her if she had a key to the house and said she obtained a key and led them down the walkway to the rear door. All three detectives testified Arnelle used the key to unlock the door since they all assumed that the door was locked. They were wrong. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle leading the detectives with a key and he actually saw her walk into the house. Kaelin said he and Fuhrman then followed them into the house using the same door that led into the bar area.”

What makes me believe the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door is that door can only be locked or unlocked from the inside. You are correct there is a 40 second delay sensor on that door. If the alarm is set and the door is opened a beeping sound will sound for 40 seconds to turn the alarm off at one of the keypads. No one testified they heard that beeping and no one said they saw Arnelle go to a key pad and disarm the alarm.

The most important fact that you keep ignoring is that Kato Kaelin, Arnelle’s friend, corroborated the detectives’ testimony, not Arnelle’s. Who corroborates Arnelle’s story that she took two detectives around the house to the front door and turned off the house alarm? No one!

bobaugust

The detectives whom you call mistaken.:)

[William Anthony]

Lets see the actual testimony from the preliminary not the criminal trial defense’s lame attempt to get Fuhrman to admit to something that was not true. It doesn’t matter how many pages back in the transcript it was when Clark asked Fuhrman the same question about what Fuhrman was able to see from that vantage point. When Uelmen asked Fuhrman about the glove he saw from that vantage point Fuhrman’s answer included the knit hat since he saw both pieces of evidence together.

You also conveniently forget that the officers who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman and Phillips even arrived there testified to seeing the same evidence as Fuhrman testified to seeing under the plant leaves, a knit hat and a glove.

July 5, 1994 Mark Fuhrman

Clark’s questions

Q FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT, LOOKING DOWN ON THE VICTIMS, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?

A YES, LOOKING DOWN, DIRECTLY BELOW THE LANDING, THERE -- I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A HEEL PRINT WHICH APPEARED TO BE GOING IN A WESTBOUND DIRECTION, AWAY FROM THE BODIES, TOWARDS THE ALLEY. THERE WAS ALSO A KNIT CAP OR WHAT APPEARED TO BE A KNIT CAP, DARK CAP-TYPE OBJECT, AND WHAT LOOKED LIKE A GLOVE AT THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM IN THE SHRUBBERY AREA JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE FEMALE VICTIM.

Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GLOVE ANY BETTER?

A AT THAT TIME, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE IT. THERE WAS ANOTHER LOCATION FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE THAT I GOT A BETTER VIEW OF IT, A LITTLE LATER. AND THEN I NOTICED THAT IT WAS A DARK BROWN -- OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BLACK IN THE LIGHT THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IT -- AND IT DID APPEAR TO BE A STOCKING CAP WHEN I GOT A CLOSER LOOK.

Q SO IT WAS A -- IT LOOKED TO YOU TO BE A DARK BROWN OR EVEN BLACK LEATHER GLOVE, AND A -- DID YOU SAY WHAT COLOR THE HAT WAS?

A IT WAS VERY DARK. MAYBE DARK BLUE OR BLACK.

Q KNIT CAP?

A IT APPEARED TO BE KNIT, YES.


Questions by Uelmen

Q How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
Q When did you first observe it?
A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy. There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q All right.The glove was located at the feet of the male victim?
A Yes.
Q What --
A At the foot. At one of the feet.
Q Was it obscured by any sort of plant?
A There was a plant that kind of cascaded over the top of one portion of it, yes. That's why it was easier to see from that location to the north.

bobaugust

Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
*
*
*

And looking there I could see them down at his feet.

You see an attorney does not understand the same thing as a lawyer does based on the testimony. It has been said that cross examination is the greatest engine for truth, which Bailey proved when he crossed MF, IMHO.

[martin II]

The detectives didn't see her turn an alarm off or hear a beep because the alarm was off. I have no doubt that she entered the back door with the detectives. She had keys in her hand so they had the impression that she unlocked the door. Even IF she took them through the front the fact that no alarm beeped or was disarmed means someone was in the house after Kato set the alarm. It makes no sense that she would have disarmed it from the inside.The detectives had no reason to lie about what door they entered. Arnelle had a very good reason for lying.

She could not have entered any back door because there were no outside locks on any of those doors.

Phillips said she unlocked the door. Not that he had a impression that she did.
Do you have testimony that proves the detectives testified that they heard no alarm being disarmed. i don't.
She didn't disarm the alarm from inside.She did it at the front door.It only required that she punch several numbers into the key pad.It was not some big event.
you cannot change Phillips testimony.

[William Anthony]

July 10th,

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, she is leaving, your Honor, the area marked "Arnelle's room" and she walks west to an area with some stairs. She goes up the stairs and proceeds past the pool.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: She went around the north side of the house to an area marked "Driveway" again on People's 66.

MR. COCHRAN: And you went to an area marked "Entrance." Now, is that the entrance to the Rockingham residence?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do when you got to that entrance, ma'am?

MS. SIMPSON: I went over here to the kitchen, through the kitchen to the phone here and then walked through here, (Indicating), to get to my car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's back up for a moment. When you went to--got to the front door of the residence there, did you have to do anything before you got inside that residence?

MS. SIMPSON: I had to turn the alarm off.

MR. COCHRAN: There was an alarm on?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes."

Phillips

"A: WE WALKED TO ARNELLE'S ROOM, DOWN THIS WALKWAY, UP THESE STEPS AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A SERIES OF DOORS RIGHT HERE AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. SHE UNLOCKED ONE OF THESE DOORS. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DOOR FARTHEST TO OUR LEFT AND THAT'S THE WAY WE WENT INSIDE THAT HOUSE.

Q: WHEN SHE UNLOCKED THAT DOOR, WAS THERE AN ALARM ON THAT HOUSE?

A: I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

Q: DID YOU HEAR THE ALARM GO OFF?

A: NO ALARM WENT OFF.

Q: DID YOU SEE HER PRESS SOME BUTTONS ON THE WALL?

A: I DIDN'T SEE HER DO ANYTHING.

Q: DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF AN ALARM FOR WESTEC ON THAT WALL THAT SHE ENTERED?

A: I WOULD NOT KNOW THAT.

Q: YOU ARE SURE AS YOU SIT HERE NOW THAT YOU WENT IN SOME DOOR TOWARD THE REAR OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: BUT YOU DID NOT GO AROUND AND COME IN THE FRONT?

A: I'M POSITIVE."

[martin II]

July 10th,

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, she is leaving, your Honor, the area marked "Arnelle's room" and she walks west to an area with some stairs. She goes up the stairs and proceeds past the pool.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: She went around the north side of the house to an area marked "Driveway" again on People's 66.

MR. COCHRAN: And you went to an area marked "Entrance." Now, is that the entrance to the Rockingham residence?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do when you got to that entrance, ma'am?

MS. SIMPSON: I went over here to the kitchen, through the kitchen to the phone here and then walked through here, (Indicating), to get to my car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's back up for a moment. When you went to--got to the front door of the residence there, did you have to do anything before you got inside that residence?

MS. SIMPSON: I had to turn the alarm off.

MR. COCHRAN: There was an alarm on?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes."

Phillips

"A: WE WALKED TO ARNELLE'S ROOM, DOWN THIS WALKWAY, UP THESE STEPS AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A SERIES OF DOORS RIGHT HERE AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. SHE UNLOCKED ONE OF THESE DOORS. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DOOR FARTHEST TO OUR LEFT AND THAT'S THE WAY WE WENT INSIDE THAT HOUSE.

Q: WHEN SHE UNLOCKED THAT DOOR, WAS THERE AN ALARM ON THAT HOUSE?

A: I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

Q: DID YOU HEAR THE ALARM GO OFF?

A: NO ALARM WENT OFF.

Q: DID YOU SEE HER PRESS SOME BUTTONS ON THE WALL?

A: I DIDN'T SEE HER DO ANYTHING.

Q: DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF AN ALARM FOR WESTEC ON THAT WALL THAT SHE ENTERED?

A: I WOULD NOT KNOW THAT.

Q: YOU ARE SURE AS YOU SIT HERE NOW THAT YOU WENT IN SOME DOOR TOWARD THE REAR OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: BUT YOU DID NOT GO AROUND AND COME IN THE FRONT?

A: I'M POSITIVE."


He gave different testimony when Clarke was questioing him.
The three doors at the south end of the house were nailed shut by oj long time ago so he did not enter one of those doors.
Previously he said he entered the door that led to the living room.That is at the north end of the house.

[martin II]

There were five doors on the back of the house.
Two French doors at the north end. They had only inside locks up high on the door.
Three regular doors at the south end. There were no outside locks on these doors and THEY HAD BEEN NAILED SHUT LONG TIME AGO BY oj.

I don't see how any one could unlock a door from the outside that had no outside lock and how they could open a door that had been nailed shut.

The only door that could be opened with a key is the front door which is the door Ms Arnell unlocked and disabled the alarm to let the cops in.

The detectives gave different testimonies at different times.

[William Anthony]

He gave different testimony when Clarke was questioing him.
The three doors at the south end of the house were nailed shut by oj long time ago so he did not enter one of those doors.
Previously he said he entered the door that led to the living room.That is at the north end of the house.

From the testimony, it seems he may have been awestruck by Simpson's mansion.

[bobaugust]

thank you bob. something about this just doesn't make any sense. Five people testified they all followed arnelle through the back door. Five people testified that arnelle had keys. One person testified arnelle unlocked the door -- we can assume he thought that since she was carrying keys. Did anybody testify that arnelle stopped, turned off the alarm, and then unlocked the door?

No one testified that they actually saw Arnelle unlock the back door. No one testified they heard any warning beeps go off when Arnelle opened the back door. No one testified they saw Arnelle go to a keypad and disarm the alarm.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think that if a person had a habit of entering the front door, they would do the same regardless of who is with them. If her experience was entering the house by the frone door because there were no outside locks on the back doors then she was forced to go to the front door and disarm that alarm.

There were no outside locks on any back doors so she had no option but to go to the front door.

Actually I agree with you that if a person had a habit of entering A DOOR TO THE HOUSE they would do the same regardless of who was with them. Arnelle may have taken her keys but she aromatically went to the back door as she always does. I would argue that she knew that door was unlocked because she had unlocked it and turned the alarm off when she was in the house washing clothes before the police arrived that morning.

January 14, 1996 Arnelle Simpson

Q. And this is -- there's a door here at the end. In fact, we just saw the picture of it. That doesn't have the lock on the outside, right?
A. True.
Q. And that's a door that you use frequently, and used when you were living there in June of 1994, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, that's the quickest way, now, to get into the house. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And your normal procedure would be to go to that door, and if it was not locked, you would go inside that door, right?
A. Depending on what time of the day it is, yes.
Q. And if the door is locked, then you're out of luck and have you to go all the way around to the front, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if the door is not locked, you can go in, right?
A. True.
Q. Now, there's no alarm pad on the outside of this door, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you don't know when you're about to open the door, whether or not the alarm is on, correct?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You see an attorney does not understand the same thing as a lawyer does based on the testimony. It has been said that cross examination is the greatest engine for truth, which Bailey proved when he crossed MF, IMHO.

There is absolutely no evidence of there being a knit hat and two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. When Fuhrman used the word “them” he was referring to the evidence he could see under plant leaves. The same evidence the witnesses who were at Bundy before Fuhrman ever arrived there testified they saw; a knit hat and a glove. Bailey was trying to deceive the jury into believing something that was not true.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

July 10th,

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, she is leaving, your Honor, the area marked "Arnelle's room" and she walks west to an area with some stairs. She goes up the stairs and proceeds past the pool.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: She went around the north side of the house to an area marked "Driveway" again on People's 66.

MR. COCHRAN: And you went to an area marked "Entrance." Now, is that the entrance to the Rockingham residence?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do when you got to that entrance, ma'am?

MS. SIMPSON: I went over here to the kitchen, through the kitchen to the phone here and then walked through here, (Indicating), to get to my car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's back up for a moment. When you went to--got to the front door of the residence there, did you have to do anything before you got inside that residence?

MS. SIMPSON: I had to turn the alarm off.

MR. COCHRAN: There was an alarm on?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes."

Phillips

"A: WE WALKED TO ARNELLE'S ROOM, DOWN THIS WALKWAY, UP THESE STEPS AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A SERIES OF DOORS RIGHT HERE AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. SHE UNLOCKED ONE OF THESE DOORS. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DOOR FARTHEST TO OUR LEFT AND THAT'S THE WAY WE WENT INSIDE THAT HOUSE.

Q: WHEN SHE UNLOCKED THAT DOOR, WAS THERE AN ALARM ON THAT HOUSE?

A: I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

Q: DID YOU HEAR THE ALARM GO OFF?

A: NO ALARM WENT OFF.

Q: DID YOU SEE HER PRESS SOME BUTTONS ON THE WALL?

A: I DIDN'T SEE HER DO ANYTHING.

Q: DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF AN ALARM FOR WESTEC ON THAT WALL THAT SHE ENTERED?

A: I WOULD NOT KNOW THAT.

Q: YOU ARE SURE AS YOU SIT HERE NOW THAT YOU WENT IN SOME DOOR TOWARD THE REAR OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: BUT YOU DID NOT GO AROUND AND COME IN THE FRONT?

A: I'M POSITIVE."

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.
Q WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES.
*
Q AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?
A WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

He gave different testimony when Clarke was questioing him.
The three doors at the south end of the house were nailed shut by oj long time ago so he did not enter one of those doors.
Previously he said he entered the door that led to the living room.That is at the north end of the house.

Every time you post this false claim I will correct you. Eventually maybe you will realize that your comment is incorrect and not repeat it. Phillips never said he entered a door that led into the living room. He said he walked in through the living room AREA. Phillips called the room, that we all know from Wagner’s diagram was the family room, as the living room area and the living room. Cochran also referred to the family room as the living room area and the living room.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There is absolutely no evidence of there being a knit hat and two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. When Fuhrman used the word “them” he was referring to the evidence he could see under plant leaves. The same evidence the witnesses who were at Bundy before Fuhrman ever arrived there testified they saw; a knit hat and a glove. Bailey was trying to deceive the jury into believing something that was not true.

bobaugust

The testimony is a res ipsa loquitor. As pointed out, MF was asked about a glove, not a glove and a cap or hat and MF said them. When two reasonable inferences can be drawn from the same evidence, the jury must accept the one pointing toward innocence, remember?

[martin II]

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.
Q WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES.
*
Q AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?
A WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

bobaugust

Kato never says what door he entered only that when inside he went to a bar area. he could do that by entering the front door.

[William Anthony]

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.
Q WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES.
*
Q AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?
A WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

bobaugust

Where is the testimony that Ms. Arnelle did not unlock the door?

[martin II]

From the testimony, it seems he may have been awestruck by Simpson's mansion.

Maby never been in such a place and also saw the beautiful PB picture on the wall.He had a dizzy spell.

[martin II]

Where is the testimony that Ms. Arnelle did not unlock the door?

William
I actually believe Bob knows better.H knows that he cannot change the testimony. He knows what the testimony was. He knows that they all had to go in through the front door. BUT he is trying very hard to hold out so as to support the idea that someone was in the hous earlier WHICH HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE.

But he keeps trying to twist Phillips and Katos words into what he would have liked them to have said. Thats not possible.

[William Anthony]

William
I actually believe Bob knows better.H knows that he cannot change the testimony. He knows what the testimony was. He knows that they all had to go in through the front door. BUT he is trying very hard to hold out so as to support the idea that someone was in the hous earlier WHICH HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE.

But he keeps trying to twist Phillips and Katos words into what he would have liked them to have said. Thats not possible.

Martin,

You truly do believe that hope springs eternal on this board, don't you?

[weezer]

Every time you post this false claim I will correct you. Eventually maybe you will realize that your comment is incorrect and not repeat it. Phillips never said he entered a door that led into the living room. He said he walked in through the living room AREA. Phillips called the room, that we all know from Wagner’s diagram was the family room, as the living room area and the living room. Cochran also referred to the family room as the living room area and the living room.

bobaugust

The NG's are going to have to come up with the theory that when 'Fuhrman/K2/K3/the mysterious whoever did it because kato was meant to hear them' made the thumps on kato's wall, it was the laundry basket hitting the wall on their way into the main house to wash arnelle's panties and orenthal's sweatsuit. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

The NG's are going to have to come up with the theory that when 'Fuhrman/K2/K3/the mysterious whoever did it because kato was meant to hear them' made the thumps on kato's wall, it was the laundry basket hitting the wall on their way into the main house to wash arnelle's panties and orenthal's sweatsuit. :shrug:

I don't think the NGs have to come up with anything as that was the verdict, NG. However, the Gs have to speculate and call certain people liars, IMHO, in order to sustain their conclusions.

