Random Discussions On The Case

[weezer]

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.

that's pretty much how I read it too. I think the civil trial judge came to the same conclusion. ;)

[William Anthony]

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.

"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]":);):cool:

[tv]

that's pretty much how I read it too. I think the civil trial judge came to the same conclusion. ;)

Judge Fujisaki:

"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined, and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack establishes some defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

[William Anthony]

Poppycock!

A defendant cannot put on evidence of sloppy evidence collection, handling and storage techniques, unless there is a defect in the chain of custody!!!. Thanks, this bolsters my opinion that the civil trial was a socio political production designed to reach a certain 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.

Ms Arnell was with the cops at ojs house. Jason was home and knew nothing until it hit the news. Why would oj call jason. M s Arnell was in the best position to get the cops to tell her something.

[William Anthony]

Q: DID HE GIVE YOU A RECEIPT FOR THE BLOOD YOU GAVE HIM?

A: HE WROTE IT IN HIS NOTES. HE DIDN'T GIVE ME A RECEIPT. HE WROTE IT IN HIS NOTES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE, WHEN YOU TOOK THE BLOOD, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY BLOOD DRIPPING IN THE AREA OF THE CORKED PORTION OF THE TUBE?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY BLOOD DRIPPING.

Q: DID YOU LOOK?

A: I LOOKED AT THE VIAL. I DON'T RECALL ANY BLOOD DRIPPING.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TAKEN BLOOD FROM PARKER CENTER OUT TO A CRIME SCENE?

A: I DON'T KNOW. THIS MAY HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TIME. I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T RECALL RIGHT NOW ANY OTHER TIME THAT I HAVE DONE THAT.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN A MURDER CASE WHERE YOU HAVE TAKEN A STATEMENT VOLUNTARILY FROM A SUSPECT AND NOT INTRODUCED IT INTO EVIDENCE?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE IMPLICATION OF THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU GO THROUGH ANY SPECIAL COACHING SESSIONS PRIOR TO YOU TAKING THE WITNESS STAND TODAY?

A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL TRAINING IN HOW TO TESTIFY?

A: HAVE I EVER?

Q: YEAH.

A: WELL, I THINK THEY MAY HAVE GAVE US AN HOUR OR TWO IN THE POLICE ACADEMY, YEAH. THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, THOUGH.

Q: DID YOU MEET WITH ANY OF THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE REGARDING YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: OH, I SEE THEM ON A DAILY BASIS, YES.

Q: DID YOU MEET WITH THEM SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU GO THROUGH ANY MOCK TESTIMONY OR CROSS-EXAMINATION?

A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.

Q: WERE YOU EVER BROUGHT TO A GRAND JURY ROOM TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED BY SEVERAL LAWYERS?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING IN ANY CASE BEFORE?

A: I'VE HEARD OF MOCK EXAMINATIONS, BUT WHEN YOU SAY "GRAND JURY ROOM," I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

Q: AND IN 26 YEARS ON THE POLICE FORCE, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TESTIFIED AS A WITNESS?

A: MANY, MANY TIMES.

Q: CAN YOU DO ANY BETTER THAN THAT BY NUMBER?

A: MANY, MANY, MANY. I COULDN'T TELL YOU.

Q: YOU TOLD US YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN 200 HOMICIDE CASES, 500 INVESTIGATIONS?

MR. DARDEN: IS THAT A QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: MANY, MANY TIMES. MAYBE -- I DON'T KNOW. MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HUNDRED?

A: I WOULD SAY MORE THAN THAT.

Q: AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR JOB AS A PROFESSIONAL POLICE OFFICER, TO TESTIFY, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU ARE IN A WAY A PROFESSIONAL WITNESS?

A: THAT IS PART OF MY JOB, YES. "

There can be no doubt that Vannatter was a government official seen in court regularly. IMHO, VANNATTER SEEMS TO BE PROUD THAT HE IS A PROFESSIONAL AT TESTILYING.

[martin II]

GI

Do you have reason as to why MF inrterviewed R Lopez and then refused to turn in his notes from the interview.

I think that by the time Darden was finished with his immigration threats
and rough house treatment of her she was ready to catch the first plane back to her country.

[martin II]

Poppycock!

A defendant cannot put on evidence of sloppy evidence collection, handling and storage techniques, unless there is a defect in the chain of custody!!!. Thanks, this bolsters my opinion that the civil trial was a socio political production designed to reach a certain verdict.

The civil trial judge had one issue. Set the trial up to guarantee that there is a verdict of liable. Take the defense arguments away and help petro at every point. That is what he did even to the point of telling the jury the trial was a murder trial. It was about getting oj and trying to get FG some money.

[William Anthony]

The civil trial judge had one issue. Set the trial up to guarantee that there is a verdict of liable. Take the defense arguments away and help petro at every point. That is what he did even to the point of telling the jury the trial was a murder trial. It was about getting oj and trying to get FG some money.

Yes, that ruling was something. It doesn't matter, if the evidence was contaminated, so long as it was protected. What about the defect in the bindles not having AM's initials?

[martin II]

In light of all the unproven allagations against Ms Arnell, The jury never considered any of those false claims. The jury focused on the lies of le, the manipulation of evidence, the possibility that MF planted evidence and the untruths of the prosecutions main witness A Park. They sat and heard all the untruths and unproven prosecutions claims when the defense questioned prosecution witnesses. They sat and waited for the prosecution to deliver a believable story as to how oj simpson killed nicole and ron.THEY NEVER GOT IT.
AS many legal minds and average citizens have said the jury came to the only verdict possible considering the mess of a case the prosecution presented.

All of these claims about sweats, underware, phone calls, doors, abuse, IRS,stalking,recitals and what nicole thought are just attempts to divert attention from the main issue.PROVING OJ KILLED PEOPLE.

The prosecution could never prove this because truth and facts were on ojs side. It is a shame to what he was subjected to to prove that he had not killed his ex. He lost most of his fortune his grand home in Brentwood and much more based on some false charges by the prosecutors.imo

[martin II]

Yes, that ruling was something. It doesn't matter, if the evidence was contaminated, so long as it was protected. What about the defect in the bindles not having AM's initials?

Was that judge saying if you contaminate the evidence and then protect it everything is oke doky?

[martin II]

Judge Fujisaki:

"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined, and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack establishes some defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

If evidence is contaminated is that not a defect. If the defense is not allowed to argue contimination how can they prove that it was?

[William Anthony]

Was that judge saying if you contaminate the evidence and then protect it everything is oke doky?

That's the way I read it.

[martin II]

Yes, that ruling was something. It doesn't matter, if the evidence was contaminated, so long as it was protected. What about the defect in the bindles not having AM's initials?

William

AM situation indicates that someone in the lab substituted samples found and that new samples with ojs blood were presented in court and sent out for DNA testing.On some level this has to be criminal but the defense is expected to chalk it up as a simple mistake by someone.. I don't think AM had a hand in it as she seemed quite surprised that the bendels she was shown did not have her initials on them.imo

[William Anthony]

William

AM situation indicates that someone in the lab substituted samples found and that new samples with ojs blood were presented in court and sent out for DNA testing.On some level this has to be criminal but the defense is expected to chalk it up as a simple mistake by someone.. I don't think AM had a hand in it as she seemed quite surprised that the bendels she was shown did not have her initials on them.imo

Martin,

If that isn't evidence in a defect in the chain of custody of the evidence, I don't know what is.:);):cool:

[tv]

that's pretty much how I read it too. I think the civil trial judge came to the same conclusion. ;)Here are the reasons given by Petrocelli for plaintiff Fred Goldman regarding the reason the 'glove was planted' theory shouldn't come in -- I think it's interesting and convincing --

1. "[T]here was no blood trail leading to where [the glove] was found." This is probative of nothing, because there is no evidence to suggest that there would have been such a trail if Simpson dropped the glove.

2. The glove "appeared to be moist when it was found in the morning." This is probative of nothing, because there is no evidence to suggest that the | glove would not have been moist if it was left by Simpson the previous night. Moreover, this contention ignores the undisputed fact that tests showed that the surface | of the glove contained the blood of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson. Fuhrman could not possibly have placed Simpson's blood there, because Simpson did not give a blood sample until the afternoon of June 13 -- after the glove had been collected by criminalists. Simpson has no evidence -- only wild, unsupported speculation - that some unspecified person added Simpson's blood to the glove after it was booked into evidence but before it was subjected to any testing.

3. The glove "did not have any dirt, plant materials, cobwebs, or other indicia that it had been at that location for a lengthy period of time." Again, Simpson offers no evidence that the glove would have been covered with dirt, cobwebs, or "plant materials" if he had dropped it the night before.

4. "There was no evidence of blood on the ground under the glove." Again, this evidence has no probative value, because Simpson offers no evidence that there would have been blood on the ground under the glove if Simpson had dropped it the night before.

5. "There was no evidence that anyone could have or did climb over the fence in the area where the item was found." Simpson does not explain what such "evidence" would be or why it would exist if Simpson had killed Ron and Nicole. The asserted lack of such evidence does not tend in reason to prove that the glove was~ planted. --

[weezer]

Here are the reasons given by Petrocelli for plaintiff Fred Goldman regarding the reason the 'glove was planted' theory shouldn't come in -- I think it's interesting and convincing --

1. "[T]here was no blood trail leading to where [the glove] was found." This is probative of nothing, because there is no evidence to suggest that there would have been such a trail if Simpson dropped the glove.

2. The glove "appeared to be moist when it was found in the morning." This is probative of nothing, because there is no evidence to suggest that the | glove would not have been moist if it was left by Simpson the previous night. Moreover, this contention ignores the undisputed fact that tests showed that the surface | of the glove contained the blood of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson. Fuhrman could not possibly have placed Simpson's blood there, because Simpson did not give a blood sample until the afternoon of June 13 -- after the glove had been collected by criminalists. Simpson has no evidence -- only wild, unsupported speculation - that some unspecified person added Simpson's blood to the glove after it was booked into evidence but before it was subjected to any testing.

3. The glove "did not have any dirt, plant materials, cobwebs, or other indicia that it had been at that location for a lengthy period of time." Again, Simpson offers no evidence that the glove would have been covered with dirt, cobwebs, or "plant materials" if he had dropped it the night before.