[martin II]

I don't think the NGs have to come up with anything as that was the verdict, NG. However, the Gs have to speculate and call certain people liars, IMHO, in order to sustain their conclusions.

And ignore testimony and try to say a witness meant something that he did not say.

[martin II]

Every time you post this false claim I will correct you. Eventually maybe you will realize that your comment is incorrect and not repeat it. Phillips never said he entered a door that led into the living room. He said he walked in through the living room AREA. Phillips called the room, that we all know from Wagner’s diagram was the family room, as the living room area and the living room. Cochran also referred to the family room as the living room area and the living room.

bobaugust

I am going with what phillips actually testified to which i have posted.You are ignoring his words and saying he did not mean what his words said. i think my approach is more accurate.imo

[martin II]

thank you bob. something about this just doesn't make any sense. Five people testified they all followed arnelle through the back door. Five people testified that arnelle had keys. One person testified arnelle unlocked the door -- we can assume he thought that since she was carrying keys. Did anybody testify that arnelle stopped, turned off the alarm, and then unlocked the door?

Although the two french doors had no outside locks and had locks only on the inside high up and the other three doors were nailed shut some believe the detectives entered through these doors. maby they truned into ghost and just walked through the doors.

[martin II]

Martin,

You truly do believe that hope springs eternal on this board, don't you?

i think that bob knows his efforts to change a witnesses testimony is a loosing deal and that at some point he will give up on this impossible effort.
i may be wrong.

[tv]

The NG's are going to have to come up with the theory that when 'Fuhrman/K2/K3/the mysterious whoever did it because kato was meant to hear them' made the thumps on kato's wall, it was the laundry basket hitting the wall on their way into the main house to wash arnelle's panties and orenthal's sweatsuit. :shrug:

If Kato was meant to hear the thumps then the laundry basket hitting the wall makes as much sense as anything. :biggrin:

I was reading Kato's testimony in the civil trial and it cleared up something I'd been thinking about. NGs always say that Simpson couldn't have killed Ron and Nicole because he would have been afraid the children would wake up during the murders. I've always thought he felt comfortable that the kids would stay asleep. Kato testified that Nicole told him that Sydney was so used to their arguments that she slept right through them. We can hear Nicole ourselves telling Simpson not to wake the children during the incident when he breaks her door and I don't believe they did ever wake up. LE had to wake them up to take them to the police station -- they slept through all the commotion at Bundy following the murders. I think Simpson knew they were sound sleepers and knew they would sleep through the murders. As far as Sydney hearing the 'hey, hey, hey' I don't think she heard a thing.

[martin II]

Every time you post this false claim I will correct you. Eventually maybe you will realize that your comment is incorrect and not repeat it. Phillips never said he entered a door that led into the living room. He said he walked in through the living room AREA. Phillips called the room, that we all know from Wagner’s diagram was the family room, as the living room area and the living room. Cochran also referred to the family room as the living room area and the living room.

bobaugust

WELL
When he walked IN he walked IN from the outside into the living room.the only door he could walked THROUGH to be able to walk IN and found himself in the living room would have been the two french doors at the north end of the house. he them said he walked to the kitchen which would be south of the living room. Clarke had him to point to the room on the diagram she had in front of him.

But we know that even Phillips testified to something different when Cochran querstioned him.

There is only one reason why the detectives gave different testimony as to the doors they used and that is that they did not have their lies togeather
to say the same thing. Bottom line is we know they lied because the doors
they say they entered were NAILED SHUT.

[weezer]

If Kato was meant to hear the thumps then the laundry basket hitting the wall makes as much sense as anything. :biggrin:

I was reading Kato's testimony in the civil trial and it cleared up something I'd been thinking about. NGs always say that Simpson couldn't have killed Ron and Nicole because he would have been afraid the children would wake up during the murders. I've always thought he felt comfortable that the kids would stay asleep. Kato testified that Nicole told him that Sydney was so used to their arguments that she slept right through them. We can hear Nicole ourselves telling Simpson not to wake the children during the incident when he breaks her door and I don't believe they did ever wake up. LE had to wake them up to take them to the police station -- they slept through all the commotion at Bundy following the murders. I think Simpson knew they were sound sleepers and knew they would sleep through the murders. As far as Sydney hearing the 'hey, hey, hey' I don't think she heard a thing.

in all honesty, judging from the screaming, ranting, raving, and terrible things he was saying on the GG call, I don't think he cared one way or the other. I honestly believe that orenthal is a narcistic psychopath --

[tv]

in all honesty, judging from the screaming, ranting, raving, and terrible things he was saying on the GG call, I don't think he cared one way or the other. I honestly believe that orenthal is a narcistic psychopath --

You're probably right. He had to know there was a good possibility the children would be the ones to find the bodies. If it hadn't been for the dog they would have. :(

[martin II]

I don't think your below statement is true.I have not read NGS ALWAYS SAYING THIS.That statement is misleading.

"NGs always say that Simpson couldn't have killed Ron and Nicole because he would have been afraid the children would wake up during the murders."
OJ could not have killed nicole because he did not want her dead and would not risk his career just to kill her as she did not mean that much to him at that time.Plus oj was in his house when she was killed.

[martin II]

in all honesty, judging from the screaming, ranting, raving, and terrible things he was saying on the GG call, I don't think he cared one way or the other. I honestly believe that orenthal is a narcistic psychopath --

Do you have any proof to back up your serious claims?
check the new rules.

[martin II]

Where is the testimony that Ms. Arnelle did not unlock the door?

There is no testimony that Ms Arnell did not unlock a door. There is Phillips testimony that she DID unlock the door that he was waiting to walk in.So i am not sure where some of these ideas come from.

[martin II]

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.
Q WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES.
*
Q AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?
A WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

bobaugust


Here Kato says he walked into THE HOUSE BEHIND Ms Arnell. He was asked where did he go to.He said he went to a rea where there was as bar.
After he was inside the door (front door) he WALKED TO THE BAR AREA.

I went to as in i walked to the bar area. He never said when he was inside the door he was at the bar area, he said he went to the bar area.

He got to the bar area by walking through the foyer to the kitchen and too the bar area.

That is not that difficult to understamd.

[GreenIce]

There is no testimony that Ms Arnell did not unlock a door. There is Phillips testimony that she DID unlock the door that he was waiting to walk in.So i am not sure where some of these ideas come from.

Martin,

Don't you think Marcia Clark would have made a huge deal out of Arnelle walking from the back of the house to the front to open the door? Arnelle testified first and her testimony never changed.

The same can't be said of the detectives. It is very possible because of the circumstances that Arnelle may have been mistaken, she had less then 4 hours of sleep, she wakes up to pounding on her door and 4 detectives firing questions at her. However, the 4 detectives have no excuses for not knowing the exact door they went in and it becomes obvious that the sole purpose of their story was to account for where Vanatter was and where MF was.

I have read the books and not one word is spoken against Arnelle by MC, Darden or the detectives. Petrocelli wanted a little extra for his book and he wanted to make the DA's look as bad as possible. I think he was a little miffed at MC saying she felt that the civil trial was going to me another murder trial and she felt that was double jeopardy.

However, it must be noted, she waited until the civil trial was over before she wrote her book. I am sure she choked on a few things. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Here Kato says he walked into THE HOUSE BEHIND Ms Arnell. He was asked where did he go to.He said he went to a rea where there was as bar.
After he was inside the door (front door) he WALKED TO THE BAR AREA.

I went to as in i walked to the bar area. He never said when he was inside the door he was at the bar area, he said he went to the bar area.

He got to the bar area by walking through the foyer to the kitchen and too the bar area.

That is not that difficult to understamd.

Martin,

A while ago I made a post about how the lawyers, from both sides would ask the same question over and over again but they would throw other words into it and give it a different meaning.

Like Clark asking Phillips where did he enter the house, he said rear and then he changed it to not really the rear of the house but more like another door. Then Clark asks him, "did you enter through the rear door?" He answered yes. IMO, it seems like the detectives never answered the question directly.

I think Clark must have been a tad surprised when Arnelle asked her if she wanted her to come down and outline the route she took. I love to see that tape again and see if the three other detectives gave the same route.

Also, MF's testimony does not match Kato's. MF said nothing about following Arnelle. Only that he did not have to ask Kato where the door was to enter the house because he saw one was open.

[tv]

in all honesty, judging from the screaming, ranting, raving, and terrible things he was saying on the GG call, I don't think he cared one way or the other. I honestly believe that orenthal is a narcistic psychopath --

On the 911 tape from GG when Simpson is ranting and raving, Nicole repeatedly pleads with him to not wake the children. He's screaming profanities and his tone is violent and threatening. He didn't stop his screaming and shouting which proves to me he didn't care if the children heard him or not. If you also consider the incident when he threw Nicole out of the house and she had to get Sydney out of bed and leave it doesn't leave much doubt that his needs come before his children.

[fgump2]

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!
The most important thing about the IRS letter is that Simpson showed a lot of hostility toward Nicole in it. Simpson’s friend and lawyer, Skip Taft, saw the original letter and testified in a disposition that he got Simpson to tone the letter down. I don’t think the original letter was saved.
There is a lot of evidence that Simpson was showing hostility toward Nicole in the last weeks of her life. The IRS letter, Nicole’s diary, and witnesses including Judith Brown, Kris Jenner and others as well all indicate that the relationship was unpleasant.

This doesn’t prove that Mr. Simpson killed Nicole, but his behavior after the killings is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. Ordinarily if a person has been having some conflict with another person, and the other person unexpectedly dies, the surviving person usually reacts by expressing remorse not getting along better.

A lack of remorse doesn’t always indicate guilt. When Kenneth Lay died, some of the people who worked under him probably neither felt nor expressed remorse; however they probably could have explained their lack of remorse in a logical manner.

Let’s look at the facts. Simpson had a long record of mistreating her. He once put a hand print on her neck (new years 89). He was having friction with her in the last month or so of her life. He made a joke about “hitting the wife” less than a month before her death. And yet after she died, he expressed no remorse, just complained about how the press and “would point” and also wrote a remark about how he sometimes felt like an abused spouse.

[fgump2]

Martin,

A while ago I made a post about how the lawyers, from both sides would ask the same question over and over again but they would throw other words into it and give it a different meaning.

Like Clark asking Phillips where did he enter the house, he said rear and then he changed it to not really the rear of the house but more like another door. Then Clark asks him, "did you enter through the rear door?" He answered yes. IMO, it seems like the detectives never answered the question directly.

I think Clark must have been a tad surprised when Arnelle asked her if she wanted her to come down and outline the route she took. I love to see that tape again and see if the three other detectives gave the same route.

Also, MF's testimony does not match Kato's. MF said nothing about following Arnelle. Only that he did not have to ask Kato where the door was to enter the house because he saw one was open.
Regardless of how complete their notes were, it is to be expected that their would be some descrepancies between the detectives stories. In the first place, nobody puts everything down in notes. Things like whether Arnelle had keys with her or whethe she used the keys to open a door is the sort of thing that most people would probably leave out. They'd get writer's cramp or something similar if they tried to get everything down.

I have heard english comp teachers say they sometimes stage a scene in which people talk and do things in front of a class, maybe argue and someone hands someone else a book or coat or something. There is always disagreements in what people write down, and most of these disagreements cannot be explained by the location of each student in the class.
Of course psychologists who study memory and vision have come to the same conclusion. People's ability to notice, remember and write things down is not very good. This is true even if they try to take notes more or less constantly.
People who study criminology have come to the same conclusion.

[GreenIce]

I don't understand as I have already said that I think MF planted evidence, which is the same as saying it is my opinion/reasonable inference based on the evidence. However, that is quite different from saying that MF planted evidence or attempting to say, which admits that I did not say MF planted evidence, shrug.

William,

IMO, the biggest problem the DA's had is that they could not prove that nobody planted the glove. They never attempted to explain how the glove got back there in their case-in-chief. In Clark's closing, she has Simpson not only walking into the alley but also walking out of it. How does one man make two trips, run into an A/C unit 3 times and not leave any other trace evidence?

As I have posted before, I believe the glove was planted but I do think it is possible that someone other then MF did it. IMO, who ever killed Ron and Nicole had great information, were not surprised about Ron being there, showed no concern about about seen or heard by the children and was in no hurry to leave the seen. I also think that 10:30 p.m. phone call also supports this.

In ready Schiller's book, he says that Dr. Lee found cigarette butts at both scenes. I got the impression he thought there could have been link but it has been awhile since I read it.

I also believe the phone call to the shelter may also be a clue. I think it is fair to say that killing Nicole Simpson was going to generate a huge amount of media, that OJ would be the prime suspect and that even if they diverted some attention away from themselves, it probably would be enough for them to be long gone.

However, I do think MF is the most likely person to have done it and as you know, I don't think race was a motive, only because I think he saw this as his dream case and I think even if Simpson was white, he would have done the same thing. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Regardless of how complete their notes were, it is to be expected that their would be some descrepancies between the detectives stories. In the first place, nobody puts everything down in notes. Things like whether Arnelle had keys with her or whethe she used the keys to open a door is the sort of thing that most people would probably leave out. They'd get writer's cramp or something similar if they tried to get everything down.

I have heard english comp teachers say they sometimes stage a scene in which people talk and do things in front of a class, maybe argue and someone hands someone else a book or coat or something. There is always disagreements in what people write down, and most of these disagreements cannot be explained by the location of each student in the class.
Of course psychologists who study memory and vision have come to the same conclusion. People's ability to notice, remember and write things down is not very good. This is true even if they try to take notes more or less constantly.
People who study criminology have come to the same conclusion.

fgump2,

Sit down, I agree with some of your points. However, IMO, any good lawyer, regardless of which side they are know exactly what they are looking for in regards to responses. If a witness gives three different answers depending on the wording the lawyer uses, then they lawyer can pick the answer that works best for them.

I think you have to listen harder to the questions then the responses in some instances.

Also, the detectives were great at this. How many times did the detectives claim they did not hear all of the responses or didn't hear something? Perfect example, Ron Phillips asks Arnelle a direct question regarding her father, he says the other detectives started asking her stuff and he the best he can say is, "she said something to the affect of....."

I think it was Lange who claimed that he never heard from Phillips about any prior DV calls about the Simpsons---well what was he doing at the scene if it wasn't to get the whole story?

I also think that minor descrepancies are to be expected, however, when the stories aren't even close, then you got to wonder. IMO.

One last point. If the detectives did not suspect OJ Simpson, then at least one of them did suspect Kato. MF did his check of Kato, asked him about his close, etc. I have no problem with that. So why didn't they do the same to Arnelle?

Also, MF claimed he stopped detecting once the case was no longer his. He went to Rockingham just to notify Simpson. So why did he start detecting again as soon as he got to Rockingham? He goes to the Bronco, why?

He does a plate check on Kato's car and the Bronco, why not the other two cars?

I agree with about Arnelle and the keys. However, IMO, it was not how she got into the house, it was who led them into the house. I can't remember which of the detectives testifed that she was the first one into the house and then later it was changed that she stepped aside and the detectives went in first.

MF says that he officer security played a huge role in some of his actions, and I have no problem with that, but his actions don't match his words. IMO, if you are cop and you have the slighest belief that there could be a blood bath inside the house, you aren't going to send the daughter in first. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The most important thing about the IRS letter is that Simpson showed a lot of hostility toward Nicole in it. Simpson’s friend and lawyer, Skip Taft, saw the original letter and testified in a disposition that he got Simpson to tone the letter down. I don’t think the original letter was saved.
There is a lot of evidence that Simpson was showing hostility toward Nicole in the last weeks of her life. The IRS letter, Nicole’s diary, and witnesses including Judith Brown, Kris Jenner and others as well all indicate that the relationship was unpleasant.

This doesn’t prove that Mr. Simpson killed Nicole, but his behavior after the killings is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. Ordinarily if a person has been having some conflict with another person, and the other person unexpectedly dies, the surviving person usually reacts by expressing remorse not getting along better.

A lack of remorse doesn’t always indicate guilt. When Kenneth Lay died, some of the people who worked under him probably neither felt nor expressed remorse; however they probably could have explained their lack of remorse in a logical manner.

Let’s look at the facts. Simpson had a long record of mistreating her. He once put a hand print on her neck (new years 89). He was having friction with her in the last month or so of her life. He made a joke about “hitting the wife” less than a month before her death. And yet after she died, he expressed no remorse, just complained about how the press and “would point” and also wrote a remark about how he sometimes felt like an abused spouse.

fgump2,

Divorce and break ups do not being out the best in people. Nicole's reaction to the IRS letter was just as hostile, IMO. However, I think she was more mad at herself then anyone else.

As angry as they were at each other, they also showed each other respect. I think you have to look at all the events, not just the hostile ones. It gives a balanced picture, IMO.

IMO, I do think Simpson did show remorse and he should have. However, I think when you are the prime suspect and all the media leaks are saying the evidence that was found and how you are going to be arrested for it, may interfere with the remorse and grief you are feeling. IMO.

[William Anthony]

I don't think your below statement is true.I have not read NGS ALWAYS SAYING THIS.That statement is misleading.

"NGs always say that Simpson couldn't have killed Ron and Nicole because he would have been afraid the children would wake up during the murders."
OJ could not have killed nicole because he did not want her dead and would not risk his career just to kill her as she did not mean that much to him at that time.Plus oj was in his house when she was killed.

Martin,

IMHO, the posts from the NGs have relied on the evidence. Keep up the good work.

[William Anthony]

There is no testimony that Ms Arnell did not unlock a door. There is Phillips testimony that she DID unlock the door that he was waiting to walk in.So i am not sure where some of these ideas come from.

I don't think the ideas come from the evidence.

[William Anthony]

The most important thing about the IRS letter is that Simpson showed a lot of hostility toward Nicole in it. Simpson’s friend and lawyer, Skip Taft, saw the original letter and testified in a disposition that he got Simpson to tone the letter down. I don’t think the original letter was saved.
There is a lot of evidence that Simpson was showing hostility toward Nicole in the last weeks of her life. The IRS letter, Nicole’s diary, and witnesses including Judith Brown, Kris Jenner and others as well all indicate that the relationship was unpleasant.

This doesn’t prove that Mr. Simpson killed Nicole, but his behavior after the killings is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. Ordinarily if a person has been having some conflict with another person, and the other person unexpectedly dies, the surviving person usually reacts by expressing remorse not getting along better.

A lack of remorse doesn’t always indicate guilt. When Kenneth Lay died, some of the people who worked under him probably neither felt nor expressed remorse; however they probably could have explained their lack of remorse in a logical manner.

Let’s look at the facts. Simpson had a long record of mistreating her. He once put a hand print on her neck (new years 89). He was having friction with her in the last month or so of her life. He made a joke about “hitting the wife” less than a month before her death. And yet after she died, he expressed no remorse, just complained about how the press and “would point” and also wrote a remark about how he sometimes felt like an abused spouse.

There was the statement by Simpson, which said he should have been the one to die or something to that effect. To me that expresses remorse, "What greater love hath any man than to lay down his life for another?"

[William Anthony]

Regardless of how complete their notes were, it is to be expected that their would be some descrepancies between the detectives stories. In the first place, nobody puts everything down in notes. Things like whether Arnelle had keys with her or whethe she used the keys to open a door is the sort of thing that most people would probably leave out. They'd get writer's cramp or something similar if they tried to get everything down.

I have heard english comp teachers say they sometimes stage a scene in which people talk and do things in front of a class, maybe argue and someone hands someone else a book or coat or something. There is always disagreements in what people write down, and most of these disagreements cannot be explained by the location of each student in the class.
Of course psychologists who study memory and vision have come to the same conclusion. People's ability to notice, remember and write things down is not very good. This is true even if they try to take notes more or less constantly.
People who study criminology have come to the same conclusion.

Accepting the conclusion of the study, then it would not be proper to claim someone lied, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, the biggest problem the DA's had is that they could not prove that nobody planted the glove. They never attempted to explain how the glove got back there in their case-in-chief. In Clark's closing, she has Simpson not only walking into the alley but also walking out of it. How does one man make two trips, run into an A/C unit 3 times and not leave any other trace evidence?

As I have posted before, I believe the glove was planted but I do think it is possible that someone other then MF did it. IMO, who ever killed Ron and Nicole had great information, were not surprised about Ron being there, showed no concern about about seen or heard by the children and was in no hurry to leave the seen. I also think that 10:30 p.m. phone call also supports this.

In ready Schiller's book, he says that Dr. Lee found cigarette butts at both scenes. I got the impression he thought there could have been link but it has been awhile since I read it.

I also believe the phone call to the shelter may also be a clue. I think it is fair to say that killing Nicole Simpson was going to generate a huge amount of media, that OJ would be the prime suspect and that even if they diverted some attention away from themselves, it probably would be enough for them to be long gone.

However, I do think MF is the most likely person to have done it and as you know, I don't think race was a motive, only because I think he saw this as his dream case and I think even if Simpson was white, he would have done the same thing. IMO.

Having brought the case that Simpson and only Simpson was the murderer, then the prosecution had to prove that Simpson dropped the glove, whereas, the defense only had to produce reasonable doubt that Simpson did not drop the glove. The prosecution, I agree, failed to rebut that anyone other than Simpson dropped the glove.

I will stick to the evidence, which all the evidence presented in regard to the glove allegedly found at Rockingham supports the fact that, if the reasonable inference is drawn that the glove was planted, then MF would have been the one to have planted it.

I think that MF could have had several motives but based on the evidence the reasonable inference I drew was that MF's hatred of interracial couples and Blacks period was his motivation.

[GreenIce]

Having brought the case that Simpson and only Simpson was the murderer, then the prosecution had to prove that Simpson dropped the glove, whereas, the defense only had to produce reasonable doubt that Simpson did not drop the glove. The prosecution, I agree, failed to rebut that anyone other than Simpson dropped the glove.

I will stick to the evidence, which all the evidence presented in regard to the glove allegedly found at Rockingham supports the fact that, if the reasonable inference is drawn that the glove was planted, then MF would have been the one to have planted it.

I think that MF could have had several motives but based on the evidence the reasonable inference I drew was that MF's hatred of interracial couples and Blacks period was his motivation.

William,

Another reason why I think it may be possible that someone other then MF planted the glove is because there was and probably is a lot more evidence that we do not know about it. I just find it odd that key evidence was "lost" or destroyed or was not seen. Such as the bloody fingerprints, etc.

Also, Simpson does not have a habit of locking the Bronco, someone could have known this and placed the glove in the Bronco and MF just moved it from the Bronco to the back of the wall. IMO, had Kato not said a word about the thumps, then the glove would have been found in the Bronco.

I think it is 90 percent that MF did it and had motives to do it. While there is no question that MF hated interacial couples, I do think he loved himself more and I think he feels he was justified to do whatever he did because he "earned" this big case and he was angry when it was taken away from him.

Also, remember when he took the stand and he complained to Clark about how so much evidence has been ignored? Isn't that a slap in the face to the DA's? I know you didn't read his book but in it he says that MC didn't want to use any evidence that was not perfect so she didn't it. Well the evidence she did use had more issues then a problem child.

I also think MF's comments on the tape proves this. However, I do believe if the thumps had anything to do with the murders, Kato was meant to hear them and I don't think MF had anything to do with them. I do believe the gloves were left at the scene on purpose and I don't think there is enough evidence to even prove the hat was worn that night. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

Another reason why I think it may be possible that someone other then MF planted the glove is because there was and probably is a lot more evidence that we do not know about it. I just find it odd that key evidence was "lost" or destroyed or was not seen. Such as the bloody fingerprints, etc.

Also, Simpson does not have a habit of locking the Bronco, someone could have known this and placed the glove in the Bronco and MF just moved it from the Bronco to the back of the wall. IMO, had Kato not said a word about the thumps, then the glove would have been found in the Bronco.

I think it is 90 percent that MF did it and had motives to do it. While there is no question that MF hated interacial couples, I do think he loved himself more and I think he feels he was justified to do whatever he did because he "earned" this big case and he was angry when it was taken away from him.

Also, remember when he took the stand and he complained to Clark about how so much evidence has been ignored? Isn't that a slap in the face to the DA's? I know you didn't read his book but in it he says that MC didn't want to use any evidence that was not perfect so she didn't it. Well the evidence she did use had more issues then a problem child.

I also think MF's comments on the tape proves this. However, I do believe if the thumps had anything to do with the murders, Kato was meant to hear them and I don't think MF had anything to do with them. I do believe the gloves were left at the scene on purpose and I don't think there is enough evidence to even prove the hat was worn that night. IMO.

I am only going by the evidence that was presented. I cannot allow myself to go by what was not presented or what some claimed to have seen.

Kato told MF about the thumps, which allowed MF to allege he found the glove where he did.

I am not disagreeing with the premise that there was a mixed motive for MF to plant evidence. However, the strongest evidence to me for his motive was his hatred of mixed couples, his treatment of them and his hatred and treatment of Blacks.

MF must have thought he was perfect or, at least allowed the prosecution to think he was but, as it turned out, he was more flawed than the Edsel.

[martin II]

Regardless of how complete their notes were, it is to be expected that their would be some descrepancies between the detectives stories. In the first place, nobody puts everything down in notes. Things like whether Arnelle had keys with her or whethe she used the keys to open a door is the sort of thing that most people would probably leave out. They'd get writer's cramp or something similar if they tried to get everything down.

I have heard english comp teachers say they sometimes stage a scene in which people talk and do things in front of a class, maybe argue and someone hands someone else a book or coat or something. There is always disagreements in what people write down, and most of these disagreements cannot be explained by the location of each student in the class.
Of course psychologists who study memory and vision have come to the same conclusion. People's ability to notice, remember and write things down is not very good. This is true even if they try to take notes more or less constantly.
People who study criminology have come to the same conclusion.

The detectives had years of experience at crime scenes.there was protocol guiding their actions.they took no notes at rockingham. furhman took notes at bundy. why not at rockingham. Do you have study that can answer that.

The detectives was all over rockingham taking pictures and examining the property. they knew that there was no way that any of the cops could have entered the house by any back door from the outside because none had outside locks and three were nailed shut.The french doors also had no outside locks and was on the north side of the house.

I don't think clarke paid much asttention to this issue as she was caught out of pocket when Arnell testified to the status of the doors. The detectives
all knew they were lying.example Phillips gave one set of answers when clarke
was questioning him and a completely different set when Cochran questioned him a few minutes later.Furhman said something different than vanhatter.The bottom line is ther had display diagrams in front of them when they testified.

When Ms Arnell testified about the doors Clarke asked for a moment.She conferred with her team and was told that the testimony on the status of the doors was correct. Clarke then moved to another subject.

I think the cops were only told to say they came in the back door as a means to focus on the washint machine being used. They just didn't get he details of which door straight.

It seems that when testimony is in favors of the defense positions or prosecution witnesses give conflicting testimnony you speak of some study you have been involverd in or read but you never actually product the study itself. Do you have a study on the frequency of cops lying in their testimony
against defendants??

imo

[martin II]

I am only going by the evidence that was presented. I cannot allow myself to go by what was not presented or what some claimed to have seen.

Kato told MF about the thumps, which allowed MF to allege he found the glove where he did.

I am not disagreeing with the premise that there was a mixed motive for MF to plant evidence. However, the strongest evidence to me for his motive was his hatred of mixed couples, his treatment of them and his hatred and treatment of Blacks.

MF must have thought he was perfect or, at least allowed the prosecution to think he was but, as it turned out, he was more flawed than the Edsel.


Considering the ideas on race that were floating around in MF head i am sure he could give himself many motives for his actions.I also agree that the root was his attitudes against mixed couples and this led him to see his opportunity to be what he is today.

[bobaugust]

The testimony is a res ipsa loquitor. As pointed out, MF was asked about a glove, not a glove and a cap or hat and MF said them. When two reasonable inferences can be drawn from the same evidence, the jury must accept the one pointing toward innocence, remember?

There is only one reasonable inference for Fuhrman’s use of the word “them” and that is he was referring a knit hat and a glove under the plant leaves since that is the evidence in this case that all the witnesses testified to seeing under the plant leaves. Just because you imagine that Fuhrman was referring to two gloves when he said the word “them” does not make that a reasonable inference, it makes it an imaginary inference since it’s based entirely on imagination, not the evidence that the witnesses, who were at Bundy before Fuhrman arrived there, testified to seeing.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Kato never says what door he entered only that when inside he went to a bar area. he could do that by entering the front door.

Kaelin testified that when he left his room he saw Arnelle leading the detectives walk into the house. Kaelin said he and Fuhrman followed them into the house through the same door. He said when you enter that door there is a bar area.

Kaelin was not at the front of the house, he didn’t go in the front door, and there is no bar area when you enter the front door.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Where is the testimony that Ms. Arnelle did not unlock the door?

The door wasn’t locked when she opened it.

[bobaugust]

William
I actually believe Bob knows better.H knows that he cannot change the testimony. He knows what the testimony was. He knows that they all had to go in through the front door. BUT he is trying very hard to hold out so as to support the idea that someone was in the hous earlier WHICH HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE.

But he keeps trying to twist Phillips and Katos words into what he would have liked them to have said. Thats not possible.

I don’t change the testimony I understand what Kaelin and Phillips said, you evidently do not.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am going with what phillips actually testified to which i have posted.You are ignoring his words and saying he did not mean what his words said. i think my approach is more accurate.imo

Your approach is not accurate because you keep incorrectly posting what Phillips actually said.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Although the two french doors had no outside locks and had locks only on the inside high up and the other three doors were nailed shut some believe the detectives entered through these doors. maby they truned into ghost and just walked through the doors.

There is only one back door that the four detectives, Kato Kaelin, and Arnelle Simpson testified they used at the back of the house that morning.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WELL
When he walked IN he walked IN from the outside into the living room.the only door he could walked THROUGH to be able to walk IN and found himself in the living room would have been the two french doors at the north end of the house. he them said he walked to the kitchen which would be south of the living room. Clarke had him to point to the room on the diagram she had in front of him.

But we know that even Phillips testified to something different when Cochran querstioned him.

There is only one reason why the detectives gave different testimony as to the doors they used and that is that they did not have their lies togeather
to say the same thing. Bottom line is we know they lied because the doors
they say they entered were NAILED SHUT.

You keep repeating false information. Phillips said he walked in through the living room AREA, not the living room. Phillips called the family room the living room area, I posted Phillips testimony where he said that he heard music coming from a stereo and there were lit candles on a coffee table in the middle of the room referred to as the living room area all suggesting he was talking about the room that Wagner labeled the family room.

Your accusation that the detectives lied about this is a false accusation. Phillips walked in the same back door that Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter did.

You claim that Phillips pointed to a different room on the prosecution exhibit. Support your claim.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There is no testimony that Ms Arnell did not unlock a door. There is Phillips testimony that she DID unlock the door that he was waiting to walk in.So i am not sure where some of these ideas come from.

Three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door to let them into the house. They were mistaken, the door was already unlocked before Arnelle opened it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Here Kato says he walked into THE HOUSE BEHIND Ms Arnell. He was asked where did he go to.He said he went to a rea where there was as bar.
After he was inside the door (front door) he WALKED TO THE BAR AREA.

I went to as in i walked to the bar area. He never said when he was inside the door he was at the bar area, he said he went to the bar area.

He got to the bar area by walking through the foyer to the kitchen and too the bar area.

That is not that difficult to understamd.

Evidently it’s very difficult for you to understand the facts.

Kaelin testified when he went out his room he saw Arnelle, leading he detectives, enter the house. Kaelin said he and Fuhrman walked into the house behind them. Kaelin said, “WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA”

Kaelin could not see the front door from outside his room and there is no bar area when you enter the front door.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There is only one reasonable inference for Fuhrman’s use of the word “them” and that is he was referring a knit hat and a glove under the plant leaves since that is the evidence in this case that all the witnesses testified to seeing under the plant leaves. Just because you imagine that Fuhrman was referring to two gloves when he said the word “them” does not make that a reasonable inference, it makes it an imaginary inference since it’s based entirely on imagination, not the evidence that the witnesses, who were at Bundy before Fuhrman arrived there, testified to seeing.

bobaugust

I truly do not understand why you think the inference you drew is the only reasonable one, except that, if you admit there is another reasonable inference, then there must have been reasonable doubt. If you are "imagining" that the other witnesses testified to what MF saw, then I do believe you are mistaken. MF was the only person to testify to what he saw and, when asked specifically about seeing one glove and nothing about a hat or cap, he said, "them".:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

The door wasn’t locked when she opened it.

I will go by the evidence/testimonies.:) Thanks.

[William Anthony]

Evidently it’s very difficult for you to understand the facts.