4. "There was no evidence of blood on the ground under the glove." Again, this evidence has no probative value, because Simpson offers no evidence that there would have been blood on the ground under the glove if Simpson had dropped it the night before.

5. "There was no evidence that anyone could have or did climb over the fence in the area where the item was found." Simpson does not explain what such "evidence" would be or why it would exist if Simpson had killed Ron and Nicole. The asserted lack of such evidence does not tend in reason to prove that the glove was~ planted. --

:beer::beer:

[tv]

:beer::beer:

That's what gets me -- the defense in both cases expected the jury to swallow the idea of planting without any evidence to back it up. It worked with the criminal jury; they were biased in Simpson's favor and mesmerized by the courtroom presence of Johnnie Cochran, imo. Besides that, some of the jurors weren't aware of or didn't understand some of the most important components of the case against OJ Simpson. Thank goodness the civil jury saw through the smokescreen of baseless allegations.

[weezer]

That's what gets me -- the defense in both cases expected the jury to swallow the idea of planting without any evidence to back it up. It worked with the criminal jury; they were biased in Simpson's favor and mesmerized by the courtroom presence of Johnnie Cochran, imo. Besides that, some of the jurors weren't aware of or didn't understand some of the most important components of the case against OJ Simpson. Thank goodness the civil jury saw through the smokescreen of baseless allegations.

I think that's why the NGs cannot accept the civil verdict -- because the smoke and mirrors tactics used by the criminal defense weren't allowed.

[tv]

I think that's why the NGs cannot accept the civil verdict -- because the smoke and mirrors tactics used by the criminal defense weren't allowed.

It's a frequent claim by the NGs that the defense in the civil trial didn't offer any planting or conspiracy theories -- not true. The problem they had was they had nothing to back it up so it was limited. They had their chance -- all they had to do was offer a shred of evidence to back up their allegations. They couldn't do it. :shrug:

[weezer]

It's a frequent claim by the NGs that the defense in the civil trial didn't offer any planting or conspiracy theories -- not true. The problem they had was they had nothing to back it up so it was limited. They had their chance -- all they had to do was offer a shred of evidence to back up their allegations. They couldn't do it. :shrug:

exactly as I understand the ruling. besides, I don't think either the criminal or civil trial about LE planting and/or lying was it?

[fgump2]

This is a quote from an interview with SImpson being interviewd by Celia Farber in Esquire magazine:
"Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would have been because I loved her very much, right?"
I have a link for this, although not one that explains much, not really a good link. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/02507
I believe that issue of the magazine was 1998 Jan, Feb or March.

The quote doesn't prove he is guilty, but it is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. Makes him sound like a psychopath.
As far as I could tell he expressed no remorse for treating her badly.

[weezer]

This is a quote from an interview with SImpson being interviewd by Celia Farber in Esquire magazine:
"Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would have been because I loved her very much, right?"
I have a link for this, although not one that explains much, not really a good link. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/02507
I believe that issue of the magazine was 1998 Jan, Feb or March.

The quote doesn't prove he is guilty, but it is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. Makes him sound like a psychopath.
As far as I could tell he expressed no remorse for treating her badly.

IIRC, not only did he never express remorse for abusing Nicole, he denied that he ever hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, or called her names.

[tv]

exactly as I understand the ruling. besides, I don't think either the criminal or civil trial about LE planting and/or lying was it?

No, it was about whether or not Orenthal James Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. Simpson was doing the lying and I believe he planted the glass in the sink in Chicago. So, imo, he lied and planted.

[tv]

This is a quote from an interview with SImpson being interviewd by Celia Farber in Esquire magazine:
"Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would have been because I loved her very much, right?"
I have a link for this, although not one that explains much, not really a good link. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/02507
I believe that issue of the magazine was 1998 Jan, Feb or March.

The quote doesn't prove he is guilty, but it is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. Makes him sound like a psychopath.
As far as I could tell he expressed no remorse for treating her badly.

Has anyone ever heard him explain the rationale for killing someone because you love them very much? Is this what he thinks love is -- inflicting pain and misery and death on the one you love? Very disturbing.

[tv]

IIRC, not only did he never express remorse for abusing Nicole, he denied that he ever hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, or called her names.
Even AC acknowledged that Simpson hit Nicole.

[weezer]

Even AC acknowledged that Simpson hit Nicole.

ac didn't want to testify against orenthal. I think that is another very odd relationship.

wonder what orenthal thought he was doing when he was brusing and bloodying?

[GreenIce]

"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]":);):cool:

William and Martin,

I have posted this many times in the past but I think it is worth repeating. The bottom line of justice system is based soley on the police and the departments within them. Any time a police officer takes the stand his credibility is even more of an issue then any other witness. People forget that they are not the civil servants just for the victims but for all the people of that state, to include the defendants.

I also feel that in this case, it is very fair to point out the obvious, that MF's untruths affected the other three detectives' testimony and credibility as well as any member of the LAPD who took the stand. IMO, when the jurors heard the judge's ruling had to be concerned about the judge's credibility as well as the DA's. I stand my statement that MF held the DA's hostage as well as the judge.

I remember thinking that when Judge Kennedy-Powell gave her ruling about the search warrant, that she just lost the DA's case. If I didn't believe the detectives, there is no way a judge or the DA's were going to believe them so how could they expect a jury to believe them? IMO.

[tv]

ac didn't want to testify against orenthal. I think that is another very odd relationship.

wonder what orenthal thought he was doing when he was brusing and bloodying?

Come on, weezer, he was wrasslin' her. At least that's what he said. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

Come on, weezer, he was wrasslin' her. At least that's what he said. :rolleyes:

riiiight. :rolleyes:

[GreenIce]

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:

William,

I agree, there is not phone calls between Simpson and his daughter or anyone else after the one he called Kato to set the alarm. I have always found it odd that if Simpson was the killer, why he never made a phone call to Kato or Arnelle that night after he arrived in Chicago. Like to try to find out how far the cops were behind him?

Also, if the LAPD honestly thought those dark items in the washing machine were wet dark clothes, they would not have asked the maid or Arnelle about them months later during the defense's case-in-chief. They would have asked the detectives or the other cops about them.

I don't how it started but wasn't it Fung who supposedly took these sweats out the washing and saw no blood on them so he put them back? IMO, it appears to me that neither Clark or Vanatter were convinced how and when the dark clothes got into the washing machine.

Since Clark helped write the second search warrant, don't you think she would really tried to follow this up with other witness besides the one witness she hated so much, you feel it even while watching it on TV? IMO, not using Brad Roberts is a huge, huge telling point. Maybe they didn't know what he say so they decided not to use him?

[GreenIce]

GI

Do you have reason as to why MF inrterviewed R Lopez and then refused to turn in his notes from the interview.

I think that by the time Darden was finished with his immigration threats
and rough house treatment of her she was ready to catch the first plane back to her country.

Martin,

I don't think MF made any notes of his interview with Rosa Lopez because he did not want anyone to know that he was also on the other side of the fence where he put the glove. Where he may have left that blue baggie.

IMO, I think he also wanted to know what she heard and saw. I find it very interesting in his book he writes that she spoke perfect English in this interview. Really? If she spoke perfect English, then he did not want that known. It only makes sense if she couldn't understand him, IMO.

I think it is also possible that on his first trip to Rockingham, he saw a light on and may have felt that someone was up or perhaps he saw her through the window.

Also, MF said he stoped detecting at Rockingham when he lost the case. Why did he start detecting again at Rockingham and didn't stop detecting even after he found the glove?

[GreenIce]

William,

When did Ito make that ruling about the glove? Was it before or after the tapes?

Also, if Judge Ito felt this way, shouldn't he have given this "instruction" to the jury? Can't a judge take away elements of the defense if he sees nothing to support it? The best example I can think of self-defense. That the defense provided no evidence of self defense so it may not be considered by the jury?

Also, it appears to me that Ito did not say that the planting of the glove was not based on logic, only that MF would do it as well as doing it even knowing that Simpson was innocent?

[William Anthony]

Here are the reasons given by Petrocelli for plaintiff Fred Goldman regarding the reason the 'glove was planted' theory shouldn't come in -- I think it's interesting and convincing --

1. "[T]here was no blood trail leading to where [the glove] was found." This is probative of nothing, because there is no evidence to suggest that there would have been such a trail if Simpson dropped the glove.

2. The glove "appeared to be moist when it was found in the morning." This is probative of nothing, because there is no evidence to suggest that the | glove would not have been moist if it was left by Simpson the previous night. Moreover, this contention ignores the undisputed fact that tests showed that the surface | of the glove contained the blood of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson. Fuhrman could not possibly have placed Simpson's blood there, because Simpson did not give a blood sample until the afternoon of June 13 -- after the glove had been collected by criminalists. Simpson has no evidence -- only wild, unsupported speculation - that some unspecified person added Simpson's blood to the glove after it was booked into evidence but before it was subjected to any testing.

3. The glove "did not have any dirt, plant materials, cobwebs, or other indicia that it had been at that location for a lengthy period of time." Again, Simpson offers no evidence that the glove would have been covered with dirt, cobwebs, or "plant materials" if he had dropped it the night before.

4. "There was no evidence of blood on the ground under the glove." Again, this evidence has no probative value, because Simpson offers no evidence that there would have been blood on the ground under the glove if Simpson had dropped it the night before.

5. "There was no evidence that anyone could have or did climb over the fence in the area where the item was found." Simpson does not explain what such "evidence" would be or why it would exist if Simpson had killed Ron and Nicole. The asserted lack of such evidence does not tend in reason to prove that the glove was~ planted. --

If MF was not allowed to be called to say that he expected to find someone bleeding, then how could the defense show evidence of the missing blood trail. We now know that, IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

The evidence of the glove appearing moist is evidence of the time the glove could have been deposited. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

The evidence of when the glove could have been deposited is a question of fact for the jury to determine. The significance of the lack of cobwebs and lack of dirt was evidence for the jury to consider as to when the glove was deposited. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

There should have been blood under the glove if the glove covered in blood to the degree it appeared shiny. The fact that there was no blood found under the glove is evidence of when and how the glove was deposited, placed as opposed to dropped. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

The fact that there is no evidence that anyone climbed the fence is evidence that Simpson did not and that the blood was planted when taken into consideration with all the evidence pertaining to this glove. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

[William Anthony]

That's what gets me -- the defense in both cases expected the jury to swallow the idea of planting without any evidence to back it up. It worked with the criminal jury; they were biased in Simpson's favor and mesmerized by the courtroom presence of Johnnie Cochran, imo. Besides that, some of the jurors weren't aware of or didn't understand some of the most important components of the case against OJ Simpson. Thank goodness the civil jury saw through the smokescreen of baseless allegations.

The evidence of planting was allowed in the criminal trial but disallowed in the socio political production designed to reach a certain verdict.

[William Anthony]

I think that's why the NGs cannot accept the civil verdict -- because the smoke and mirrors tactics used by the criminal defense weren't allowed.

I accept the verdict in the socio political production and believe the jury reached the only possible verdict based on the evidence included and excluded.

[GreenIce]

If MF was not allowed to be called to say that he expected to find someone bleeding, then how could the defense show evidence of the missing blood trail. We now know that, IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

The evidence of the glove appearing moist is evidence of the time the glove could have been deposited. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

The evidence of when the glove could have been deposited is a question of fact for the jury to determine. The significance of the lack of cobwebs and lack of dirt was evidence for the jury to consider as to when the glove was deposited. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

There should have been blood under the glove if the glove covered in blood to the degree it appeared shiny. The fact that there was no blood found under the glove is evidence of when and how the glove was deposited, placed as opposed to dropped. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

The fact that there is no evidence that anyone climbed the fence is evidence that Simpson did not and that the blood was planted when taken into consideration with all the evidence pertaining to this glove. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

William,

I don't understand, was there blood only one side of the glove? If the glove was soaked in blood, then there should have blood underneath it.

If Simpson left a blood trail from his Bronco to the front door, then shouldn't there have blood trail leading to the glove, since they said he went there first?

[William Anthony]

It's a frequent claim by the NGs that the defense in the civil trial didn't offer any planting or conspiracy theories -- not true. The problem they had was they had nothing to back it up so it was limited. They had their chance -- all they had to do was offer a shred of evidence to back up their allegations. They couldn't do it. :shrug:

How could they when in the socio political production they were not permitted to argue any defect in the evidence unless it was in the chain of custody of the evidence?:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

William,

I don't understand, was there blood only one side of the glove? If the glove was soaked in blood, then there should have blood underneath it.

If Simpson left a blood trail from his Bronco to the front door, then shouldn't there have blood trail leading to the glove, since they said he went there first?

Exactly,

But the defense was precluded from arguing this or providing that evidence in the socio political production, according to the ruling.

[William Anthony]

No, it was about whether or not Orenthal James Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. Simpson was doing the lying and I believe he planted the glass in the sink in Chicago. So, imo, he lied and planted.

We know for a fact one person lied and admitted to planting.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Has anyone ever heard him explain the rationale for killing someone because you love them very much? Is this what he thinks love is -- inflicting pain and misery and death on the one you love? Very disturbing.

What is disturbing to me is that there seems to be an ignoring of the word "if".

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I have posted this many times in the past but I think it is worth repeating. The bottom line of justice system is based soley on the police and the departments within them. Any time a police officer takes the stand his credibility is even more of an issue then any other witness. People forget that they are not the civil servants just for the victims but for all the people of that state, to include the defendants.

I also feel that in this case, it is very fair to point out the obvious, that MF's untruths affected the other three detectives' testimony and credibility as well as any member of the LAPD who took the stand. IMO, when the jurors heard the judge's ruling had to be concerned about the judge's credibility as well as the DA's. I stand my statement that MF held the DA's hostage as well as the judge.

I remember thinking that when Judge Kennedy-Powell gave her ruling about the search warrant, that she just lost the DA's case. If I didn't believe the detectives, there is no way a judge or the DA's were going to believe them so how could they expect a jury to believe them? IMO.

GreenIce,

They thought they could sell a tainted story with tainted evidence to a sophisticated jury and lost.

[William Anthony]

William,

I agree, there is not phone calls between Simpson and his daughter or anyone else after the one he called Kato to set the alarm. I have always found it odd that if Simpson was the killer, why he never made a phone call to Kato or Arnelle that night after he arrived in Chicago. Like to try to find out how far the cops were behind him?

Also, if the LAPD honestly thought those dark items in the washing machine were wet dark clothes, they would not have asked the maid or Arnelle about them months later during the defense's case-in-chief. They would have asked the detectives or the other cops about them.

I don't how it started but wasn't it Fung who supposedly took these sweats out the washing and saw no blood on them so he put them back? IMO, it appears to me that neither Clark or Vanatter were convinced how and when the dark clothes got into the washing machine.

Since Clark helped write the second search warrant, don't you think she would really tried to follow this up with other witness besides the one witness she hated so much, you feel it even while watching it on TV? IMO, not using Brad Roberts is a huge, huge telling point. Maybe they didn't know what he say so they decided not to use him?

GreenIce,

Who mopped the laundry room floor?:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

William,

When did Ito make that ruling about the glove? Was it before or after the tapes?

Also, if Judge Ito felt this way, shouldn't he have given this "instruction" to the jury? Can't a judge take away elements of the defense if he sees nothing to support it? The best example I can think of self-defense. That the defense provided no evidence of self defense so it may not be considered by the jury?

Also, it appears to me that Ito did not say that the planting of the glove was not based on logic, only that MF would do it as well as doing it even knowing that Simpson was innocent?

GreenIce,

IIRC, his alleged final ruling was made after the tapes but the oral argument in which he reconsidered that ruling was made after listening to the tapes and hearing the proffers of the testimonies of Ms. Bell and Ms. Singer.

[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.

Obviously you were wrong.

Lange, Phillips, and Vannatter were let into the house by Arnelle Simpson through the back door. All three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked that door. All three were wrong. Obviously they only thought Arnelle unlocked the door because Arnelle had keys in her hand. The fact that Arnelle opened that door means it had previously been unlocked. The fact that no warning beeps were heard when they entered that door means the house alarm was not on.

bobaugust

[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.

You assumed wrong because you incorrectly stated what Phillips actually said.

The room labeled “living room” is on Wagner’s diagram, not on the prosecution exhibit that was used in court. The prosecution exhibit did not name the rooms in Simpson’s house. Arnelle, Kato Kaelin, and the four detectives all entered the same room using the same door. The detectives and Kaelin called that room a name based on their own personal preference or description. Phillips called it the living room area. Lange called it a rear den. Kaelin, Fuhrman, and Vannatter called it the bar area. Arnelle called it the TV room.

You ask how could Phillips walk in a south door and be in the living (room) at the north side of the house? The answer is very simple, Phillips didn’t walk into the room called the living room on Wagner’s diagram, he walked into the same room everyone walked into, the room called the family room on Wagner’s diagram.

bobaugust

[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.

I agree the room Wagner labeled the “living room” on his diagram is not the room he labeled the “family room.” Phillips called the room Wagner labeled the “family room” the living room area. The diagram that Phillips was looking at didn’t have the names of any of the rooms in Simpson’s house.

You still haven’t supported your claim that Phillips pointed to a different room on the prosecution exhibit than the one he and everyone else entered through the back door that morning. Could it be that you just made that up from your imagination?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Obviously you were wrong.

Lange, Phillips, and Vannatter were let into the house by Arnelle Simpson through the back door. All three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked that door. All three were wrong. Obviously they only thought Arnelle unlocked the door because Arnelle had keys in her hand. The fact that Arnelle opened that door means it had previously been unlocked. The fact that no warning beeps were heard when they entered that door means the house alarm was not on.

bobaugust

"All three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked that door. All three were wrong. " You said Ms. Arnelle lied when she said she unlocked the door. Does that mean the detectives lied about what they saw?

[William Anthony]

You assumed wrong because you incorrectly stated what Phillips actually said.

The room labeled “living room” is on Wagner’s diagram, not on the prosecution exhibit that was used in court. The prosecution exhibit did not name the rooms in Simpson’s house. Arnelle, Kato Kaelin, and the four detectives all entered the same room using the same door. The detectives and Kaelin called that room a name based on their own personal preference or description. Phillips called it the living room area. Lange called it a rear den. Kaelin, Fuhrman, and Vannatter called it the bar area. Arnelle called it the TV room.

You ask how could Phillips walk in a south door and be in the living (room) at the north side of the house? The answer is very simple, Phillips didn’t walk into the room called the living room on Wagner’s diagram, he walked into the same room everyone walked into, the room called the family room on Wagner’s diagram.

bobaugust

The testimony is what it is and should not be changed by us, IMHO. Are you saying that Phiillips told an additional lie?

[William Anthony]

I agree the room Wagner labeled the “living room” on his diagram is not the room he labeled the “family room.” Phillips called the room Wagner labeled the “family room” the living room area. The diagram that Phillips was looking at didn’t have the names of any of the rooms in Simpson’s house.

You still haven’t supported your claim that Phillips pointed to a different room on the prosecution exhibit than the one he and everyone else entered through the back door that morning. Could it be that you just made that up from your imagination?

bobaugust

In order for your scenario to fit, you must claim that "living room" meant something other than "living room" and that in your opinion Phillips lied.

[William Anthony]

I forgot. IMHO, Michelle Kestler lied.

[William Anthony]

MR. NEUFELD: Now, as the laboratory director of the criminalistics laboratory of the Los Angeles Police Department, did you have day-to-day management responsibilities for the various units within that criminalistics laboratory?

MS. KESTLER: I had overall management responsibility for the laboratory, not day-to-day responsibilities. For day-to-day functions within the laboratories, no.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And in that criminalistics laboratory, you would have management responsibilities for the crime scene investigation unit?

MS. KESTLER: Ultimate management responsibility. Again, not day to day.

MR. NEUFELD: And you would have ultimate management responsibility for the serology unit?
*
*MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Kestler, didn't you play a larger role in the Simpson case than in other cases because of certain staffing problems with regard to Mr. Matheson being the only deputy you had?

MS. KESTLER: He was the only supervisor in charge of the serology, DNA and trace unit. So yes, I played a little larger role than I usually do.

MR. NEUFELD: Larger role in this case than you usually do?

MS. KESTLER: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: That's correct. Okay.