Kaelin testified when he went out his room he saw Arnelle, leading he detectives, enter the house. Kaelin said he and Fuhrman walked into the house behind them. Kaelin said, “WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA”

Kaelin could not see the front door from outside his room and there is no bar area when you enter the front door.

bobaugust

I respectfully ask you to review this post and your post 15862 and compare them with the rules .

[William Anthony]

Considering the ideas on race that were floating around in MF head i am sure he could give himself many motives for his actions.I also agree that the root was his attitudes against mixed couples and this led him to see his opportunity to be what he is today.

Yes, that is how I see it. Had Simpson's first wife been found murdered, I think that MF would have written the directions to Simpson's estate on a piece of paper and gone home and gone to bed, since it would not have involved an interracial couple but I do not like to engage in rank speculation, so, I will say that MF might have gone to Simpson's estate.

[martin II]

I am only going by the evidence that was presented. I cannot allow myself to go by what was not presented or what some claimed to have seen.

Kato told MF about the thumps, which allowed MF to allege he found the glove where he did.

I am not disagreeing with the premise that there was a mixed motive for MF to plant evidence. However, the strongest evidence to me for his motive was his hatred of mixed couples, his treatment of them and his hatred and treatment of Blacks.

MF must have thought he was perfect or, at least allowed the prosecution to think he was but, as it turned out, he was more flawed than the Edsel.

I think that he read a certain small part of the American public correctly that he could do as he pleased as long as he contributed to a conviction of a guy like oj simpson or any other person in oj simpsons position. In most cases a purjuror like him would be rejected by the public especially a cop that lied on the stand in a public trial. He benefited by selecting certain easy cases to write books on and he sold some books but in the larger sceme of things he was just a flash in the pan of many people that wrote books and his real history is something that will live with him for life.

[martin II]

Three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door to let them into the house. They were mistaken, the door was already unlocked before Arnelle opened it.

bobaugust

You were not there how do you know this??exactly how? The facts are those doors were nailed shut.prove that they were not.Clarke couldn't how can you?

[martin II]

I don’t change the testimony I understand what Kaelin and Phillips said, you evidently do not.

bobaugust

How can you change the words of the witness or the meaning?

[William Anthony]

I think that he read a certain small part of the American public correctly that he could do as he pleased as long as he contributed to a conviction of a guy like oj simpson or any other person in oj simpsons position. In most cases a purjuror like him would be rejected by the public especially a cop that lied on the stand in a public trial. He benefited by selecting certain easy cases to write books on and he sold some books but in the larger sceme of things he was just a flash in the pan of many people that wrote books and his real history is something that will live with him for life.

He had his 15 minutes of fame in the exposure, by the evidence, of his lifetime of infamy, and yet most of America hugs him. I guess there is such a thing as "thug love.":)

[William Anthony]

How can you change the words of the witness or the meaning?

I understand that they testified that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door. I don't understand that they should not have testified to that. I understand that Park testified that he saw Kato standing and still standing and that Park testified Petrocelli and others told him what the evidence should be. I don't understand that Park shouldn't have testified to the above. :)

[martin II]

You keep repeating false information. Phillips said he walked in through the living room AREA, not the living room. Phillips called the family room the living room area, I posted Phillips testimony where he said that he heard music coming from a stereo and there were lit candles on a coffee table in the middle of the room referred to as the living room area all suggesting he was talking about the room that Wagner labeled the family room.

Your accusation that the detectives lied about this is a false accusation. Phillips walked in the same back door that Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter did.

You claim that Phillips pointed to a different room on the prosecution exhibit. Support your claim.

bobaugust


Phillips walked IN from some place. it was from the outside through a door to the living room then to the kitchen. So he said.

[martin II]

The unrefuted testimony is that there was five doors on the back of the house.The two french doors AT THE NORTH END OF THE HOUSE had no out side locks.The three doors AT THE SOUTH END OF THE HOUSE had no outside locks and had been nailed shut by oj simpson after his child died in the swimming pool by using those doors.

No detective entered the house from the outside by either of these doors.They all gave different testimonies as to which door they used so it is my opinion they all lied. They all entered the front door that Ms Arnell opened after disarming the alarm and unlocking the front door.

No one testified that Ms Arnell lied and she was not accused of lying.End of story.

[martin II]

I understand that they testified that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door. I don't understand that they should not have testified to that. I understand that Park testified that he saw Kato standing and still standing and that Park testified Petrocelli and others told him what the evidence should be. I don't understand that Park shouldn't have testified to the above. :)

The only door that they could have been talking about when they say she unlocked a door was the front door.

[martin II]

He had his 15 minutes of fame in the exposure, by the evidence, of his lifetime of infamy, and yet most of America hugs him. I guess there is such a thing as "thug love.":)

Americans will go for anything new for entertainment and then toss it aside. Thats where he is now. In the forgotten pile of people that wrote books about oj for profit.

[tv]

Kato's testimony:

Q: OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?

A: YES.

Q: WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, DID YOU ENTER BEFORE OR AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I THINK IT WAS BEFORE.

Q: OKAY. YOU WERE AHEAD OF HIM?

A: I WAS AHEAD OF HIM.

Q: AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?

A: WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU WENT TO THE BAR AREA?

A: YES.

[tv]

Mark Fuhrman's testimony:

Q: SO YOU WALKED IN THROUGH THE REAR DOOR?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS WITH MR. KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID HAPPEN NEXT AFTER YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE?

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

[William Anthony]

The only door that they could have been talking about when they say she unlocked a door was the front door.


For some reason some posters want to ignore or should I say excuse all the detectives, who testified that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door, and not call them liars but want to call Ms. Arnelle a liar when she testified she unlocked the door. If some say that Ms. Arnelle is lying about unlocking the door, then why aren't they saying the detectives are lying? What I get from the testimonies is that the detectives did not know what door they went in and were running around the house like the Keystone cops, smile.

[martin II]

For some reason some posters want to ignore or should I say excuse all the detectives, who testified that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door, and not call them liars but want to call Ms. Arnelle a liar when she testified she unlocked the door. If some say that Ms. Arnelle is lying about unlocking the door, then why aren't they saying the detectives are lying? What I get from the testimonies is that the detectives did not know what door they went in and were running around the house like the Keystone cops, smile.

When court testimony is in conflict with what some think was the case they ignore court testimony and say the testimony did not mean what the witnesses words stated or change the subject or just say something that makse no sense. The other option is to say the detectives just made a mistake or that Forinsic memory experts believe no one can remember anything correctly. If that was the case there would be no witnesses testifying to anything.

The detectives may have been so impressed with ojs house that they were visiting every room and got confused as to how they got into the house in the first place.:cool:

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman's testimony:

Q: SO YOU WALKED IN THROUGH THE REAR DOOR?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS WITH MR. KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID HAPPEN NEXT AFTER YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE?

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


There is no way that he could have walked through a door that was nailed shut so my thought is that he walked in the front door,through the foyer to the kitchen to the bar area.:cool:

[weezer]

MS. CLARK: Now, then is it your testimony that if you were to be inside the house and you wanted to go out to the pool area, you would have to go all the way--you would have to go out the front entrance and go all the way through that area marked as "Lawn" at the back to get to the pool?

MS. SIMPSON: Can you repeat that for me?

MS. CLARK: Sure. Is it your testimony that if you were inside the house and you wanted to go and use the pool area, you'd have to go out through the front door and down the driveway and up through that area marked "Lawn"--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.

MS. CLARK: --to the pool?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SIMPSON: If I were to go out to the pool from out--from inside the house?

MS. CLARK: Right.

MS. SIMPSON: I could leave through the door, through the back--well, the one back door.

MS. CLARK: And which door would that be?

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, the door which is closest to the pool table area. Should I show you?

MS. CLARK: Sure. Thanks.

MS. SIMPSON: Right here. Yeah (Indicating).

THE COURT: Indicating the southern and eastern most portion of the house before you get to the poolroom.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: See that, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: I got there just in time. I think the southern most portion did you say?

THE COURT: The southern most portion before you get to the poolroom.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: The door that's there.

[martin II]

Kato's testimony:

Q: OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?

A: YES.

Q: WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, DID YOU ENTER BEFORE OR AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I THINK IT WAS BEFORE.

Q: OKAY. YOU WERE AHEAD OF HIM?

A: I WAS AHEAD OF HIM.

Q: AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?

A: WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU WENT TO THE BAR AREA?

A: YES.


The bar area is at the south door.HE said after entering the door HE WENT TO the bar area. Not that he was at the bar area.

[weezer]

MS. CLARK: And when the officers asked you where Mr. Simpson was, you didn't--you told--you didn't tell them, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MS. CLARK: Because you didn't know, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MS. CLARK: And the officers, you never told them what time Mr. Simpson left to go out of town, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MS. CLARK: And that's because you didn't know, did you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And that's because you didn't know, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No, I didn't know.

[weezer]

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you were in the kitchen with Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange and Detective Phillips; is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Object. That misstates the evidence. She doesn't say Vannatter was in there.

MS. CLARK: Well, if that's not right, she can tell me.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

[martin II]

MS. CLARK: And when the officers asked you where Mr. Simpson was, you didn't--you told--you didn't tell them, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MS. CLARK: Because you didn't know, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MS. CLARK: And the officers, you never told them what time Mr. Simpson left to go out of town, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MS. CLARK: And that's because you didn't know, did you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And that's because you didn't know, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No, I didn't know.

She didn't know until she spoke to CR and that was the first thing that was done after she let them into the house.

[martin II]

MS. CLARK: Now, then is it your testimony that if you were to be inside the house and you wanted to go out to the pool area, you would have to go all the way--you would have to go out the front entrance and go all the way through that area marked as "Lawn" at the back to get to the pool?

MS. SIMPSON: Can you repeat that for me?

MS. CLARK: Sure. Is it your testimony that if you were inside the house and you wanted to go and use the pool area, you'd have to go out through the front door and down the driveway and up through that area marked "Lawn"--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.

MS. CLARK: --to the pool?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SIMPSON: If I were to go out to the pool from out--from inside the house?

MS. CLARK: Right.

MS. SIMPSON: I could leave through the door, through the back--well, the one back door.

MS. CLARK: And which door would that be?

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, the door which is closest to the pool table area. Should I show you?

MS. CLARK: Sure. Thanks.

MS. SIMPSON: Right here. Yeah (Indicating).

THE COURT: Indicating the southern and eastern most portion of the house before you get to the poolroom.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: See that, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: I got there just in time. I think the southern most portion did you say?

THE COURT: The southern most portion before you get to the poolroom.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: The door that's there.

If that is true then she could unlock that door from the INSIDE and walk out.
There was no lock on the outside.

[martin II]

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you were in the kitchen with Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange and Detective Phillips; is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Object. That misstates the evidence. She doesn't say Vannatter was in there.

MS. CLARK: Well, if that's not right, she can tell me.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.


i believe she was mistaken about vannater because he said he was not there.Thats what Cochran meant by misstakes the evidence. Arnell didn't listen to the question.

[weezer]

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to Detective Vannatter, do you ever recall a time prior to leaving to pick up your brother and sister that Detective Vannatter was in the kitchen?

MS. SIMPSON: I don't recall. There was so much going on that morning. Like I said, as I was in and out, so were they.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MS. SIMPSON: So--

MR. COCHRAN: Do you specifically recall seeing him in there?

THE COURT: Excuse me. Counsel, you need to allow the witness to finish answering the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor.

MS. SIMPSON: Can you repeat that?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly. Do you ever recall specifically seeing Detective Vannatter in the kitchen area?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when would that have been?

MS. SIMPSON: When I first came into the house.

MR. COCHRAN: And when was that? At which point?

MS. SIMPSON: First thing in the morning around 5:30.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. We're talking about Vannatter now.

MS. SIMPSON: Oh, Vannatter. Oh, outside.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. That's--you saw Vannatter outside the house?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: But I'm asking you specifically, do you ever recall seeing him inside the house, the kitchen area?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You described for us earlier you saw him out in the patio area near the pool?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You recall that, do you?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.


LOL -- nothing like feeding lines to your witness is there?

[weezer]

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you also mentioned the fact that regarding these doors on the eastern portion of the Rockingham residence. Do you recall that?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

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

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

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

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

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

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

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

[weezer]

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the number of calls you received from your dad, is there any quarrel, any--strike that. Do you have any doubt in your mind that you talked to your dad on three times on the phone on June 13th?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is there any doubt in your mind regarding that?

MS. SIMPSON: No. . ."

LOL -- let's try that again!

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you also mentioned the fact that regarding these doors on the eastern portion of the Rockingham residence. Do you recall that?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

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

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

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

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

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

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

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

I don't know where the sitting area is as it is not named on the layout but there are only three doors left.

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the number of calls you received from your dad, is there any quarrel, any--strike that. Do you have any doubt in your mind that you talked to your dad on three times on the phone on June 13th?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is there any doubt in your mind regarding that?

MS. SIMPSON: No. . ."

LOL -- let's try that again!

She talked to him when phillips talked to him in chicago and oj called back twice when she was in the tv room or at the tv and she picked up the phone.
the detectives were in the kitchen.

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to Detective Vannatter, do you ever recall a time prior to leaving to pick up your brother and sister that Detective Vannatter was in the kitchen?

MS. SIMPSON: I don't recall. There was so much going on that morning. Like I said, as I was in and out, so were they.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MS. SIMPSON: So--

MR. COCHRAN: Do you specifically recall seeing him in there?

THE COURT: Excuse me. Counsel, you need to allow the witness to finish answering the question.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor.

MS. SIMPSON: Can you repeat that?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly. Do you ever recall specifically seeing Detective Vannatter in the kitchen area?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when would that have been?

MS. SIMPSON: When I first came into the house.

MR. COCHRAN: And when was that? At which point?

MS. SIMPSON: First thing in the morning around 5:30.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. We're talking about Vannatter now.

MS. SIMPSON: Oh, Vannatter. Oh, outside.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. That's--you saw Vannatter outside the house?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: But I'm asking you specifically, do you ever recall seeing him inside the house, the kitchen area?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You described for us earlier you saw him out in the patio area near the pool?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You recall that, do you?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.


LOL -- nothing like feeding lines to your witness is there?

Clarke was a expert at this especially when she questioned Kato and Park.She asked and answered the questions. The best at this was petro.

[martin II]

MS. CLARK: And when the officers asked you where Mr. Simpson was, you didn't--you told--you didn't tell them, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MS. CLARK: Because you didn't know, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MS. CLARK: And the officers, you never told them what time Mr. Simpson left to go out of town, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MS. CLARK: And that's because you didn't know, did you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And that's because you didn't know, did you?

MS. SIMPSON: No, I didn't know.

Clarke is feeding her the answer clarke wants.

[William Anthony]

When court testimony is in conflict with what some think was the case they ignore court testimony and say the testimony did not mean what the witnesses words stated or change the subject or just say something that makse no sense. The other option is to say the detectives just made a mistake or that Forinsic memory experts believe no one can remember anything correctly. If that was the case there would be no witnesses testifying to anything.

The detectives may have been so impressed with ojs house that they were visiting every room and got confused as to how they got into the house in the first place.:cool:

That is a reasonable inference from the testimonies, IMHO.

[tv]

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the number of calls you received from your dad, is there any quarrel, any--strike that. Do you have any doubt in your mind that you talked to your dad on three times on the phone on June 13th?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is there any doubt in your mind regarding that?

MS. SIMPSON: No. . ."

LOL -- let's try that again!

Hmm...sounds like Arnelle wasn't sure which answer would help Daddy the most.

[William Anthony]

MS. CLARK: Now, then is it your testimony that if you were to be inside the house and you wanted to go out to the pool area, you would have to go all the way--you would have to go out the front entrance and go all the way through that area marked as "Lawn" at the back to get to the pool?

MS. SIMPSON: Can you repeat that for me?

MS. CLARK: Sure. Is it your testimony that if you were inside the house and you wanted to go and use the pool area, you'd have to go out through the front door and down the driveway and up through that area marked "Lawn"--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.

MS. CLARK: --to the pool?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SIMPSON: If I were to go out to the pool from out--from inside the house?

MS. CLARK: Right.

MS. SIMPSON: I could leave through the door, through the back--well, the one back door.

MS. CLARK: And which door would that be?

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, the door which is closest to the pool table area. Should I show you?

MS. CLARK: Sure. Thanks.

MS. SIMPSON: Right here. Yeah (Indicating).

THE COURT: Indicating the southern and eastern most portion of the house before you get to the poolroom.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: See that, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: I got there just in time. I think the southern most portion did you say?

THE COURT: The southern most portion before you get to the poolroom.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: The door that's there.

I think the basis of the objection should have been relevance as it pertained to what door permitted entry.

[William Anthony]

There is nothing wrong with rehabilitating the witness and some do it magnificently, IMHO.

[martin II]

http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/mc71111/2rockham.jpg

[martin II]

Hmm...sounds like Arnelle wasn't sure which answer would help Daddy the most.

The detectives didn't seem to know which answer was the right answer so they just gave different answers every time they were asked the question.
How did you get into the house.

[martin II]

Vanhatter testified that after entering the house the first time , he was not in the kitchen that much as that is the excues he tried to use for not knowing oj was on a planned trip.He was mostly on the outside. I have no idea why he spent so much time outside the house and what he was doing.

[martin II]

William

You were correct.
Ms Arnell did not lie and there is no evidence that she was a coconspiritor in the oj simpson case.

[martin II]

Hmm...sounds like Arnelle wasn't sure which answer would help Daddy the most.

Sounds like she gave the correct answer after she understood the question.

[William Anthony]

Vanhatter testified that after entering the house the first time , he was not in the kitchen that much as that is the excues he tried to use for not knowing oj was on a planned trip.He was mostly on the outside. I have no idea why he spent so much time outside the house and what he was doing.

Could he have been wondering what is that MF up to?

[fgump2]

fgump2,

Divorce and break ups do not being out the best in people. Nicole's reaction to the IRS letter was just as hostile, IMO. However, I think she was more mad at herself then anyone else.

As angry as they were at each other, they also showed each other respect. I think you have to look at all the events, not just the hostile ones. It gives a balanced picture, IMO.

IMO, I do think Simpson did show remorse and he should have. However, I think when you are the prime suspect and all the media leaks are saying the evidence that was found and how you are going to be arrested for it, may interfere with the remorse and grief you are feeling. IMO.
How much respect was Mr. Simpson showing Nicole when, according to her diary, he said over the phone "you hung up on me, you b*tch, you'll pay for this". And for him to have acted that way and then expressed no remorse afterwards, that is strange. Being a suspect would have affected his emotional reactions, that is obvious. But his lack of remorse, and suicidal behavior is inconsistent with innocence. Most top athletes adopt the line of thinking that Vince Lombardi advocated - we didn't loose, we just ran out of time. This is a quite different attutude than the one Simpson showed in the bronco chase.

During the bronco chase a lot of people hung signs from freeway overpasses to Mr. Simpson. These were overwhelmingly supportive, and most were from white people, usually white men, at least that is what the pictures seemed to show.

I don't think a statement of 'It should have been me (killed)' shows remorse. Remorse is an expression of regret for mistakes in the past - in this case for mistreating Nicole. To have a 17 year long serious relationship with someone, and then to have them murdered during a time of strife should cause a strong feeling of remorse. It has been 15 years plus and I have never heard of him expressing regret that he didn't act nicer to her. I think the closest he came to was in whispering to the casket something like "I am so sorry baby".

In the civil trial Mr. Simpson called some of Nicole's diary entries lies, and he included the entry about 'you'll pay for this'.

I think that the expected remorse should have at least caused him to say 'the diary isn't accurate about that' or 'I don't think I said that'. The way Simpson denied the diary entries brings up a Shakespeare quotation "methinks the lady doth protest too much".

I think the fact that the worst diary entries occurred at about the same time as the IRS letter supports the idea that the diary was accurate, and that the irs letter was vindicative. I think the diary entries occurred just before the IRS letter, but I could be wrong about that.

Another point from other postings. Orenthal supporters often say the DAs believed that Simpson ran into the air conditioner 3 times. I don't think any DA or LAPD person said that. The most they said was that Kato said he heard three thumps. I think Kato's imagination could have turned two thumps into three. I also think that it is a major coincidence if these noises occurred at about the same time that Simpson showed up - that is a big coincidence if Simpson and the bumps had no connection. In any case using phrases like "the DAs theory is that SImpsn ran into the air conditoner 3 times" shows a lack of integrity on the part of people like GI who talk and write like that.

[William Anthony]

How much respect was Mr. Simpson showing Nicole when, according to her diary, he said over the phone "you hung up on me, you b*tch, you'll pay for this". And for him to have acted that way and then expressed no remorse afterwards, that is strange. Being a suspect would have affected his emotional reactions, that is obvious. But his lack of remorse, and suicidal behavior is inconsistent with innocence. Most top athletes adopt the line of thinking that Vince Lombardi advocated - we didn't loose, we just ran out of time. This is a quite different attutude than the one Simpson showed in the bronco chase.

During the bronco chase a lot of people hung signs from freeway overpasses to Mr. Simpson. These were overwhelmingly supportive, and most were from white people, usually white men, at least that is what the pictures seemed to show.

I don't think a statement of 'It should have been me (killed)' shows remorse. Remorse is an expression of regret for mistakes in the past - in this case for mistreating Nicole. To have a 17 year long serious relationship with someone, and then to have them murdered during a time of strife should cause a strong feeling of remorse. It has been 15 years plus and I have never heard of him expressing regret that he didn't act nicer to her. I think the closest he came to was in whispering to the casket something like "I am so sorry baby".

In the civil trial Mr. Simpson called some of Nicole's diary entries lies, and he included the entry about 'you'll pay for this'.

I think that the expected remorse should have at least caused him to say 'the diary isn't accurate about that' or 'I don't think I said that'. The way Simpson denied the diary entries brings up a Shakespeare quotation "methinks the lady doth protest too much".

I think the fact that the worst diary entries occurred at about the same time as the IRS letter supports the idea that the diary was accurate, and that the irs letter was vindicative. I think the diary entries occurred just before the IRS letter, but I could be wrong about that.

Another point from other postings. Orenthal supporters often say the DAs believed that Simpson ran into the air conditioner 3 times. I don't think any DA or LAPD person said that. The most they said was that Kato said he heard three thumps. I think Kato's imagination could have turned two thumps into three. I also think that it is a major coincidence if these noises occurred at about the same time that Simpson showed up - that is a big coincidence if Simpson and the bumps had no connection. In any case using phrases like "the DAs theory is that SImpsn ran into the air conditoner 3 times" shows a lack of integrity on the part of people like GI who talk and write like that.

Have you heard that a squeaky wheel needs the most grease. The prosecution's case was nothing but a large squeaky wheel, which the defense greased, IMHO. Now, some are left to attempt to decipher what some statements meant. I know that, if I tell someone it should have been me instead of another person that died, I would feel the utmost remorse at the death of the other person. If it was someone, who died, that I had wronged, I would have said I did not get a chance to apologize and wish I had. I think that statement shows regret and/or remorse for my actions toward that person. However, I would not necessarily say it should have been me, unless I felt the utmost remorse over that person's death.

Just another way of looking at things is that the diary entries could have been faked, because Simpson said he would go to the IRS.

I am not one to say that Simpson bumped into the air conditioner three times but I have said whomsoever banged into the wall three times must have been drunk.

[martin II]

Could he have been wondering what is that MF up to?

i had thought about that.maby standing by the pool smoking a cigarette trying to figure out how he could send furhman home and destroy the glove.

[martin II]

How much respect was Mr. Simpson showing Nicole when, according to her diary, he said over the phone "you hung up on me, you b*tch, you'll pay for this". And for him to have acted that way and then expressed no remorse afterwards, that is strange. Being a suspect would have affected his emotional reactions, that is obvious. But his lack of remorse, and suicidal behavior is inconsistent with innocence. Most top athletes adopt the line of thinking that Vince Lombardi advocated - we didn't loose, we just ran out of time. This is a quite different attutude than the one Simpson showed in the bronco chase.

During the bronco chase a lot of people hung signs from freeway overpasses to Mr. Simpson. These were overwhelmingly supportive, and most were from white people, usually white men, at least that is what the pictures seemed to show.

I don't think a statement of 'It should have been me (killed)' shows remorse. Remorse is an expression of regret for mistakes in the past - in this case for mistreating Nicole. To have a 17 year long serious relationship with someone, and then to have them murdered during a time of strife should cause a strong feeling of remorse. It has been 15 years plus and I have never heard of him expressing regret that he didn't act nicer to her. I think the closest he came to was in whispering to the casket something like "I am so sorry baby".

In the civil trial Mr. Simpson called some of Nicole's diary entries lies, and he included the entry about 'you'll pay for this'.

I think that the expected remorse should have at least caused him to say 'the diary isn't accurate about that' or 'I don't think I said that'. The way Simpson denied the diary entries brings up a Shakespeare quotation "methinks the lady doth protest too much".

I think the fact that the worst diary entries occurred at about the same time as the IRS letter supports the idea that the diary was accurate, and that the irs letter was vindicative. I think the diary entries occurred just before the IRS letter, but I could be wrong about that.

Another point from other postings. Orenthal supporters often say the DAs believed that Simpson ran into the air conditioner 3 times. I don't think any DA or LAPD person said that. The most they said was that Kato said he heard three thumps. I think Kato's imagination could have turned two thumps into three. I also think that it is a major coincidence if these noises occurred at about the same time that Simpson showed up - that is a big coincidence if Simpson and the bumps had no connection. In any case using phrases like "the DAs theory is that SImpsn ran into the air conditoner 3 times" shows a lack of integrity on the part of people like GI who talk and write like that.

If you read the prosecutions positions you would not make untrue statements as you have in your last para.It was Clarke that said oj fell into the air condiitoner and made the noise Kato said he heard after he had jumped the fence and then ran out of the walkway.

At any rate since there was no evidence that oj simpson was in the walkway
what Kato heard is of not concern.

If you have any proof that he was in the walkway please post it for all to read.

What i do understand is that it is possible for some to have very wild imaginations that can cause others to just toss up their hands in suprise as to how far one will go to demonize oj simpson.

It seems the idea is to say damm the fact that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a doubt as long as one can pretend to know every thought
oj had and paint it in the most negative way.
I don't think anyone posting her is in a position to know what oj meant by anything he said.:cool::cool::cool:

[weezer]

". . .MR. COCHRAN: Who called you then?

MS. SIMPSON: My father.

MR. COCHRAN: You talked to your father again?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: This is now--this would be the third conversation with your dad that morning; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes. . ."

[martin II]

Have you heard that a squeaky wheel needs the most grease. The prosecution's case was nothing but a large squeaky wheel, which the defense greased, IMHO. Now, some are left to attempt to decipher what some statements meant. I know that, if I tell someone it should have been me instead of another person that died, I would feel the utmost remorse at the death of the other person. If it was someone, who died, that I had wronged, I would have said I did not get a chance to apologize and wish I had. I think that statement shows regret and/or remorse for my actions toward that person. However, I would not necessarily say it should have been me, unless I felt the utmost remorse over that person's death.

Just another way of looking at things is that the diary entries could have been faked, because Simpson said he would go to the IRS.

I am not one to say that Simpson bumped into the air conditioner three times but I have said whomsoever banged into the wall three times must have been drunk.

I have always thought that Kato being Kato dramatized what he heard. He did
give different versions of the noise depending on who was asking him to describe it.However if he heard a noise what differance does it make it was 1-2-3-4-5 bumps.None.:cool:

[martin II]

". . .MR. COCHRAN: Who called you then?

MS. SIMPSON: My father.

MR. COCHRAN: You talked to your father again?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: This is now--this would be the third conversation with your dad that morning; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes. . ."


This call took place in the tv room as she was going to her room to get dressed to go piclk up the kids.Le was in the kitchen at that time.Oj called again to try to get more information on what had happened.imo

[weezer]

we've had lots of talk on the board about arnelle's testimony and how it never changed as compared to the detectives who were unable to give exact times, etc.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So with regard to this time frame, are you sure of the exact dates of the time that Miss Nicole Brown Simpson moved from Gretna Green to Bundy?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I'm assuming end of `93, but no, I don't know the exact date. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Where was Vannatter at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I don't know. . .

MS. CLARK: All right. You don't know then what your father gave her if anything for her birthday?
MS. SIMPSON: No. . .

MS. CLARK: Okay. You don't know who he went with; is that right? . . .
MS. SIMPSON: I would say--I don't recall. . .

MS. CLARK: And is it the same key for those locks?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, to be honest with you, I don't know. I don't believe so. . .

MS. CLARK: And you do not know whether it happened before or after her birthday on May 19th, correct?
MS. SIMPSON: I don't know that, no. . .

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so you don't know where the Bronco was at that time, at 10 o'clock at night? Let me put it this way. You did not see the Bronco at 10 o'clock at night, is that correct, on the night of June the 12th?
MS. SIMPSON: I don't recall. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall the last time prior to June 12th of 1994 that you saw Nicole in the Bronco? Do you recall seeing her drive that Bronco, Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, no. . .

MR. COCHRAN: You don't remember the last time?
MS. SIMPSON: No. . .

MR. COCHRAN: When was Kato bought in relationship to the time that Chubbs died?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe two to three weeks later. . .

MR. COCHRAN: So do you know about what time it was that you actually left Rockingham to go pick up the children?
MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around seven o'clock, maybe 7:15. . .

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you left in the morning hours sometime maybe at around 8:00 or shortly after eight o'clock, did you see many police cars around at that point, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Can you characterize that with the number you see when you came back at 5:30 in the evening?
MS. SIMPSON: There had to be more like four or five. . .

MR. COCHRAN: And how long, from the first time you saw him, to the time you last saw him that evening, did he remain in the bar area?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe a little more--an hour, maybe a little over an hour.. .

MR. COCHRAN: Now, going back to the family room where everybody was gathered after you came back in the house, how long did you stay in the family room before you had occasion to go some other place, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe twenty minutes. . .

MR. COCHRAN: And about what time was it--would it be by that time? What time would it be?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, between 7:30 and 8:00. . .

MS. CLARK: How long after you got back to Rockingham with the children were you asked to leave the premises?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe 15 to 20 minutes later. . .

[martin II]

we've had lots of talk on the board about arnelle's testimony and how it never changed as compared to the detectives who were unable to give exact times, etc.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So with regard to this time frame, are you sure of the exact dates of the time that Miss Nicole Brown Simpson moved from Gretna Green to Bundy?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I'm assuming end of `93, but no, I don't know the exact date. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Where was Vannatter at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I don't know. . .

MS. CLARK: All right. You don't know then what your father gave her if anything for her birthday?
MS. SIMPSON: No. . .

MS. CLARK: Okay. You don't know who he went with; is that right? . . .
MS. SIMPSON: I would say--I don't recall. . .

MS. CLARK: And is it the same key for those locks?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, to be honest with you, I don't know. I don't believe so. . .

MS. CLARK: And you do not know whether it happened before or after her birthday on May 19th, correct?
MS. SIMPSON: I don't know that, no. . .

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so you don't know where the Bronco was at that time, at 10 o'clock at night? Let me put it this way. You did not see the Bronco at 10 o'clock at night, is that correct, on the night of June the 12th?
MS. SIMPSON: I don't recall. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall the last time prior to June 12th of 1994 that you saw Nicole in the Bronco? Do you recall seeing her drive that Bronco, Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, no. . .

MR. COCHRAN: You don't remember the last time?
MS. SIMPSON: No. . .

MR. COCHRAN: When was Kato bought in relationship to the time that Chubbs died?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe two to three weeks later. . .

MR. COCHRAN: So do you know about what time it was that you actually left Rockingham to go pick up the children?
MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around seven o'clock, maybe 7:15. . .

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you left in the morning hours sometime maybe at around 8:00 or shortly after eight o'clock, did you see many police cars around at that point, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Can you characterize that with the number you see when you came back at 5:30 in the evening?
MS. SIMPSON: There had to be more like four or five. . .

MR. COCHRAN: And how long, from the first time you saw him, to the time you last saw him that evening, did he remain in the bar area?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe a little more--an hour, maybe a little over an hour.. .

MR. COCHRAN: Now, going back to the family room where everybody was gathered after you came back in the house, how long did you stay in the family room before you had occasion to go some other place, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe twenty minutes. . .

MR. COCHRAN: And about what time was it--would it be by that time? What time would it be?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, between 7:30 and 8:00. . .

MS. CLARK: How long after you got back to Rockingham with the children were you asked to leave the premises?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe 15 to 20 minutes later. . .


I see absolutely nothing wrong with a witness say I DON'T KNOW is she does not know.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with a witness estimating the time of a event
everyone does that if they don't remember the exact time.

Ms Arnell was not a trained police officer trained how to testify.That has experience in testifying. She was not a trial expert trained in testifying. She was just a average citizen testifying for the first time.
The public has a right to expect accurate testimony from le. So making the comparison of a citizen with trained police officers is not a good comparison. imo

Ms Arnells answers you gave are no different than any witness that cannot give exact answers.
I don't see the point. If there is one.