MS. KESTLER: And it wasn't just Mr. Matheson. It was just our lack of staffing in several areas.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you--isn't it true that the reason was not because of other staffing, but because there was no assistant laboratory director besides Mr. Matheson? Isn't that the reason?

MS. KESTLER: No. Mr. Matheson wasn't the assistant lab director at that time. He was the supervisor of the serology, DNA unit and Mr. Johnson was the assistant laboratory director.

MR. NEUFELD: On August 1st, 1995, were you asked this question, did you give this answer at a hearing outside the presence of the jury in this courtroom under oath?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. May I?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. DARDEN: No objection.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked this question, did you give this answer? "Question: In this particular case, did you play a role in overseeing the processing and handling of the case? "Answer: I was attempting to assist in that process because at this time, Mr. Matheson--there was no assistant laboratory director. So I played a little larger role than I normally would." Did you give that answer to that question just two weeks ago?

MS. KESTLER: Two weeks ago?

MR. NEUFELD: On August 1st, 1995?

MS. KESTLER: No. I was the only--I was referring to myself as being--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. I would move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked that question, did you give that answer?

MS. KESTLER: Well, I said that, but I was referring to myself as the only assistant laboratory director at the time. I don't know--I don't remember what that was referring to. Is it out of context?"



MS. KESTLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And for the hair and fiber unit?

MS. KESTLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And for the DNA unit?

MS. KESTLER: Yes. Well, DNA and serology are all one unit actually.

MR. NEUFELD: And how many criminalists were working for the criminalistics laboratory on June 12th of 1994 approximately?

MS. KESTLER: Uh, I can't recall exactly, we had so many vacancies. Probably about--I believe at that time, we were down to about 40 staff members, but that's approximate.

MR. NEUFELD: And was another one of your responsibilities, Miss Kestler, the evaluation of current programs and procedures of those units?

MS. KESTLER: Ultimately, yes. Not day to day again, not until they're approved all the way up through the chain.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, and if the procedures in a particular unit were inadequate, you would have ultimate responsibility to make improvements in those units, wouldn't you?

MS. KESTLER: I would suggest and listen to my supervisors, and if I personally was an expert in the field, depending on what it was, and I thought a procedure needed to be changed, I would ask for it to be changed.

MR. NEUFELD: But if your deputies made recommendations to you, ultimately it would be your decision whether or not to implement those changes; is that correct?

MS. KESTLER: Umm, most of the time. Most of the time, they made their own changes because I don't need to be involved in every small change that's made in the division.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, let's talk about some of the larger changes. If you introduce a new program into the criminalistics laboratory and as a result of that, new procedures needed to be implemented as well, would that ultimately be a decision you would make as the manager of or as the director of that laboratory?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. KESTLER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MS. KESTLER: Thank you. Not necessarily every small detail, not--again, no. They might review them with me and then I would agree or disagree that we should go forth with the program.

[martin II]

Obviously you were wrong.

Lange, Phillips, and Vannatter were let into the house by Arnelle Simpson through the back door. All three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked that door. All three were wrong. Obviously they only thought Arnelle unlocked the door because Arnelle had keys in her hand. The fact that Arnelle opened that door means it had previously been unlocked. The fact that no warning beeps were heard when they entered that door means the house alarm was not on.

bobaugust

Bob

"Lange, Phillips, and Vannatter were let into the house by Arnelle Simpson "

Why do you think kato testified that he walked into a door with Arnell and the other cops when he was still talking to FURHMAN at his room when Arnell,Phillips.lang and vannater entered the house.imo

[martin II]

This is a quote from an interview with SImpson being interviewd by Celia Farber in Esquire magazine:
"Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would have been because I loved her very much, right?"
I have a link for this, although not one that explains much, not really a good link. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/02507
I believe that issue of the magazine was 1998 Jan, Feb or March.

The quote doesn't prove he is guilty, but it is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. Makes him sound like a psychopath.
As far as I could tell he expressed no remorse for treating her badly.

I have heard many people use that exact phase after the death of a loved one. i don't read the same negative meaning as you obviously do.
Some people grieve in public as fred does and others do so in private.
If one is seeking to turn every remark into something negative it is very easy to do. But i am not sure oj was or should have been concerned about how some though he should have grieved. I know i wouldn't.

[martin II]

MR. NEUFELD: Now, as the laboratory director of the criminalistics laboratory of the Los Angeles Police Department, did you have day-to-day management responsibilities for the various units within that criminalistics laboratory?

MS. KESTLER: I had overall management responsibility for the laboratory, not day-to-day responsibilities. For day-to-day functions within the laboratories, no.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And in that criminalistics laboratory, you would have management responsibilities for the crime scene investigation unit?

MS. KESTLER: Ultimate management responsibility. Again, not day to day.

MR. NEUFELD: And you would have ultimate management responsibility for the serology unit?
*
*MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Kestler, didn't you play a larger role in the Simpson case than in other cases because of certain staffing problems with regard to Mr. Matheson being the only deputy you had?

MS. KESTLER: He was the only supervisor in charge of the serology, DNA and trace unit. So yes, I played a little larger role than I usually do.

MR. NEUFELD: Larger role in this case than you usually do?

MS. KESTLER: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: That's correct. Okay.

MS. KESTLER: And it wasn't just Mr. Matheson. It was just our lack of staffing in several areas.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you--isn't it true that the reason was not because of other staffing, but because there was no assistant laboratory director besides Mr. Matheson? Isn't that the reason?

MS. KESTLER: No. Mr. Matheson wasn't the assistant lab director at that time. He was the supervisor of the serology, DNA unit and Mr. Johnson was the assistant laboratory director.

MR. NEUFELD: On August 1st, 1995, were you asked this question, did you give this answer at a hearing outside the presence of the jury in this courtroom under oath?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. May I?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. DARDEN: No objection.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked this question, did you give this answer? "Question: In this particular case, did you play a role in overseeing the processing and handling of the case? "Answer: I was attempting to assist in that process because at this time, Mr. Matheson--there was no assistant laboratory director. So I played a little larger role than I normally would." Did you give that answer to that question just two weeks ago?

MS. KESTLER: Two weeks ago?

MR. NEUFELD: On August 1st, 1995?

MS. KESTLER: No. I was the only--I was referring to myself as being--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. I would move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked that question, did you give that answer?

MS. KESTLER: Well, I said that, but I was referring to myself as the only assistant laboratory director at the time. I don't know--I don't remember what that was referring to. Is it out of context?"



MS. KESTLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And for the hair and fiber unit?

MS. KESTLER: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And for the DNA unit?

MS. KESTLER: Yes. Well, DNA and serology are all one unit actually.

MR. NEUFELD: And how many criminalists were working for the criminalistics laboratory on June 12th of 1994 approximately?

MS. KESTLER: Uh, I can't recall exactly, we had so many vacancies. Probably about--I believe at that time, we were down to about 40 staff members, but that's approximate.

MR. NEUFELD: And was another one of your responsibilities, Miss Kestler, the evaluation of current programs and procedures of those units?

MS. KESTLER: Ultimately, yes. Not day to day again, not until they're approved all the way up through the chain.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, and if the procedures in a particular unit were inadequate, you would have ultimate responsibility to make improvements in those units, wouldn't you?

MS. KESTLER: I would suggest and listen to my supervisors, and if I personally was an expert in the field, depending on what it was, and I thought a procedure needed to be changed, I would ask for it to be changed.

MR. NEUFELD: But if your deputies made recommendations to you, ultimately it would be your decision whether or not to implement those changes; is that correct?

MS. KESTLER: Umm, most of the time. Most of the time, they made their own changes because I don't need to be involved in every small change that's made in the division.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, let's talk about some of the larger changes. If you introduce a new program into the criminalistics laboratory and as a result of that, new procedures needed to be implemented as well, would that ultimately be a decision you would make as the manager of or as the director of that laboratory?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. KESTLER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MS. KESTLER: Thank you. Not necessarily every small detail, not--again, no. They might review them with me and then I would agree or disagree that we should go forth with the program.

If she had 40 staff members available why did she send a brand new inexprienced person to collect evidence in what they called a major murder case. AM

I bet before this case KESTLER was acting like to big boss of everything.When the stuff hit the fan she was not incharge of nothing but maby ordering test tubes foir the lab.Thats funny.

[martin II]

Obviously you were wrong.

Lange, Phillips, and Vannatter were let into the house by Arnelle Simpson through the back door. All three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked that door. All three were wrong. Obviously they only thought Arnelle unlocked the door because Arnelle had keys in her hand. The fact that Arnelle opened that door means it had previously been unlocked. The fact that no warning beeps were heard when they entered that door means the house alarm was not on.

bobaugust

wrong again.

[William Anthony]

Bob

"Lange, Phillips, and Vannatter were let into the house by Arnelle Simpson "

Why do you think kato testified that he walked into a door with Arnell and the other cops when he was still talking to FURHMAN at his room when Arnell,Phillips.lang and vannater entered the house.imo

IMHO, Kato lied.

[William Anthony]

If she had 40 staff members available why did she send a brand new inexprienced person to collect evidence in what they called a major murder case. AM

I bet before this case KESTLER was acting like to big boss of everything.When the stuff hit the fan she was not incharge of nothing but maby ordering test tubes foir the lab.Thats funny.

Yes sir, IMHO, she lied.

[GreenIce]

Obviously you were wrong.

Lange, Phillips, and Vannatter were let into the house by Arnelle Simpson through the back door. All three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked that door. All three were wrong. Obviously they only thought Arnelle unlocked the door because Arnelle had keys in her hand. The fact that Arnelle opened that door means it had previously been unlocked. The fact that no warning beeps were heard when they entered that door means the house alarm was not on.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Lange also testified he did not hear Phillips and/or Fuhrman tell about prior DV calls regarding the Simpson.

Lange, Phillips and Vanatter did not hear what Arnelle had told them regarding the where abouts of her father.

It appears to me that the detectives were only going to hear what they wanted to hear and see what they wanted to see. The fact that they now claim that they never heard the alarm being turned off means nothing.

However, you may be right, the alarm may have been turned off but it may have been turned by Westec before they even went to Arnelle's. Remember, they were in a panic to get inside the house. I am sure between the two Westec personnel, at least one of them new the code.