[tv]

we've had lots of talk on the board about arnelle's testimony and how it never changed as compared to the detectives who were unable to give exact times, etc.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So with regard to this time frame, are you sure of the exact dates of the time that Miss Nicole Brown Simpson moved from Gretna Green to Bundy?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I'm assuming end of `93, but no, I don't know the exact date. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Where was Vannatter at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I don't know. . .

MS. CLARK: All right. You don't know then what your father gave her if anything for her birthday?
MS. SIMPSON: No. . .

MS. CLARK: Okay. You don't know who he went with; is that right? . . .
MS. SIMPSON: I would say--I don't recall. . .

MS. CLARK: And is it the same key for those locks?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, to be honest with you, I don't know. I don't believe so. . .

MS. CLARK: And you do not know whether it happened before or after her birthday on May 19th, correct?
MS. SIMPSON: I don't know that, no. . .

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so you don't know where the Bronco was at that time, at 10 o'clock at night? Let me put it this way. You did not see the Bronco at 10 o'clock at night, is that correct, on the night of June the 12th?
MS. SIMPSON: I don't recall. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall the last time prior to June 12th of 1994 that you saw Nicole in the Bronco? Do you recall seeing her drive that Bronco, Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, no. . .

MR. COCHRAN: You don't remember the last time?
MS. SIMPSON: No. . .

MR. COCHRAN: When was Kato bought in relationship to the time that Chubbs died?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe two to three weeks later. . .

MR. COCHRAN: So do you know about what time it was that you actually left Rockingham to go pick up the children?
MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around seven o'clock, maybe 7:15. . .

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you left in the morning hours sometime maybe at around 8:00 or shortly after eight o'clock, did you see many police cars around at that point, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Can you characterize that with the number you see when you came back at 5:30 in the evening?
MS. SIMPSON: There had to be more like four or five. . .

MR. COCHRAN: And how long, from the first time you saw him, to the time you last saw him that evening, did he remain in the bar area?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe a little more--an hour, maybe a little over an hour.. .

MR. COCHRAN: Now, going back to the family room where everybody was gathered after you came back in the house, how long did you stay in the family room before you had occasion to go some other place, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe twenty minutes. . .

MR. COCHRAN: And about what time was it--would it be by that time? What time would it be?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, between 7:30 and 8:00. . .

MS. CLARK: How long after you got back to Rockingham with the children were you asked to leave the premises?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe 15 to 20 minutes later. . .

Arnelle gives a lot of 'I don't know' and 'maybes' which is okay for Arnelle but others are demonized if they don't have exact answers.

[weezer]

Arnelle gives a lot of 'I don't know' and 'maybes' which is okay for Arnelle but others are demonized if they don't have exact answers.

well, if anyone says she didn't have experience testifying, I guess we can now say she's an expert! ;)

[tv]

well, if anyone says she didn't have experience testifying, I guess we can now say she's an expert! ;)

She testified in both the civil and criminal trials, the "IF I Did It" fiasco and maybe in court following her crash into an apartment building. Does anyone know if she testified in any preliminary hearings? She has testified in court much more than I have that's for sure.

[bobaugust]

I truly do not understand why you think the inference you drew is the only reasonable one, except that, if you admit there is another reasonable inference, then there must have been reasonable doubt. If you are "imagining" that the other witnesses testified to what MF saw, then I do believe you are mistaken. MF was the only person to testify to what he saw and, when asked specifically about seeing one glove and nothing about a hat or cap, he said, "them".:);):cool:

A reasonable inference is based on evidence. The evidence in this case, based on the testimony from officers who arrived at Bundy before Fuhrman, was they all saw a knit hat and a glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. Based on crime scene photographs of the knit hat and glove, from Fuhrman’s vantage point looking through the gate at the plant leaves he would have seen the glove behind the knit hat. When Fuhrman testified what he saw from his vantage point and used the word “them” it is reasonable to infer that he was referring to the evidence he saw, a knit hat and a glove. But we don’t even have to infer that because Fuhrman later testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to the knit hat and the glove.

Your inference that Fuhrman saw a knit hat and two gloves is not a reasonable inference because there is no evidence to base it on, its only imaginary speculation based on your imagination.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You were not there how do you know this??exactly how? The facts are those doors were nailed shut.prove that they were not.Clarke couldn't how can you?

The door that Arnelle, the detectives, and Kato Kaelin used that morning was not nailed shut. That door could only be locked or unlocked from the inside of the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

How can you change the words of the witness or the meaning?

You’re the one who changed what Phillips said, not me. You keep falsely posting that Phillips said he walked in from the outside into the living room, when in fact Phillips said he walked in through the living room AREA. The room Phillips called the living room area is the same room that Wagner labeled on his diagram the “family” room.

You also claim that Phillips pointed to a different room on the prosecution exhibit. You have yet to support that claim please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Phillips walked IN from some place. it was from the outside through a door to the living room then to the kitchen. So he said.

You’re wrong again. Phillips said he walked through the living room AREA.

February 16, 1995 Ronald Phillips

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.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The unrefuted testimony is that there was five doors on the back of the house.The two french doors AT THE NORTH END OF THE HOUSE had no out side locks.The three doors AT THE SOUTH END OF THE HOUSE had no outside locks and had been nailed shut by oj simpson after his child died in the swimming pool by using those doors.

No detective entered the house from the outside by either of these doors.They all gave different testimonies as to which door they used so it is my opinion they all lied. They all entered the front door that Ms Arnell opened after disarming the alarm and unlocking the front door.

No one testified that Ms Arnell lied and she was not accused of lying.End of story.

You’re wrong again. Not only did all detectives and Kato Kaelin testify they entered the back door, (the first door they came to after Kaelin’s room) Arnelle Simpson testified that after talking to her father on the phone in the bar area she went back to her room exiting that same back door and then entered it when she came back into the house.

July 10, 1995 Arnelle Simpson

MR. COCHRAN: All right. How long were you out in your room getting ready and making these phone calls?
MS. SIMPSON: Ten to fifteen minutes.
MR. COCHRAN: After you got dressed and finished the phone calls, you came back inside the house?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what route did you take coming back into the house, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, through the back door.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had you opened that back door yourself when you went out?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.


January 14, 1996 Arnelle Simpson

Q. And this is -- there's a door here at the end. In fact, we just saw the picture of it. That
doesn't have the lock on the outside, right?
A. True.
Q. And that's a door that you use frequently, and used when you were living there in June of 1994, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, that's the quickest way, now, to get into the house. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And your normal procedure would be to go to that door, and if it was not locked, you would go inside that door, right?
A. Depending on what time of the day it is, yes.
Q. And if the door is locked, then you're out of luck and have you to go all the way around to the front, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if the door is not locked, you can go in, right?
A. True.
Q. Now, there's no alarm pad on the outside of this door, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you don't know when you're about to open the door, whether or not the alarm is on, correct?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

[tv]

You’re wrong again. Not only did all detectives and Kato Kaelin testify they entered the back door, (the first door they came to after Kaelin’s room) Arnelle Simpson testified that after talking to her father on the phone in the bar area she went back to her room exiting that same back door and then entered it when she came back into the house.

July 10, 1995 Arnelle Simpson

MR. COCHRAN: All right. How long were you out in your room getting ready and making these phone calls?
MS. SIMPSON: Ten to fifteen minutes.
MR. COCHRAN: After you got dressed and finished the phone calls, you came back inside the house?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what route did you take coming back into the house, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, through the back door.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had you opened that back door yourself when you went out?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.


January 14, 1996 Arnelle Simpson

Q. And this is -- there's a door here at the end. In fact, we just saw the picture of it. That
doesn't have the lock on the outside, right?
A. True.
Q. And that's a door that you use frequently, and used when you were living there in June of 1994, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, that's the quickest way, now, to get into the house. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And your normal procedure would be to go to that door, and if it was not locked, you would go inside that door, right?
A. Depending on what time of the day it is, yes.
Q. And if the door is locked, then you're out of luck and have you to go all the way around to the front, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if the door is not locked, you can go in, right?
A. True.
Q. Now, there's no alarm pad on the outside of this door, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you don't know when you're about to open the door, whether or not the alarm is on, correct?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

This destroys the claim that this door was nailed shut. Thanks, bobaugust. :)

[William Anthony]

i had thought about that.maby standing by the pool smoking a cigarette trying to figure out how he could send furhman home and destroy the glove.

Go back to BundY and make sure that everyone testifies to seeing one glove. Don't worry about cross contamination. Just do it, MF.

[William Anthony]

". . .MR. COCHRAN: Who called you then?

MS. SIMPSON: My father.

MR. COCHRAN: You talked to your father again?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: This is now--this would be the third conversation with your dad that morning; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes. . ."

How many of those conversations, if any, occurred before LE got there and made the alleged discovery/non discovery of the sweatsuit?

[martin II]

Arnelle gives a lot of 'I don't know' and 'maybes' which is okay for Arnelle but others are demonized if they don't have exact answers.

Most of the one lines in the questions don't really give any contex of the quiestions.

The questions are about mondane things that most would have no reason to remember exactly. Recalling a time as 7;00 or maby 7;15 is not bthe same as four detectives giving different versions of doors theu osed to enter a house or Vannater telling a judge a completely untruth about ojs trip.

Her answers do not appear to be evasive or untrue.

I don't think comparing a regular citizen to a trained detecvtive is fair but If one must try MF or PV.
all my opinion

[William Anthony]

I have always thought that Kato being Kato dramatized what he heard. He did
give different versions of the noise depending on who was asking him to describe it.However if he heard a noise what differance does it make it was 1-2-3-4-5 bumps.None.:cool:

Another very astute observation on your part.

[martin II]

How many of those conversations, if any, occurred before LE got there and made the alleged discovery/non discovery of the sweatsuit?

They were all made the morning after Ms Arnell had opened the front door to let the detectives in the house and just before she returned to her room to change clothes to go get the kids as instructed by the detectives that were in the house.imo

[William Anthony]

we've had lots of talk on the board about arnelle's testimony and how it never changed as compared to the detectives who were unable to give exact times, etc.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So with regard to this time frame, are you sure of the exact dates of the time that Miss Nicole Brown Simpson moved from Gretna Green to Bundy?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I'm assuming end of `93, but no, I don't know the exact date. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Where was Vannatter at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I don't know. . .

MS. CLARK: All right. You don't know then what your father gave her if anything for her birthday?
MS. SIMPSON: No. . .

MS. CLARK: Okay. You don't know who he went with; is that right? . . .
MS. SIMPSON: I would say--I don't recall. . .

MS. CLARK: And is it the same key for those locks?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, to be honest with you, I don't know. I don't believe so. . .

MS. CLARK: And you do not know whether it happened before or after her birthday on May 19th, correct?
MS. SIMPSON: I don't know that, no. . .

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so you don't know where the Bronco was at that time, at 10 o'clock at night? Let me put it this way. You did not see the Bronco at 10 o'clock at night, is that correct, on the night of June the 12th?
MS. SIMPSON: I don't recall. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall the last time prior to June 12th of 1994 that you saw Nicole in the Bronco? Do you recall seeing her drive that Bronco, Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, no. . .

MR. COCHRAN: You don't remember the last time?
MS. SIMPSON: No. . .

MR. COCHRAN: When was Kato bought in relationship to the time that Chubbs died?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe two to three weeks later. . .

MR. COCHRAN: So do you know about what time it was that you actually left Rockingham to go pick up the children?
MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around seven o'clock, maybe 7:15. . .

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you left in the morning hours sometime maybe at around 8:00 or shortly after eight o'clock, did you see many police cars around at that point, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes. . .

MR. COCHRAN: Can you characterize that with the number you see when you came back at 5:30 in the evening?
MS. SIMPSON: There had to be more like four or five. . .

MR. COCHRAN: And how long, from the first time you saw him, to the time you last saw him that evening, did he remain in the bar area?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe a little more--an hour, maybe a little over an hour.. .

MR. COCHRAN: Now, going back to the family room where everybody was gathered after you came back in the house, how long did you stay in the family room before you had occasion to go some other place, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe twenty minutes. . .

MR. COCHRAN: And about what time was it--would it be by that time? What time would it be?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, between 7:30 and 8:00. . .

MS. CLARK: How long after you got back to Rockingham with the children were you asked to leave the premises?
MS. SIMPSON: Maybe 15 to 20 minutes later. . .

Ms. Arnelle showed her intelligence by not allowing the examiner to put words in her mouth, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

well, if anyone says she didn't have experience testifying, I guess we can now say she's an expert! ;)

MF had loads of experience testifying but he was caught testilying. Ms. Arnelle was not charged with perjury.

[martin II]

This destroys the claim that this door was nailed shut. Thanks, bobaugust. :)

Obviously that one door was not nailed shut.But that door still had a inside lock not outside.So it could not be unlocked from the outside as Phillip said was done.

[martin II]

You’re wrong again. Phillips said he walked through the living room AREA.

February 16, 1995 Ronald Phillips

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.

bobaugust

Bob

IF phillips walked in FROM THE OUTSIDE i assume he walked in through a door to the living room.That is what he said.you say that is not what he meant.


How could Phillip walk in a south door and be in the living at the north side of the house.

[William Anthony]

They were all made the morning after Ms Arnell had opened the front door to let the detectives in the house and just before she returned to her room to change clothes to go get the kids as instructed by the detectives that were in the house.imo

So, they prove nothing in regard to Ms. Arnelle being a liar or a criminal.

[martin II]

Another very astute observation on your part.

I can understand a person bumping against a wall once but three dirrerent times. i agree the person would have to be drunk.
I remember MF asking kato if he had been using marijuana or gave him some kind of quick lookover test to see if he had.I have wondered why MF asked this question.But it was not discussed that much in the trial.imo

[martin II]

So, they prove nothing in regard to Ms. Arnelle being a liar or a criminal.

Anyone that read Ms Arnells testimony knows when those calls were received.And that they were received that morning when le was in the kitchen.
so i am not sure what that post had to do with anything.The detectives had not told oj any details in the first call to him in chicago.I am sure he wanted to know more and called the house as more questions came to mind.Ithink i would have made many calls if a cop had refused to tell me how and where my ex had just been killed and what the situation was with my kids.imo

[martin II]

She testified in both the civil and criminal trials, the "IF I Did It" fiasco and maybe in court following her crash into an apartment building. Does anyone know if she testified in any preliminary hearings? She has testified in court much more than I have that's for sure.


The civil trial and the IF I DID IT was after her criminal trial testimony.

Please be aware of the new rules about bashing Simpson family members. I think posting/bashing about the personal lives of family members is against these rules.

[martin II]

You’re the one who changed what Phillips said, not me. You keep falsely posting that Phillips said he walked in from the outside into the living room, when in fact Phillips said he walked in through the living room AREA. The room Phillips called the living room area is the same room that Wagner labeled on his diagram the “family” room.

You also claim that Phillips pointed to a different room on the prosecution exhibit. You have yet to support that claim please.

bobaugust

Not true
the living room is not the same as the family room.

the living room is at the north end of the house the family room is in the middle of the house.

[weezer]

The door that Arnelle, the detectives, and Kato Kaelin used that morning was not nailed shut. That door could only be locked or unlocked from the inside of the house.

bobaugust

that's true only if you go by the evidence/testimony -- :eek:

arnelle also testified that orenthal called her when she was in her room. wouldn't you love to know what that conversation was about? " did you do the wash?" "yes" "well, don't forget to get the stuff out of the washer" -- "I won't forget daddy." ;)

[William Anthony]

Anyone that read Ms Arnells testimony knows when those calls were received.And that they were received that morning when le was in the kitchen.
so i am not sure what that post had to do with anything.The detectives had not told oj any details in the first call to him in chicago.I am sure he wanted to know more and called the house as more questions came to mind.Ithink i would have made many calls if a cop had refused to tell me how and where my ex had just been killed and what the situation was with my kids.imo

MF may not have believed the three thumps story but decided he could use it.

[tv]

that's true only if you go by the evidence/testimony -- :eek:

arnelle also testified that orenthal called her when she was in her room. wouldn't you love to know what that conversation was about? " did you do the wash?" "yes" "well, don't forget to get the stuff out of the washer" -- "I won't forget daddy." ;)

She probably couldn't get the stuff out with the detectives watching her. They may have wondered why she was worried about the laundry when her ex-stepmother had just been killed.

[William Anthony]

The civil trial and the IF I DID IT was after her criminal trial testimony.

Please be aware of the new rules about bashing Simpson family members. I think posting/bashing about the personal lives of family members is against these rules.

It seems that some here feel they can ignore the rules, as if they do not apply to them, IMHO.

[weezer]

She probably couldn't get the stuff out with the detectives watching her. They may have wondered why she was worried about the laundry when her ex-stepmother had just been killed.

true. just very strange -- panties, sweatsuit, wet laundry, no one home -- no one in the house claims knowledge of any of it. :shrug:

[martin II]

that's true only if you go by the evidence/testimony -- :eek:

arnelle also testified that orenthal called her when she was in her room. wouldn't you love to know what that conversation was about? " did you do the wash?" "yes" "well, don't forget to get the stuff out of the washer" -- "I won't forget daddy." ;)

There is no testimony to support your claim. It seems that this has turned into a Arnell attack again.

[tv]

true. just very strange -- panties, sweatsuit, wet laundry, no one home -- no one in the house claims knowledge of any of it. :shrug:

One thing is for sure -- SOMEONE did the laundry. I doubt if at Arnelle's age anyone did her laundry but herself -- especially her undies. That leads to the logical conclusion that Arnelle is the one that did the wash. Also, Gigi testified that the basket was Arnelle's. The maid left no laundry undone and I can't see Kato or Simpson washing Arnelle's clothes. :rolleyes:

[martin II]

Correction

Ms Arnell spoke to oj when Pgillips spoke to him and when he called back and she talked in the tv room

After she had returned from picking up the kids from the police she was told to leave and she went to he room to gather her things and oj called and talked to her. She was not allowed to say what he said to her.

[William Anthony]

If there is testimony that someone did laundry on the night of June 12th or the am hours of June 13th, please post it or remember Martin's post about the new rules. Thanks in anticipation for you cooperation.

[GreenIce]

She talked to him when phillips talked to him in chicago and oj called back twice when she was in the tv room or at the tv and she picked up the phone.
the detectives were in the kitchen.

Martin,

Have you noticed what questions aren't being asked? Like what you can see from the locations of certain doors? Were curtains drawn or open? In other words, when Phillips said that he entered through the living room area, could he see Kato's room and the enterance to the ally way?

It appears to me that the DA's and the plaintiffs are clearly trying to paint the picture that MF was in somebody's view at all times and that if he was carrying the glove to plant it, he would have been seen.

IMO, I think if you read all the testimony of the cops and the detectives, you would be amazed on just how much time was spend on accounting for MF rather then them doing their jobs.

Another point, how many detectives does it take to make contact with one man about this? In other words, if Vanatter was in fact with Phillips and Lange, that makes this even more suspicious. I have no problem with Vanatter checking outside the grounds, IMO, it supports, however thinly, their story about there being other victims.

However, it appears from Kato's story is that Vanatter was told by Kato about the thumps and he was told while being outside. Vanatter insisted that MF told him about the thumps and that they were inside. I think.

And I always thought Vanatter was the first to be taken to the glove, I didn't realize it was Phillips.

[weezer]

#1 - MR. COCHRAN: And at some point during that conversation did you have occasion to speak to your dad, Mr. O.J. Simpson?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

#2 - MR. COCHRAN: This conversation, where did you take that phone? Where did you take that--have that conversation?

MS. SIMPSON: I had the conversation in the TV room.

#3 MR. COCHRAN: Who called you then?

MS. SIMPSON: My father.

MR. COCHRAN: You talked to your father again?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: This is now--this would be the third conversation with your dad that morning; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

[martin II]

One thing is for sure -- SOMEONE did the laundry. I doubt if at Arnelle's age anyone did her laundry but herself -- especially her undies. That leads to the logical conclusion that Arnelle is the one that did the wash. Also, Gigi testified that the basket was Arnelle's. The maid left no laundry undone and I can't see Kato or Simpson washing Arnelle's clothes. :rolleyes:

With proof your post is your opinion.

[tv]

true. just very strange -- panties, sweatsuit, wet laundry, no one home -- no one in the house claims knowledge of any of it. :shrug:

MR. DARDEN: Now, prior to leaving--strike that. Is there some reason that you leave so late or left so late there that Friday night?

MS. GUARIN: Because Mr. Simpson that Friday just got back from a trip, that Friday. So I need to prepare dinner for him before I will leave and--leave the house, clean before I go to take my day off because--

MR. DARDEN: All right. So you would--you'd make sure everything was clean?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You'd make sure all the laundry was done and folded?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You wouldn't leave for the weekend and leave wet laundry in the washing machine, would you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I will not.

[GreenIce]

If there is testimony that someone did laundry on the night of June 12th or the am hours of June 13th, please post it or remember Martin's post about the new rules. Thanks in anticipation for you cooperation.

William,

In MF's book, there is a picture where he points out the contents of the hamper were emptied and photographed. The contents of the washing machine were never emptied nor photographed. I also notice that the items in the washing machine seem to light or very light colors with the exception of the dark items. I don't know many people, let alone woman who would do this.

It also makes no sense if Arnelle was in on this, that she would have made it so obvious. I think it is fair to consider the possibility that if the socks were taken out of the hamper and deposited on the floor then perhaps dark clothing was also taken out of a hamper and placed in the washing machine.

Petrocelli pointing the finger at Arnelle was roundly slammed by the media and IMO, if he had proof, then why weren't charges filed against Arnelle. If he truly believed this, he would not have bothered with the lady from the video. Wasn't that sweat suit supposed to be gray?

And one other thing, does anyone know where Jason did his laundry?

And why did Vanatter say that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence and that she just happened to sleep over that night? I would think Petrocelli would have pounced on this.

[GreenIce]

With proof your post is your opinion.

Martin,

I don't remember any detective or cop who testifed about the contents of the washing machine. I don't remember any of them being asked if was wet or what the items were.

If G's want to use the maid to say she would not have left wet laundry in the washer machine, then they should also acknowledge that she never saw a dark sweat suit.

Darden should have also asked her if she would ever wash dark clothes with lights or whites. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

Have you noticed what questions aren't being asked? Like what you can see from the locations of certain doors? Were curtains drawn or open? In other words, when Phillips said that he entered through the living room area, could he see Kato's room and the enterance to the ally way?From the doors at the living room he could see katos room but not the walkway entrance

It appears to me that the DA's and the plaintiffs are clearly trying to paint the picture that MF was in somebody's view at all times and that if he was carrying the glove to plant it, he would have been seen.When furhman put kato on the bar stool i think vanatter was in the back yard and lang was inside. Phillips said he was standing in front of the house. just standing he didn't say why. Furhman went out the front of the house to find the glove

IMO, I think if you read all the testimony of the cops and the detectives, you would be amazed on just how much time was spend on accounting for MF rather then them doing their jobs. Correct

Another point, how many detectives does it take to make contact with one man about this? In other words, if Vanatter was in fact with Phillips and Lange, that makes this even more suspicious. I have no problem with Vanatter checking outside the grounds, IMO, it supports, however thinly, their story about there being other victims.

However, it appears from Kato's story is that Vanatter was told by Kato about the thumps and he was told while being outside. Vanatter insisted that MF told him about the thumps and that they were inside. I think.

And I always thought Vanatter was the first to be taken to the glove, I didn't realize it was Phillips.
PHILLIPS says furhman told him first as he was just standing at the front of the house.

[William Anthony]

William,

In MF's book, there is a picture where he points out the contents of the hamper were emptied and photographed. The contents of the washing machine were never emptied nor photographed. I also notice that the items in the washing machine seem to light or very light colors with the exception of the dark items. I don't know many people, let alone woman who would do this.

It also makes no sense if Arnelle was in on this, that she would have made it so obvious. I think it is fair to consider the possibility that if the socks were taken out of the hamper and deposited on the floor then perhaps dark clothing was also taken out of a hamper and placed in the washing machine.

Petrocelli pointing the finger at Arnelle was roundly slammed by the media and IMO, if he had proof, then why weren't charges filed against Arnelle. If he truly believed this, he would not have bothered with the lady from the video. Wasn't that sweat suit supposed to be gray?

And one other thing, does anyone know where Jason did his laundry?

And why did Vanatter say that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence and that she just happened to sleep over that night? I would think Petrocelli would have pounced on this.

GreenIce,

I think you answered the most relevant question with this, "Martin,
I don't remember any detective or cop who testifed about the contents of the washing machine. I don't remember any of them being asked if was wet or what the items were." I don't thin they were either. Ergo, there is no testimony that allows a reasonable inference that anyone did any laundry on that date. Hence, there is no evidence that Ms. Arnelle with her beautiful countenance was anything but truthful or had any motive to not be truthful. While I am at it, let me make something else clear. IN REGARD TO MY REFERENCE TO MF AS FORKED-TONGUED, IT DEALT WITH HIS TESTIMONY, REGARDING THE FACT THAT HIS TONGUE SIMULTANEOUSLY SLIPPED AND DID NOT SLIP. HOWEVER, OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, I WILL NO LONGER SAY FORKED-TONGUE BUT WIL SAY CONFUSED-TONGUED.

[tv]

true. just very strange -- panties, sweatsuit, wet laundry, no one home -- no one in the house claims knowledge of any of it. :shrug:

weezer, here is the second part of Gigi's testimony that I posted -- the whole thing was too long for one post. :)

(At 2:32 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. This is part of Mr. Ford's videotape?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor. May I have one second?

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a small portion of this video. Please look at the monitor.

(At 2:34 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for the witness.)

MR. DARDEN: This is 3:01 P.M. on the tape. Okay. Okay. Stop there. Okay.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't leave that in the washing machine, did you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you notice what the clothing items were in there?

MS. GUARIN: It's not here. So no.

MR. DARDEN: You want to see it again?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?

MS. GUARIN: No.

[GreenIce]

Anyone that read Ms Arnells testimony knows when those calls were received.And that they were received that morning when le was in the kitchen.
so i am not sure what that post had to do with anything.The detectives had not told oj any details in the first call to him in chicago.I am sure he wanted to know more and called the house as more questions came to mind.Ithink i would have made many calls if a cop had refused to tell me how and where my ex had just been killed and what the situation was with my kids.imo

Martin,

Perhaps you can explain the conspiracy about Arnelle speaking to her father? What that she spoke to him three times and where she was when she spoke to him?

He also called Kato---I am not following this.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Perhaps you can explain the conspiracy about Arnelle speaking to her father? What that she spoke to him three times and where she was when she spoke to him?

He also called Kato---I am not following this.

GreenIce,

The original premise was that Ms. Arnelle committed a criminal act in that she acted as an accesory after the fact of murder, which would mean that she washed the sweatsuit prior to LE's arrival at Simpson's request. Since there is no record of any phone call between Simpson and Ms. Arnelle before LE's arrival, there seems to be an attempt to bash Ms. Arnelle by speculating that she washed the sweatsuit of her on volition and that Simpson and she discussed her alleged criminal deed over the phone.:) I am not following it either.:);):cool:

[tv]

#1 - MR. COCHRAN: And at some point during that conversation did you have occasion to speak to your dad, Mr. O.J. Simpson?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

#2 - MR. COCHRAN: This conversation, where did you take that phone? Where did you take that--have that conversation?

MS. SIMPSON: I had the conversation in the TV room.

#3 MR. COCHRAN: Who called you then?

MS. SIMPSON: My father.

MR. COCHRAN: You talked to your father again?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: This is now--this would be the third conversation with your dad that morning; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

What is also interesting is that even though Simpson talked to Arnelle multiple times he didn't talk to Jason until he got home from Chicago. At least that's how I recall Jason's testimony.

[weezer]

weezer, here is the second part of Gigi's testimony that I posted -- the whole thing was too long for one post. :)

(At 2:32 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. This is part of Mr. Ford's videotape?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor. May I have one second?

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a small portion of this video. Please look at the monitor.

(At 2:34 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for the witness.)

MR. DARDEN: This is 3:01 P.M. on the tape. Okay. Okay. Stop there. Okay.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't leave that in the washing machine, did you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you notice what the clothing items were in there?

MS. GUARIN: It's not here. So no.

MR. DARDEN: You want to see it again?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?

MS. GUARIN: No.

So, why is it even a question as to the facts that 1 - there was wet laundry in the washer and 2 - a laundry basket that belonged to arnelle. none of which was there when the maid left on Friday and arnelle testifying she wasn't home that weekend. :shrug:

[tv]

So, why is it even a question as to the facts that 1 - there was wet laundry in the washer and 2 - a laundry basket that belonged to arnelle. none of which was there when the maid left on Friday and arnelle testifying she wasn't home that weekend. :shrug:

It makes common sense, just connecting the dots, to know that the logical answer is that Arnelle did laundry after Gigi left. The matter is settled in my mind. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

What is also interesting is that even though Simpson talked to Arnelle multiple times he didn't talk to Jason until he got home from Chicago. At least that's how I recall Jason's testimony.

Was Jason there to immediately go to get his brother and sister as was Ms. Arnelle? Was Jason aroused from his sleep by LE and questioned as was Ms. Arnelle? Did Simpson arrive from Chicago the next day? Do we know whether or not Simpson gave Ms. Arnelle or anyone any message to relay to Jason regarding how Jason was doing?

[GreenIce]

If this was intended to answer my question as to whether there was testimony that anyone did the laundry on the night of June 12th or the am hours of June 13th, then I respectfully ask that the abovepost be stricken as non responsive.

William,

I agree. The maid's testimony about the laundry is totally useless. However, what is interesting is that the DA's fought tooth and nail about not letting this video come into evidence. They said it was done for insurance purposes only therefore it should be allowed in, with regards to the socks.

So how come all of the sudden this same video is being used for evidence by the exact same side that said it was not for evidence?

IMO, they burned themselves on this issue, again. Why would the police damage a washing machine? And if the washing machine and the contents were filmed, what about the dryer? Was that ever opened? Was the lint screen ever taken for trace evidence and how in the hell did the video guy miss the bloody fingeprints?

And what about the maid's room. Did they show it the maid, was she asked if this is how her room appeared when she left that Friday? It appears to me that she had two rooms, one in the main house and the one between Kato and Arnelle's.

I would also think Petrocelli would have jump on this as well. Petrocelli has major flaws on this. By insisting that Arnelle was in on this and did the laundry, then does the cops saying that Arnelle thought he was in the house, fall apart? Why would Arnelle say that knowing not only her father wasn't in the house but also the maid was not in the house or in the guest house?

[William Anthony]

So, why is it even a question as to the facts that 1 - there was wet laundry in the washer and 2 - a laundry basket that belonged to arnelle. none of which was there when the maid left on Friday and arnelle testifying she wasn't home that weekend. :shrug:

Please show the testimony that there was wet laundry in the washing machine (which has been represented ass being fact) and please show the testimony that Ms. Arnelle's laundry basket was not in the laundry room when the maid left, (represented as fact two) as opposed to not being on top of the washing machine.?

[GreenIce]

It makes common sense, just connecting the dots, to know that the logical answer is that Arnelle did laundry after Gigi left. The matter is settled in my mind. :shrug:

TV,

You have no idea how tempting this post is. I am using remarkable restraint, I hope you appreciate it.:)

[William Anthony]

William,

I agree. The maid's testimony about the laundry is totally useless. However, what is interesting is that the DA's fought tooth and nail about not letting this video come into evidence. They said it was done for insurance purposes only therefore it should be allowed in, with regards to the socks.

So how come all of the sudden this same video is being used for evidence by the exact same side that said it was not for evidence?

IMO, they burned themselves on this issue, again. Why would the police damage a washing machine? And if the washing machine and the contents were filmed, what about the dryer? Was that ever opened? Was the lint screen ever taken for trace evidence and how in the hell did the video guy miss the bloody fingeprints?

And what about the maid's room. Did they show it the maid, was she asked if this is how her room appeared when she left that Friday? It appears to me that she had two rooms, one in the main house and the one between Kato and Arnelle's.

I would also think Petrocelli would have jump on this as well. Petrocelli has major flaws on this. By insisting that Arnelle was in on this and did the laundry, then does the cops saying that Arnelle thought he was in the house, fall apart? Why would Arnelle say that knowing not only her father wasn't in the house but also the maid was not in the house or in the guest house?

GreenIce,

very, very astute observation as the only thing it proves is that the maid does not know how panties got in a laundry basket, which was on top of the washing machine.

[martin II]

One thing is for sure -- SOMEONE did the laundry. I doubt if at Arnelle's age anyone did her laundry but herself -- especially her undies. That leads to the logical conclusion that Arnelle is the one that did the wash. Also, Gigi testified that the basket was Arnelle's. The maid left no laundry undone and I can't see Kato or Simpson washing Arnelle's clothes. :rolleyes:

Or GiGi was mistaken But to be accurate no sweats were ever shown so all the talk about sweats is just another DAS fantasy or misdirection.