Also, not one detective testified to not hearing the alarm being turned off. Not one detective through the DA's challenged Arnelle's actions or movements. Not one detective testified they thought it was strange that Arnelle was now saying they entered the front of the house when they entered the back of the house.

Clark never went after Arnelle and pointed this out to the jury.

Bottom line, by the time Arnelle took the stand, everbody already knew the detectives have lied. And I do mean everybody. A majority think the lies told were done for the interest of justice. However, I disagree.

You have no proof that the alarm was turned on by Kato any more then you have proof that Arnelle did not turn the alarm off. As you have so often noted that after the thumps, Kato was so scared he barely could function and therefore should be be dinged for any mistakes he made.

And it will only be a matter of time before you accuse Kato being in Simpson's camp so he slanted his testimony toward Simpson. You can't have it both ways.

Also, Martin, William and I have asked for a link to the communication between Arnelle and her father that instructed her to do into the main house.

You have yet to provided a single state witness who testified to the contents of the washing machine and the condition of the contents.

You have yet to explain why garments in the hamper were laid out and a picture was taken but not the contents of the washing machine.

You also totally ignore that VA wrote the second search warrant with Clark and that warrant does not confirm any sweat suit, let alone where it was allegedly seen.

In Lange and Vanatter's book, where do they write about the sweat suit? Where do they confirm where it is?

[martin II]

IMHO, Kato lied.

I have lost track on how many times.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Lange also testified he did not hear Phillips and/or Fuhrman tell about prior DV calls regarding the Simpson.

Lange, Phillips and Vanatter did not hear what Arnelle had told them regarding the where abouts of her father.

It appears to me that the detectives were only going to hear what they wanted to hear and see what they wanted to see. The fact that they now claim that they never heard the alarm being turned off means nothing.

However, you may be right, the alarm may have been turned off but it may have been turned by Westec before they even went to Arnelle's. Remember, they were in a panic to get inside the house. I am sure between the two Westec personnel, at least one of them new the code.

Also, not one detective testified to not hearing the alarm being turned off. Not one detective through the DA's challenged Arnelle's actions or movements. Not one detective testified they thought it was strange that Arnelle was now saying they entered the front of the house when they entered the back of the house.

Clark never went after Arnelle and pointed this out to the jury.

Bottom line, by the time Arnelle took the stand, everbody already knew the detectives have lied. And I do mean everybody. A majority think the lies told were done for the interest of justice. However, I disagree.

You have no proof that the alarm was turned on by Kato any more then you have proof that Arnelle did not turn the alarm off. As you have so often noted that after the thumps, Kato was so scared he barely could function and therefore should be be dinged for any mistakes he made.

And it will only be a matter of time before you accuse Kato being in Simpson's camp so he slanted his testimony toward Simpson. You can't have it both ways.

Also, Martin, William and I have asked for a link to the communication between Arnelle and her father that instructed her to do into the main house.

You have yet to provided a single state witness who testified to the contents of the washing machine and the condition of the contents.

You have yet to explain why garments in the hamper were laid out and a picture was taken but not the contents of the washing machine.

You also totally ignore that VA wrote the second search warrant with Clark and that warrant does not confirm any sweat suit, let alone where it was allegedly seen.

In Lange and Vanatter's book, where do they write about the sweat suit? Where do they confirm where it is?


Thanks for those truths.

[martin II]

William GI

In light of all the lies being pointed out by prosecution witnesses, some are talking about oj did not show enough grieving and some nonexistant phone call.:cool:

[GreenIce]

If she had 40 staff members available why did she send a brand new inexprienced person to collect evidence in what they called a major murder case. AM

I bet before this case KESTLER was acting like to big boss of everything.When the stuff hit the fan she was not incharge of nothing but maby ordering test tubes foir the lab.Thats funny.

Martin,

Michelle Kestler is also married to a member of the LAPD. And I think he holds a high rank. Maybe a Lt?

Again, another key point, Kestler was not called in the DA's case-in-chief, she was called by the defense. I am still trying hard why she allowed her people to be destroyed on the stand.

Of course, it probably was very difficult for her to admit how she did not look at the socks under the correct lighting, why she had such a negative attitude toward Henry Lee and why did she collected the blood in the Bronco on the 3rd visit.

[GreenIce]

I have lost track on how many times.

Martin,

How many of Kato's lies benefited OJ Simpson? I'll take your top three!

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

Who mopped the laundry room floor?:);):cool:

William,

The person who had the wet socks? Or the person who left their fingerprints on the mop?

[fgump2]

William,

I agree, there is not phone calls between Simpson and his daughter or anyone else after the one he called Kato to set the alarm. I have always found it odd that if Simpson was the killer, why he never made a phone call to Kato or Arnelle that night after he arrived in Chicago. Like to try to find out how far the cops were behind him? A phone call from Chicago might add some suspicion.

Also, if the LAPD honestly thought those dark items in the washing machine were wet dark clothes, they would not have asked the maid or Arnelle about them months later during the defense's case-in-chief. They would have asked the detectives or the other cops about them.

I don't how it started but wasn't it Fung who supposedly took these sweats out the washing and saw no blood on them so he put them back? IMO, it appears to me that neither Clark or Vanatter were convinced how and when the dark clothes got into the washing machine.

Since Clark helped write the second search warrant, don't you think she would really tried to follow this up with other witness besides the one witness she hated so much, you feel it even while watching it on TV? IMO, not using Brad Roberts is a huge, huge telling point. Maybe they didn't know what he say so they decided not to use him?
I must admit I haven't read much lately about the sweats in the washing machine. Years ago I read enough to be convinced that the Rockingham inhabitants (plus Cathy Randa or whatever her name was) hid some evidence. Maybe I will go over that again.
As for not knowing was Brad Roberts would say - I don't agree. The usual thing is that the lawyers on both sides ask the witnesses in advance so they know what the witnesses will say. I think the disposition is put on tape which protects the lawyers from a nasty surprise, for example a cop saying one thing in the out of court dispositon, and another in th court room.
You read to much into the DA's not calling witnesses into court. The trial lasted 9 months and would have taken longer if the DA's had called every witness that might add some information. I think the jury was getting very tired and bored at the end.

[tv]

I think you are dragging red herrings across the trail.

fg2, it's my opinion that without red herrings the defense has nothing. The wild speculation from the defense in both trials had nothing factual to back it up. The power of suggestion worked with the criminal jury but failed miserably with the civil trial jury.

Do you think the criminal verdict would have been the same if Simpson's lying testimony had been a part of the trial?

[GreenIce]

I must admit I haven't read much lately about the sweats in the washing machine. Years ago I read enough to be convinced that the Rockingham inhabitants (plus Cathy Randa or whatever her name was) hid some evidence. Maybe I will go over that again.
As for not knowing was Brad Roberts would say - I don't agree. The usual thing is that the lawyers on both sides ask the witnesses in advance so they know what the witnesses will say. I think the disposition is put on tape which protects the lawyers from a nasty surprise, for example a cop saying one thing in the out of court dispositon, and another in th court room.
You read to much into the DA's not calling witnesses into court. The trial lasted 9 months and would have taken longer if the DA's had called every witness that might add some information. I think the jury was getting very tired and bored at the end.

fgump2,

Cathy Randa was not allowed into Rockingham for how many hours? Now, even if you can prove that Cathy Randa destroyed evidence that had a direct link to the crime, you again fail to place the blame where it should be and that is with the ones who wrote the search warrant, who executed the warrant and who was responsible for overseeing the evidence that was collected.

The DA's failed to call three major witnesses that were directly involved with the evidence. The nurse, Michelle Kestler and Roger Martz. If the one DA could spend 8 days on direct with Dr. L and not call Dr. Golden, the man who performed the actual autopsy, please don't say they were worried about the stamina of the jury. In fact, they dragged the case out so long, they were hoping for a mistrial.

Had the DA's called Roberts, they would not have had to call MF to the stand. They could have let the defense call MF, just like Kestler, Martz and the nurse.

[fgump2]

I have heard many people use that exact phase after the death of a loved one. i don't read the same negative meaning as you obviously do.
Some people grieve in public as fred does and others do so in private.
If one is seeking to turn every remark into something negative it is very easy to do. But i am not sure oj was or should have been concerned about how some though he should have grieved. I know i wouldn't.

I have never heard anyone use this phrase. Does this mean you know many people who have had loved ones murdered? To me it sounds deranged. i think that concluding that Simpson is probably guilty on the basis of his statements is very reasonable.

The quote that bothered me is another case which it would be interesting to get some fresh minds to look at the evidence. For example teenagers from a country in which this case never got much coverage.

Another Orenthal behavior that points at guilt is that because in the 1995 trial Simpson showed more anger at the Goldmans, than he did at Fuhrman and the other detectives. By anger I mean dirty looks. This was noticed in the newspapers, but not by the jury. Of course the fact that after the acquittal he made far more angry remarks about the Goldmans than he did about Fuhrman is another sign of guilt.

As for guilty behavior and lack of remorse being an odd reason to convict someone, lots of people have been convicted of murder in part because their behavior was regarded as more consistent with guilt than with innocence.

[tv]

I must admit I haven't read much lately about the sweats in the washing machine. Years ago I read enough to be convinced that the Rockingham inhabitants (plus Cathy Randa or whatever her name was) hid some evidence. Maybe I will go over that again.
As for not knowing was Brad Roberts would say - I don't agree. The usual thing is that the lawyers on both sides ask the witnesses in advance so they know what the witnesses will say. I think the disposition is put on tape which protects the lawyers from a nasty surprise, for example a cop saying one thing in the out of court dispositon, and another in th court room.
You read to much into the DA's not calling witnesses into court. The trial lasted 9 months and would have taken longer if the DA's had called every witness that might add some information. I think the jury was getting very tired and bored at the end.There were witnesses the defense said they would call that they didn't. Mary Ann Gerchas (not sure of the spelling) is one example. Cathy Randa shredded some documents but I don't recall what they were exactly. It's in Petrocelli's book.

I do think the jury was bored -- imo most of them had made up their minds at the beginning of the trial and they stopped listening. Some of them had no idea what the most important evidence against Simspon was -- for example, that his blood was on the Rockingham glove. They were also under the misconception that Simpson's blood matched Andrea Mazzola's blood.