[martin II]

GreenIce,

very, very astute observation as the only thing it proves is that the maid does not know how panties got in a laundry basket, which was on top of the washing machine.

What is wet. lots of water. almost dry or a opinion a cop was asked to give in the DAS effort to sat some sweats were found.

After vanhatter came in with the others he was outside the house and Arnell did not know where he was for a time. Whats the chance he was in Arnells room.

The items in the washer if there was any could have been put there by any cop that was in ojs house after they told Arnell and Kato to get out.

They were still in the house when vannater was giving the judge those pages of lies to get the search warrant.This includes furhman.

[martin II]

GreenIce,

very, very astute observation as the only thing it proves is that the maid does not know how panties got in a laundry basket, which was on top of the washing machine.

Thats correct the underware was in a basket on top of the machine not in any washer. Where did the gs get the idea that they were in the machine.

[martin II]

It makes common sense, just connecting the dots, to know that the logical answer is that Arnelle did laundry after Gigi left. The matter is settled in my mind. :shrug:

I dissagree with what you say is setteled in your mind i think the DA does also. Or i should say the testimony dissagrees.

[William Anthony]

Thats correct the underware was in a basket on top of the machine not in any washer. Where did the gs get the idea that they were in the machine.

The prosecution did not call Ms. Guarin, because they knew she did not help their case, IMHO. It was all much ado about nothing, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

In reading the testimony of Ms. Guarin, I see that she was asked if Simpson wore panties and, if Kato did laundy using the machine. The magnificent did not ask whether Kato wore panties.:)

"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."

[martin II]

I have never seen any picture of any sweat suite posted by anyone. I have seen pictures of gloves,pictures of foot prints bUT NO PICTURES of any sweat suite. No sweat suit was presented in court so i don't believe there was ever one. Poeple make up stuff with no evidence and claim it to be fact until asked to prove it.
All the talk about sweats is just NOISE.IMO

[martin II]

In reading the testimony of Ms. Guarin, I see that she was asked if Simpson wore panties and, if Kato did laundy using the machine. The magnificent did not ask whether Kato wore panties.:)

"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."

kATO washed the sweats oj gave him before Ms Arnell came home. The underwear was never in the washer as GIGI saw pictures of then in a basket.
Another false rumor floated around. M Clarke supports that it was a rummor when she wrote the sweats were in a hamper.imo

[martin II]

weezer, here is the second part of Gigi's testimony that I posted -- the whole thing was too long for one post. :)

(At 2:32 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. This is part of Mr. Ford's videotape?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor. May I have one second?

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a small portion of this video. Please look at the monitor.

(At 2:34 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for the witness.)

MR. DARDEN: This is 3:01 P.M. on the tape. Okay. Okay. Stop there. Okay.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't leave that in the washing machine, did you?

MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you notice what the clothing items were in there?

MS. GUARIN: It's not here. So no.

MR. DARDEN: You want to see it again?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?

MS. GUARIN: No.


The underwear was in the basket on top of the machine not in the machine.

[Hotwater]

Reporting Posts

Again, I'm going to request if any of you want to report a post please use the "report post" option. Pointing out that a post needs to be deleted will only get your own post deleted.

Bashing = name calling

XXXXXX is a lo-life 2 bit scumbag liar (not ok)
IMO XXXXXX lied when she testified. (ok)

The mention of XXXXXX being in a car accident is not considered bashing someone.

Consider this a warning. Vacations will come next.

If you have any questions please submit them to me in PM. I won't be responding to anything posted on the board. If you choose to respond to this post on the board it will be deleted.

HW

[martin II]

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

William GI
Something seems to be wrong with katos testimony below.
please review.
This starts after Ms Arnell has let everyone in and went to her room to get dressed to go get the kids.

MF was left with kato at katos room examining him etc when M s Arnell had let them into the house and phillips had the conversation with oj. mf and kato were not in the house at that point.


MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So as I understand it then, you left your residence and as you walked you saw mark Fuhrman having a conversation with Kato Kaelin?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were inside the room or outside the room?

MS. SIMPSON: Kato was standing in his doorway and Mr. Fuhrman was standing outside the door.

Arnell goes to her room mf & kato still at katos room talking.

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

MR. COCHRAN: When you went back to your room did you see any police officers outside at that point?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the jury what you saw and where they were located.

MS. SIMPSON: I saw Fuhrman and Kato.

MR. COCHRAN: Where were they?

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, standing a little bit further from the room that Kato was staying in.

MR. COCHRAN: In which direction, Miss Simpson?

MS. SIMPSON: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: You can step all the way down if you need to.

MS. SIMPSON: (Witness complies.) Right here, (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: She is now indicating an area, your Honor, near the stairs and near the area depicting the stairs, partially in the patio area.

THE COURT: Appears to be in the southern most portion of the pool patio area.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were standing at that location?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did they still appear to be talking?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were still outside; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

Arnell comes out of her room mf & kato still near katos room talking.

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



After Ms Arnell let the cops in she unlocked the south most door and went to her room to get dressed. Furhman and Kato were at Katos room door still talking they were still there when she came out of her room dressed.

She returns to main house after picking up kids kato is now in main house for the first time sitting on the bar stool mf put him on.
When she returned from picking up the kids Kato was now inside the house sitting on a bar stool. So furhman and Kato had entered through the south most door that Ms Arnell had previously opened from the inside WHILE SHE WENT TO GET THE KIDS.

BUT HERE KATO IS TESTIFYING THAT HE ENTERED THE HOUSE WITH ARNELL AND THE OTHERS THE FIRST TIME.



March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.
Q WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES.
*
Q AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?
A WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

mf didn't bring kato into the house until the time Arnell went to get the kids.
His above testimony could not be true if he was standing at his room still being examined by mf

[William Anthony]

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

William GI
Something seems to be wrong with katos testimony below.
please review.
This starts after Ms Arnell has let everyone in and went to her room to get dressed to go get the kids.

MF was left with kato at katos room examining him etc when M s Arnell had let them into the house and phillips had the conversation with oj. mf and kato were not in the house at that point.


MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So as I understand it then, you left your residence and as you walked you saw mark Fuhrman having a conversation with Kato Kaelin?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were inside the room or outside the room?

MS. SIMPSON: Kato was standing in his doorway and Mr. Fuhrman was standing outside the door.

Arnell goes to her room mf & kato still at katos room talking.

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

MR. COCHRAN: When you went back to your room did you see any police officers outside at that point?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the jury what you saw and where they were located.

MS. SIMPSON: I saw Fuhrman and Kato.

MR. COCHRAN: Where were they?

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, standing a little bit further from the room that Kato was staying in.

MR. COCHRAN: In which direction, Miss Simpson?

MS. SIMPSON: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: You can step all the way down if you need to.

MS. SIMPSON: (Witness complies.) Right here, (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: She is now indicating an area, your Honor, near the stairs and near the area depicting the stairs, partially in the patio area.

THE COURT: Appears to be in the southern most portion of the pool patio area.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were standing at that location?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did they still appear to be talking?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were still outside; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

Arnell comes out of her room mf & kato still near katos room talking.

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



After Ms Arnell let the cops in she unlocked the south most door and went to her room to get dressed. Furhman and Kato were at Katos room door still talking they were still there when she came out of her room dressed.

She returns to main house after picking up kids kato is now in main house for the first time sitting on the bar stool mf put him on.
When she returned from picking up the kids Kato was now inside the house sitting on a bar stool. So furhman and Kato had entered through the south most door that Ms Arnell had previously opened from the inside WHILE SHE WENT TO GET THE KIDS.

BUT HERE KATO IS TESTIFYING THAT HE ENTERED THE HOUSE WITH ARNELL AND THE OTHERS THE FIRST TIME.



March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.
Q WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES.
*
Q AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, WHAT AREA DID YOU GO TO?
A WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT DOOR, THERE'S A BAR AREA, AND I WENT TO THE BAR AREA.

mf didn't bring kato into the house until the time Arnell went to get the kids.
His above testimony could not be true if he was standing at his room still being examined by mf

Kato lied, the detectives lied, Vanatter was accused of playing fast and loose with the trurh and have a reckless disregard for the truth. Park lied, Martz lied, DF and MF lied, Dr. Terry Lee lied, did I forget anyone?

[William Anthony]

Kato lied, the detectives lied, Vanatter was accused of playing fast and loose with the trurh and have a reckless disregard for the truth. Park lied, Martz lied, DF and MF lied, Dr. Terry Lee lied, did I forget anyone?

Correction-IMHO, Kato lied, the detectives lied, Vanatter was accused of playing fast and loose with the trurh and have a reckless disregard for the truth. IMHO, Park lied, Martz lied, DF and MF lied, Dr. Terry Lee lied, did I forget anyone?

[weezer]

tv, do you have that quote from judge ito where he admonishes the criminal defense for lying? I've been meaning to save that to a file so I would have it when it was needed.

[martin II]

Martin,

Perhaps you can explain the conspiracy about Arnelle speaking to her father? What that she spoke to him three times and where she was when she spoke to him?

He also called Kato---I am not following this.

Some are searching and making false post in a effort to say oj called Arnell to tell her to wash some sweats no phone records or anything else proves that.Just posting negative about Arnell because she is ojs daughter as i see it.imo

Arnell talked to oj when he was in chicago after lang talked to him. she was in the house tv room and oj called the house and arnell piccked up the phone and talked to him.she was in her room and oj called her there. he was seeking information on what had happened because the cops had refused to give him details of the murder. where/when who the other man was etc.

All of the conversation between AS and OJ took place in the morning when le was at the house in the kitchen.

Some seem to find it odd that oj would call his daughter at his house after being told his ex had been killed.

[martin II]

Correction-IMHO, Kato lied, the detectives lied, Vanatter was accused of playing fast and loose with the trurh and have a reckless disregard for the truth. IMHO, Park lied, Martz lied, DF and MF lied, Dr. Terry Lee lied, did I forget anyone?

When ito made his comments about vannater he was being polite.

[tv]

tv, do you have that quote from judge ito where he admonishes the criminal defense for lying? I've been meaning to save that to a file so I would have it when it was needed.

I have it somewhere...I'll look for it. :)

[martin II]

Kato lied, the detectives lied, Vanatter was accused of playing fast and loose with the trurh and have a reckless disregard for the truth. Park lied, Martz lied, DF and MF lied, Dr. Terry Lee lied, did I forget anyone?

I will think about it. Based on itos instructions it was very easy for the jury to come to a not guilty verdict.

[martin II]

What is also interesting is that even though Simpson talked to Arnelle multiple times he didn't talk to Jason until he got home from Chicago. At least that's how I recall Jason's testimony.

What is the point. he didn't call jason so he killed nicole.

[William Anthony]

When ito made his comments about vannater he was being polite.

"Tact", remember that word.:)

[tv]

tv, do you have that quote from judge ito where he admonishes the criminal defense for lying? I've been meaning to save that to a file so I would have it when it was needed.

The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court.


...Given the experience of defense counsel, their professional reputations before this and other courts, and the Court's own experience with the involved counsel, the Court should be able to rely upon something significantly more than the bare minimum. Given the Court's previous order to Mr. Douglas on behalf of the defense to prepare and submit to the Court a catalog of defense witnesses and statements, the latest failure of disclosure cannot be viewed as inadvertent. The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with
reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court.

[weezer]

The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court.


...Given the experience of defense counsel, their professional reputations before this and other courts, and the Court's own experience with the involved counsel, the Court should be able to rely upon something significantly more than the bare minimum. Given the Court's previous order to Mr. Douglas on behalf of the defense to prepare and submit to the Court a catalog of defense witnesses and statements, the latest failure of disclosure cannot be viewed as inadvertent. The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with
reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court.

thanks! I'll be sure to copy and paste to a file.

[tv]

"...This was a violation of the law and the
cause for the delay between 28 February and 3 March, 1995. You may
consider the effect of this delay in disclosure, if any, upon the
credibility of the witness involved and give it the weight to which you
feel it is entitled."

[tv]

thanks! I'll be sure to copy and paste to a file.

You're welcome. :)

[William Anthony]

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/slobogin_testilying.txt

“That perjury persists despite these risks can be explained by one
simple factor: police think they can get away with it. Police are
seldom made to pay for their lying. To some extent, this immunity
may be due to their own expertise at deceit. Many prosecutors and
judges believe perjury is systematic and often suspect it is occurring in
individual cases. But they also frequently claim that they are not sure
enough to do anything about it; [FN35] after all, the typical situation
pits a police officer, well trained on how to "constitutionalize" a case,
against a person charged with a crime, who is decidedly less aware of
the relevant law.”

To the extent judges ignore obvious perjury, it is probably for the same
reasons attributable to the prosecutor: sympathy for the police
officer's ultimate goal [FN51] and, as Professor *1048 Morgan
Cloud put it, "tact" — the fact that "[j]udges simply do not like to call
other government officials liars — especially those who appear
regularly in court." [FN52]

I can understand the truth in this, which allows me to understand the egregiousness of Vannatter's conduct, when one government official showed tact, instead of calling another government official a liar. Perhaps, Martin might want to cut and paste this. :);):cool:

[martin II]

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/slobogin_testilying.txt

“That perjury persists despite these risks can be explained by one
simple factor: police think they can get away with it. Police are
seldom made to pay for their lying. To some extent, this immunity
may be due to their own expertise at deceit. Many prosecutors and
judges believe perjury is systematic and often suspect it is occurring in
individual cases. But they also frequently claim that they are not sure
enough to do anything about it; [FN35] after all, the typical situation
pits a police officer, well trained on how to "constitutionalize" a case,
against a person charged with a crime, who is decidedly less aware of
the relevant law.”

To the extent judges ignore obvious perjury, it is probably for the same
reasons attributable to the prosecutor: sympathy for the police
officer's ultimate goal [FN51] and, as Professor *1048 Morgan
Cloud put it, "tact" — the fact that "[j]udges simply do not like to call
other government officials liars — especially those who appear
regularly in court." [FN52]

I can understand the truth in this, which allows me to understand the egregiousness of Vannatter's conduct, when one government official showed tact, instead of calling another government official a liar. Perhaps, Martin might want to cut and paste this. :);):cool:

William. i have done it.

This is a very powerful statement as it says exactly what many think is the case as they see cops lie and prosecutors lie and no one is punihed.

There are so many cases where prosecutors hid dna evidence that was in favor of defendants. Or forced people to lie against defendants to get convictions.
The recent Georgia case is a example. le threatened 8 witnesses to make them lie against a defendant. 18 years later all have recanted and told that le
threatened them if they didn't lie to nhelp them get a conviction.
We will see if these cops and das are prosecuted.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***. . ."The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court. . ."

I think that pretty much puts to rest any misconceptions anyone might have as to whether or not the judge believed the criminal defense lied.

[weezer]

you know, I'm not sure why we're even talking about whether or not LE did or did not lie since ito also ruled

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] 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."

[tv]

I think that pretty much puts to rest any misconceptions anyone might have as to whether or not the judge believed the criminal defense lied.

It's enough for me to understand that's what he was saying -- false = untrue = lie.

[martin II]

The los Angeles DAS office has a conviction rate of 98% There is no way that 98% of the people arrested were guilty unless the da had the assistance of lying cops against defendants.

They tried this in the oj case but lawyer Cochran and his team stopped them in their tracks.The lies were exposed.

[tv]

you know, I'm not sure why we're even talking about whether or not LE did or did not lie since ito also ruled

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] 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."

Thanks weezer...I love this quote. :)

I think it's clear he was saying the defense was making things up and had no evidence to back up their fantastic claims.

[William Anthony]

William. i have done it.

This is a very powerful statement as it says exactly what many think is the case as they see cops lie and prosecutors lie and no one is punihed.

There are so many cases where prosecutors hid dna evidence that was in favor of defendants. Or forced people to lie against defendants to get convictions.
The recent Georgia case is a example. le threatened 8 witnesses to make them lie against a defendant. 18 years later all have recanted and told that le
threatened them if they didn't lie to nhelp them get a conviction.
We will see if these cops and das are prosecuted.

You are quite right Martin, as the judge is under no pressure to flat out not say that the defense lied, which he did not, but, according to the link, which I believe the judge is acting very tactfully and is in reality saying Vannatter, as a fellow government official, your a big old liar, IMHO. We have some doubt as to what he was saying to the magnificent one but, according to the link, we have no doubt what he was saying to Vannatter.