[fgump2]

fg2, it's my opinion that without red herrings the defense has nothing. The wild speculation from the defense in both trials had nothing factual to back it up. The power of suggestion worked with the criminal jury but failed miserably with the civil trial jury.

Do you think the criminal verdict would have been the same if Simpson's lying testimony had been a part of the trial?

I think he would have been convicted if the DAs had put on the farewell note from the bronco chase, and the statement to the cops on the day after. I am really not sure how much of that could be called lies, but it would have helped convict him.

[tv]

I have never heard anyone use this phrase. Does this mean you know many people who have had loved ones murdered? To me it sounds deranged. i think that concluding that Simpson is probably guilty on the basis of his statements is very reasonable.

The quote that bothered me is another case which it would be interesting to get some fresh minds to look at the evidence. For example teenagers from a country in which this case never got much coverage.

Another Orenthal behavior that points at guilt is that because in the 1995 trial Simpson showed more anger at the Goldmans, than he did at Fuhrman and the other detectives. By anger I mean dirty looks. This was noticed in the newspapers, but not by the jury. Of course the fact that after the acquittal he made far more angry remarks about the Goldmans than he did about Fuhrman is another sign of guilt.

As for guilty behavior and lack of remorse being an odd reason to convict someone, lots of people have been convicted of murder in part because their behavior was regarded as more consistent with guilt than with innocence.

I'm not saying that Simpson has never said anything against Mark Fuhrman but in all the extensive reading about this case and numerous interviews I've watched of him I've never seen or heard it. If he has said anything against him it's been minimal. When Simpson blames the LAPD I'm sure that includes Fuhrman but I've never seen him single Fuhrman out.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

Cathy Randa was not allowed into Rockingham for how many hours? Now, even if you can prove that Cathy Randa destroyed evidence that had a direct link to the crime, you again fail to place the blame where it should be and that is with the ones who wrote the search warrant, who executed the warrant and who was responsible for overseeing the evidence that was collected.

The DA's failed to call three major witnesses that were directly involved with the evidence. The nurse, Michelle Kestler and Roger Martz. If the one DA could spend 8 days on direct with Dr. L and not call Dr. Golden, the man who performed the actual autopsy, please don't say they were worried about the stamina of the jury. In fact, they dragged the case out so long, they were hoping for a mistrial.

Had the DA's called Roberts, they would not have had to call MF to the stand. They could have let the defense call MF, just like Kestler, Martz and the nurse.
I think the DA's wantead Fuhrman because he found a glove at Rockingham.
Petrocelli's theory is that Randa may have been at Rockingham before the cops got there. He also wrote that Arnelli may have cleaned up. Somehow a set of black sweats disappeared.

[GreenIce]

I think you are dragging red herrings across the trail.

fgump2,

No, they are not red herrings. They are obvious questions that the DA's could not answer. They are logical questions. If you have a glove that was said to be soaked with blood, on both sides, asking why there is no blood underneath is a fair question. Saying that Simpson dripped blood from his Bronco into his front door but did not drip any when the glove was allegedly dropped first, is a very fair question.

Also, you forget that the defense did do experiments and the drying time of the glove was not only a fair issue, it was never disputed by the DA's that the glove should not have been dried.

It appears to me that any challenge by the defense were "red herrings" and if you truly feel that way, then IMO, you appear to believe that no trials should take place that the person accused should go to jail and that is the end of it.

In the motions written by the Plaintiffs made it clear that the rules of evidence that apply in a criminal trial do not apply in a civil trial and he took full advantage of it. IMO.

[tv]

I think he would have been convicted if the DAs had put on the farewell note from the bronco chase, and the statement to the cops on the day after. I am really not sure how much of that could be called lies, but it would have helped convict him.

I think the majority of the jurors were very biased in his favor but it's possible in my mind that they would have convicted with these other items of evidence. The note and his statement would have given them more insight into his contradictory excuses. His farewell note contained very little about Nicole. It was mostly a pity party for himself and imo put him in a bad light. Not to mention that he named all his wealthy friends in it. Very narcissistic to me.

[GreenIce]

I think the DA's wantead Fuhrman because he found a glove at Rockingham.
Petrocelli's theory is that Randa may have been at Rockingham before the cops got there. He also wrote that Arnelli may have cleaned up. Somehow a set of black sweats disappeared.

fgump2,

The DA's knew months before the actual trial that there were problems with the glove and there were problems with MF. However, in all fairness to the DA's, I do believe MF held them hostage and IMO, they did not want to use him but he had them. Which is proven on the tapes.

The police were at Rockingham and were ordered not to let any one in. I believe may have gone to Rockingham but she was not allowed in. There is no way the police would have allowed any one into the house until they had finished with the search warrant.

There is no proof that sweat suit was even at Rockingham and this is explained in the second search warrant. As posted before, please provide a link where any state witness testified to seeing a dark wet sweat suit and by that I mean a member of the LAPD.

However, in at least two books, it is said that a sweat suit was found and apparently rust was found on them--not blood. If there was a sweat suit in the contents of the washing machine they would have been collected if it was a man's sweat suit. The other contents in the washing machine were whites or lights clothes and appeared to be mosty underwear. The black clothes stuck out like a sore thumb---so why weren't they collected?

Petrocelli made a lot of accusations that he could not back up. If he could back up his comments then Arnelle would have been arrested. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I think he would have been convicted if the DAs had put on the farewell note from the bronco chase, and the statement to the cops on the day after. I am really not sure how much of that could be called lies, but it would have helped convict him.

fgump2,

You have to remember something, we do not know everything about the Bronco chase. If the DA's introduced the Bronco chase, not only would AC Cowlings have testified but also all his conversations with other people would have been introduced.

In regards to his farewell note, I agree that it was powerful evidence against him, however, there has to be reasons why the DA's didn't use it. Also, he wrote two other letters and if the farewell note was introduced, so would the two other letters.

His statement to the police points more to his innocence rather then his guilt, the detectives knew this as well as the DA's. He said nothing that helped the DA's. If the evidence was so solid, then they would have introduced these items, IMO.

[tv]

I think he would have been convicted if the DAs had put on the farewell note from the bronco chase, and the statement to the cops on the day after. I am really not sure how much of that could be called lies, but it would have helped convict him.

I meant to add that the detectives were very disappointed that the Bronco chase and the farewell note weren't brought into evidence during the criminal trial. Not using them as evidence in the criminal trial was a big mistake in my opinion -- the plaintiffs used them because there was no reason for them to keep them out despite what some OJer's like to claim.

[GreenIce]

I think he would have been convicted if the DAs had put on the farewell note from the bronco chase, and the statement to the cops on the day after. I am really not sure how much of that could be called lies, but it would have helped convict him.

fgump2,

Have you ever considered that the DA's knew Simpson was not lying and that is why they did not introduce the note, the chase and his statement?

IMO, he made one very damning statement during the Bronco chase. Also, in his statement, he said that the last time he was at Nicole's was I think at least 10 days prior to the murders.

I think TV later makes a post about the detectives being disappointed that certain evidence wasn't introduced as did MF in his testimony and his book. The fact that the DA's did not use this "evidence" proves that they could not trust the evidence or the people they were going to use to introduce it.

However, some of the evidence that the detectives thought should have been introduced, IMO, was laughable--like the trash can at the airport. Like nobody was going to check them? Like nobody would have seen this bag in the trash?

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Michelle Kestler is also married to a member of the LAPD. And I think he holds a high rank. Maybe a Lt?

Again, another key point, Kestler was not called in the DA's case-in-chief, she was called by the defense. I am still trying hard why she allowed her people to be destroyed on the stand.

Of course, it probably was very difficult for her to admit how she did not look at the socks under the correct lighting, why she had such a negative attitude toward Henry Lee and why did she collected the blood in the Bronco on the 3rd visit.

Therefore, IMHO, she lied while testifying (hereninafter, testilying for short of IMHO X lied while testifying.)

[William Anthony]

William,

The person who had the wet socks? Or the person who left their fingerprints on the mop?

It must have been LE or where they too lazy to put up a sign saying danger wet floor?:);):cool:

[bobaugust]

"All three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked that door. All three were wrong. " You said Ms. Arnelle lied when she said she unlocked the door. Does that mean the detectives lied about what they saw?

No, I said Arnelle lied when she testified that after the police woke her up she led two detectives around the house to the front door and she turned off the alarm before letting them into the house. Three detectives were mistaken when they testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it and let them into the house. Evidently they only assumed or thought that she unlocked it since she had keys in her hand. They didn’t lie about this; there was no reason for them to lie. It was not anything significant at the time and none of them realized that the door Arnelle opened could only be locked or unlocked from the inside.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The testimony is what it is and should not be changed by us, IMHO. Are you saying that Phiillips told an additional lie?

The testimony is what it is. Phillips didn’t lie, he testified he was with Arnelle Simpson, Lange, and Vannatter when Arnelle opened the back door and let them into the house.

The problem here is Martin’s confusion and false claims referring to Wagner’s diagram that had the names of the rooms in Simpson’s house on it when in fact the prosecution exhibit that was used in court didn’t have any names of the rooms in Simpson’s house on it.

bobugust

[bobaugust]

In order for your scenario to fit, you must claim that "living room" meant something other than "living room" and that in your opinion Phillips lied.

This is not my scenario; this is what all three detectives testified they did, some in more detail than others. Phillips referred to the room they first walked through as the living room area. That name has absolutely nothing to do with the room Wagner labeled the “living room.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Lange also testified he did not hear Phillips and/or Fuhrman tell about prior DV calls regarding the Simpson.

Lange, Phillips and Vanatter did not hear what Arnelle had told them regarding the where abouts of her father.

It appears to me that the detectives were only going to hear what they wanted to hear and see what they wanted to see. The fact that they now claim that they never heard the alarm being turned off means nothing.

However, you may be right, the alarm may have been turned off but it may have been turned by Westec before they even went to Arnelle's. Remember, they were in a panic to get inside the house. I am sure between the two Westec personnel, at least one of them new the code.

Also, not one detective testified to not hearing the alarm being turned off. Not one detective through the DA's challenged Arnelle's actions or movements. Not one detective testified they thought it was strange that Arnelle was now saying they entered the front of the house when they entered the back of the house.

Clark never went after Arnelle and pointed this out to the jury.

Bottom line, by the time Arnelle took the stand, everbody already knew the detectives have lied. And I do mean everybody. A majority think the lies told were done for the interest of justice. However, I disagree.

You have no proof that the alarm was turned on by Kato any more then you have proof that Arnelle did not turn the alarm off. As you have so often noted that after the thumps, Kato was so scared he barely could function and therefore should be be dinged for any mistakes he made.

And it will only be a matter of time before you accuse Kato being in Simpson's camp so he slanted his testimony toward Simpson. You can't have it both ways.

Also, Martin, William and I have asked for a link to the communication between Arnelle and her father that instructed her to do into the main house.

You have yet to provided a single state witness who testified to the contents of the washing machine and the condition of the contents.

You have yet to explain why garments in the hamper were laid out and a picture was taken but not the contents of the washing machine.

You also totally ignore that VA wrote the second search warrant with Clark and that warrant does not confirm any sweat suit, let alone where it was allegedly seen.

In Lange and Vanatter's book, where do they write about the sweat suit? Where do they confirm where it is?

No Westec personnel entered Simpson’s estate that morning.

Kaelin testified that Simpson gave him the alarm code and instructions as to how to know when the alarm was turned on.

The back door Arnelle opened to let the detectives into the house had a sensor on it and warning beeps would sound when that door opened if the house alarm was on. Arnelle would have had to gone to a keypad to disarm it. There wasn’t a keypad near that door. None of the detectives heard any warning sounds nor did they see Arnelle go to any keypad.

A photograph made from the video tape of Simpson’s laundry room by “Prime Time Live” was published in Fuhrman’s book showing a dark colored sweat suit inside Simpson’s washing machine.

Mark Fuhrman wrote in his book, “On page A3 of the second search warrant, there is a section titled ‘Property To Be Seized,’ Listed are six items that a judge granted officers the right to enter Simpson’s house, search for, and collect.

4. black long sleeve cotton type sweat suit”


March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q AND THE CONTROL PAD WAS OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR?
A OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR.
Q AND YOU SET THE ALARM AT THAT TIME THEN?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU NOTICE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE LIGHT? YOU EARLIER INDICATED YOU SAW THAT THE ALARM LIGHT WAS GREEN. AFTER YOU SET IT, WHAT COLOR WAS IT?
A AFTER YOU SET IT, HE SAID TO WAIT A FEW SECONDS, AND THEN IT GOES RED. AND I WAITED UNTIL IT WAS RED. AND WHEN I WAS FINISHED WITH THAT, I WENT RIGHT BACK TO THE ROOM.

March 30, 1995 Sue Silva

A. THAT WAS THE ONE DOOR ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT IF SOMEONE WAS AT THE POOL AREA AND THE ALARM SYSTEM WAS SET, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ENTER THIS DOOR (INDICATING) AND HAVE A RINGING SOUND AND BE ABLE TO GO TO ONE OF THE KEYPADS AND DISARM IT.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I think you are dragging red herrings across the trail.

****The police found the glove around daybreak. There would have been dew at that time. I think the idea that there it should have looked dry is just a guess. I don't think there was any experimental evidence. The strange part is that many Orenthal apologists say that the OJS blood at Bundy could have come from a week earlier, even though Orenthal said he didn't bleed then, and that blood appeared shiny, that is new..fgump2's response

- I am pretty sure that there was no examination for blood under the glove - so maybe it is WA who lied. Even if there was an examination, I don' t think that proves planting. Maybe there wasn't much blood on the side of the glove touching the ground. I don't think there is any experimental evidence that there should have been blood under the glove.-Fgump 2's response.

--- The fact that there was no evidence that someone climbed the fence is not the same as saying there was evidence than nobody climbed the fence.
Fgump 2's response.

"My original post
Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
If MF was not allowed to be called to say that he expected to find someone bleeding, then how could the defense show evidence of the missing blood trail. We now know that, IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

The evidence of the glove appearing moist is evidence of the time the glove could have been deposited. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

The evidence of when the glove could have been deposited is a question of fact for the jury to determine. The significance of the lack of cobwebs and lack of dirt was evidence for the jury to consider as to when the glove was deposited. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

There should have been blood under the glove if the glove covered in blood to the degree it appeared shiny. The fact that there was no blood found under the glove is evidence of when and how the glove was deposited, placed as opposed to dropped. IMHO, Petrocelli lied.

The fact that there is no evidence that anyone climbed the fence is evidence that Simpson did not and that the blood was planted when taken into consideration with all the evidence pertaining to this glove. IMHO, Petrocelli lied. "

The evidence is that the glove looked shiny when first observed, which led to the inference that it had been carried to the scene in a plastic bag and the evidence of no disturbance back where the glove was found or anyone climbing the fence is evidence that the prosecution lacked evidence to prove their theory of the case, since the prosecution had the burden of proof.

Perhaps, you did not understand that the statement about no blood found under the glove was taken from Petrocelli's argument to the defense's claim. In any event, I resent your person attack.

As far as you last statement, I, again, remind you of the evidence and the burden of proof. I see that you want to say, because there was no evidence that someone did, we can say there is not evidence that some one did not. This is the same losing logic the prosecution used, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

fg2, it's my opinion that without red herrings the defense has nothing. The wild speculation from the defense in both trials had nothing factual to back it up. The power of suggestion worked with the criminal jury but failed miserably with the civil trial jury.

Do you think the criminal verdict would have been the same if Simpson's lying testimony had been a part of the trial?

We know whose lying testimonies, IMHO, were part of the criminal trial and what that verdict was. I think the power of suggestion worked quite well with the jury in the socio political production in that the judge made another telling statement about even though Simpson was acquitted, he could "still be found liable." You see the power of suggestion in that, don't you? I think an impartial judge would have said, do not let the fact that Simpson was acquitted concern you as your task is to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether or not Simpson is liable or not liable as it relates to the torts he is accused hereof.

[William Anthony]

There were witnesses the defense said they would call that they didn't. Mary Ann Gerchas (not sure of the spelling) is one example. Cathy Randa shredded some documents but I don't recall what they were exactly. It's in Petrocelli's book.

I do think the jury was bored -- imo most of them had made up their minds at the beginning of the trial and they stopped listening. Some of them had no idea what the most important evidence against Simspon was -- for example, that his blood was on the Rockingham glove. They were also under the misconception that Simpson's blood matched Andrea Mazzola's blood.

It's in Petrocelli's book. Enough said. IMHO, Petrocelli lied. I think that staged ex-parte video in which the nurse tried to claim he did not know how much blood he took from Simpson but amazing remembered almost a year later it was less cinched it for that sophisticated, imho, jury. IMHO, in case I have not previously said this. IMHO, the nurse testilied via the staged ex-parte video.

[William Anthony]

I think he would have been convicted if the DAs had put on the farewell note from the bronco chase, and the statement to the cops on the day after. I am really not sure how much of that could be called lies, but it would have helped convict him.

I think a person can call say anyone lied or call anything a lie as long as the person says in their opinion.

[William Anthony]

I think the DA's wantead Fuhrman because he found a glove at Rockingham.
Petrocelli's theory is that Randa may have been at Rockingham before the cops got there. He also wrote that Arnelli may have cleaned up. Somehow a set of black sweats disappeared.

Petrocelli's theory. Enough said. "May have":). IMHO, Petrocelli lied. :);):cool:

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9219252]I have never heard anyone use this phrase. Does this mean you know many people who have had loved ones murdered? To me it sounds deranged. i think that concluding that Simpson is probably guilty on the basis of his statements is very reasonable.

The quote that bothered me is another case which it would be interesting to get some fresh minds to look at the evidence. For example teenagers from a country in which this case never got much coverage.

Another Orenthal behavior that points at guilt is that because in the 1995 trial Simpson showed more anger at the Goldmans, than he did at Fuhrman and the other detectives. By anger I mean dirty looks. This was noticed in the newspapers, but not by the jury. Of course the fact that after the acquittal he made far more angry remarks about the Goldmans than he did about Fuhrman is another sign of guilt.

As for guilty behavior and lack of remorse being an odd reason to convict someone, lots of people have been convicted of murder in part because their behavior was regarded as more consistent with guilt than with innocence.[/QUOT


i have heard that phase no more or no less than people that pay attention to
media murder reports. i have met very few people that take the position of setting the standard of how others should grieve and i take issue with your
claim that you have the ability to do so.

I don't understand the balance of what you are trying to say.

[martin II]

The fact that mf found a glove is not proof of how put it there. The fact that three detectvies testified that no one jumped the fense and there was no evidense found to prove that someone jumped the fence means that no one including oj jumped the fense and put that glove there.
It was very easy that a person could have just tossed the glove to where it was found or carried it to where it was found and then found it.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9219252]I have never heard anyone use this phrase. Does this mean you know many people who have had loved ones murdered? To me it sounds deranged. i think that concluding that Simpson is probably guilty on the basis of his statements is very reasonable.

The quote that bothered me is another case which it would be interesting to get some fresh minds to look at the evidence. For example teenagers from a country in which this case never got much coverage.

Another Orenthal behavior that points at guilt is that because in the 1995 trial Simpson showed more anger at the Goldmans, than he did at Fuhrman and the other detectives. By anger I mean dirty looks. This was noticed in the newspapers, but not by the jury. Of course the fact that after the acquittal he made far more angry remarks about the Goldmans than he did about Fuhrman is another sign of guilt.

As for guilty behavior and lack of remorse being an odd reason to convict someone, lots of people have been convicted of murder in part because their behavior was regarded as more consistent with guilt than with innocence.[/QUOT


i have heard that phase no more or no less than people that pay attention to
media murder reports. i have met very few people that take the position of setting the standard of how others should grieve and i take issue with your
claim that you have the ability to do so.

I don't understand the balance of what you are trying to say.

As I understand his/her position, he/she would like children from another country to discredit what the adult criminal jury did, since he/she believes Simpson is guilty, despite the verdict.

[martin II]

fgump2,

Have you ever considered that the DA's knew Simpson was not lying and that is why they did not introduce the note, the chase and his statement?

IMO, he made one very damning statement during the Bronco chase. Also, in his statement, he said that the last time he was at Nicole's was I think at least 10 days prior to the murders.

I think TV later makes a post about the detectives being disappointed that certain evidence wasn't introduced as did MF in his testimony and his book. The fact that the DA's did not use this "evidence" proves that they could not trust the evidence or the people they were going to use to introduce it.

However, some of the evidence that the detectives thought should have been introduced, IMO, was laughable--like the trash can at the airport. Like nobody was going to check them? Like nobody would have seen this bag in the trash?

Le searched the trash cans at the terminal where oj was and found no bags.
No one testified that oj put a bag in any trash can.

[martin II]

No Westec personnel entered Simpson’s estate that morning.

Kaelin testified that Simpson gave him the alarm code and instructions as to how to know when the alarm was turned on.

The back door Arnelle opened to let the detectives into the house had a sensor on it and warning beeps would sound when that door opened if the house alarm was on. Arnelle would have had to gone to a keypad to disarm it. There wasn’t a keypad near that door. None of the detectives heard any warning sounds nor did they see Arnelle go to any keypad.

A photograph made from the video tape of Simpson’s laundry room by “Prime Time Live” was published in Fuhrman’s book showing a dark colored sweat suit inside Simpson’s washing machine.

Mark Fuhrman wrote in his book, “On page A3 of the second search warrant, there is a section titled ‘Property To Be Seized,’ Listed are six items that a judge granted officers the right to enter Simpson’s house, search for, and collect.

4. black long sleeve cotton type sweat suit”


March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q AND THE CONTROL PAD WAS OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR?
A OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR.
Q AND YOU SET THE ALARM AT THAT TIME THEN?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU NOTICE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE LIGHT? YOU EARLIER INDICATED YOU SAW THAT THE ALARM LIGHT WAS GREEN. AFTER YOU SET IT, WHAT COLOR WAS IT?
A AFTER YOU SET IT, HE SAID TO WAIT A FEW SECONDS, AND THEN IT GOES RED. AND I WAITED UNTIL IT WAS RED. AND WHEN I WAS FINISHED WITH THAT, I WENT RIGHT BACK TO THE ROOM.

March 30, 1995 Sue Silva

A. THAT WAS THE ONE DOOR ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT IF SOMEONE WAS AT THE POOL AREA AND THE ALARM SYSTEM WAS SET, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ENTER THIS DOOR (INDICATING) AND HAVE A RINGING SOUND AND BE ABLE TO GO TO ONE OF THE KEYPADS AND DISARM IT.

bobaugust

Dark clothing inside a washing machine is not proof that it was sweats

[martin II]

No, I said Arnelle lied when she testified that after the police woke her up she led two detectives around the house to the front door and she turned off the alarm before letting them into the house. Three detectives were mistaken when they testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it and let them into the house. Evidently they only assumed or thought that she unlocked it since she had keys in her hand. They didn’t lie about this; there was no reason for them to lie. It was not anything significant at the time and none of them realized that the door Arnelle opened could only be locked or unlocked from the inside.

bobaugust

When the detectives testimony does not fit what you think happened you say they were mistaken.They didn't think so,

[William Anthony]

dark clothing inside a washing machine is not proof that it was sweats

wth? where is the affidavit attached to the warrant and what did MF, big grin, claim it said, to be seized from the washing machine, to be seized from anyplace we can find one? What does this do to jill shively's story about seeing simpson's bare arm?

[William Anthony]

When the detectives testimony does not fit what you think happened you say they were mistaken.They didn't think so,

The theory is that MS. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door but the detectives said the same thing. I have asked and never got an answer to the question does this mean the detectives lied or are, for some reason, because they are in some manner different from Ms. Arnelle, simply mistaken.

[martin II]

I have never heard anyone use this phrase. Does this mean you know many people who have had loved ones murdered? To me it sounds deranged. i think that concluding that Simpson is probably guilty on the basis of his statements is very reasonable.

The quote that bothered me is another case which it would be interesting to get some fresh minds to look at the evidence. For example teenagers from a country in which this case never got much coverage.

Another Orenthal behavior that points at guilt is that because in the 1995 trial Simpson showed more anger at the Goldmans, than he did at Fuhrman and the other detectives. By anger I mean dirty looks. This was noticed in the newspapers, but not by the jury. Of course the fact that after the acquittal he made far more angry remarks about the Goldmans than he did about Fuhrman is another sign of guilt.

As for guilty behavior and lack of remorse being an odd reason to convict someone, lots of people have been convicted of murder in part because their behavior was regarded as more consistent with guilt than with innocence.

After the verdict fred stood on the court house steps and made a profanity laced loud attack on oj and the defense team. Most fair minded people dissagreed with his actions and based on what he said i see no reason why you think oj should have not been angry or at least up set.i have read nothing where oj showed any anger at fred so i take that as a red herring tossed into the discussion by you.

Fred made these type comments daily when ever he found a microphone.Some thought he was trying to talk to the jury

[martin II]

The theory is that MS. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door but the detectives said the same thing. I have asked and never got an answer to the question does this mean the detectives lied or are, for some reason, because they are in some manner different from Ms. Arnelle, simply mistaken.

It shows a anger at the results of the testimony about how they got into the house as it breaks the back of the washing machine argument which destroys the phone call and tosses out where those fibers came from.Cochran and his team knew this.The whole house of cards fell to the floor.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
Here are the reasons given by Petrocelli for plaintiff Fred Goldman regarding the reason the 'glove was planted' theory shouldn't come in -- I think it's interesting and convincing --

1. "[T]here was no blood trail leading to where [the glove] was found." This is probative of nothing, because there is no evidence to suggest that there would have been such a trail if Simpson dropped the glove.

2. The glove "appeared to be moist when it was found in the morning." This is probative of nothing, because there is no evidence to suggest that the | glove would not have been moist if it was left by Simpson the previous night. Moreover, this contention ignores the undisputed fact that tests showed that the surface | of the glove contained the blood of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson. Fuhrman could not possibly have placed Simpson's blood there, because Simpson did not give a blood sample until the afternoon of June 13 -- after the glove had been collected by criminalists. Simpson has no evidence -- only wild, unsupported speculation - that some unspecified person added Simpson's blood to the glove after it was booked into evidence but before it was subjected to any testing.

3. The glove "did not have any dirt, plant materials, cobwebs, or other indicia that it had been at that location for a lengthy period of time." Again, Simpson offers no evidence that the glove would have been covered with dirt, cobwebs, or "plant materials" if he had dropped it the night before.

4. "There was no evidence of blood on the ground under the glove." Again, this evidence has no probative value, because Simpson offers no evidence that there would have been blood on the ground under the glove if Simpson had dropped it the night before.

5. "There was no evidence that anyone could have or did climb over the fence in the area where the item was found." Simpson does not explain what such "evidence" would be or why it would exist if Simpson had killed Ron and Nicole. The asserted lack of such evidence does not tend in reason to prove that the glove was~ planted. --

You see it was not my claim but that of Petrocelli attributed to him by another poster. So, I respectfully request an apology for this portion of this post.

- I am pretty sure that there was no examination for blood under the glove - so maybe it is WA who lied. Even if there was an examination, I don' t think that proves planting. Maybe there wasn't much blood on the side of the glove touching the ground. I don't think there is any experimental evidence that there should have been blood under the glove.-Fgump 2's response.

[William Anthony]

It shows a anger at the results of the testimony about how they got into the house as it breaks the back of the washing machine argument which destroys the phone call and tosses out where those fibers came from.Cochran and his team knew this.The whole house of cards fell to the floor.

The prosecution did not even have a deck of cards let alone a house to put the deck on, IMHO.

[martin II]

wth? where is the affidavit attached to the warrant and what did MF, big grin, claim it said, to be seized from the washing machine, to be seized from anyplace we can find one? What does this do to jill shively's story about seeing simpson's bare arm?

It means Jill S lied also and M Clarke said so also.

[William Anthony]

It means Jill S lied also and M Clarke said so also.

IMHO, either the one's claiming to have seen a long sleeve dark colored sweatshirt or Ms. Shively lied or all.

[weezer]

I meant to add that the detectives were very disappointed that the Bronco chase and the farewell note weren't brought into evidence during the criminal trial. Not using them as evidence in the criminal trial was a big mistake in my opinion -- the plaintiffs used them because there was no reason for them to keep them out despite what some OJer's like to claim.

I don't think the chase and/or the note was going to make any difference with the criminal jury. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I don't think the chase and/or the note was going to make any difference with the criminal jury. :shrug:

I agree as they were more interested in relevant material probative evidence.

[martin II]

I don't think the chase and/or the note was going to make any difference with the criminal jury. :shrug:

The prosecution thought they were trowaway stuff.Not worth talking about. The jury was waiting for proof of the charges not a car ride.

[tv]

I don't think the chase and/or the note was going to make any difference with the criminal jury. :shrug:

You're probably right. I'll always believe they didn't even listen to most of the prosecution's case anyway. It's my opinion that the majority of them didn't fulfill their obligation as jurors -- certainly paying attention would be at the top of the list of their duties.

[weezer]

You're probably right. I'll always believe they didn't even listen to most of the prosecution's case anyway. It's my opinion that the majority of them didn't fulfill their obligation as jurors -- certainly paying attention would be at the top of the list of their duties.

well, the criminal jury couldn't get it right but the rest of America did. :patriot: :beer:

[William Anthony]

You're probably right. I'll always believe they didn't even listen to most of the prosecution's case anyway. It's my opinion that the majority of them didn't fulfill their obligation as jurors -- certainly paying attention would be at the top of the list of their duties.

The problem is, IMHO, is that the prosecution thought they could use the usual hogwash on the criminal jury as they had on les sophisticated juries and the prosecution ended up in the pig pen. The prosecution failed to put forth an intelligible case, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

well, the criminal jury couldn't get it right but the rest of America did. :patriot: :beer:

The only one that mattered allegedly got it wrong but, IMHO, it does not matter what the rest of America got.

[martin II]

The theory is that MS. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door but the detectives said the same thing. I have asked and never got an answer to the question does this mean the detectives lied or are, for some reason, because they are in some manner different from Ms. Arnelle, simply mistaken.

This bias against Ms Arnell once again comes out. She and the detectives testified to the same fact but only Ms Arnell lied.

[tv]

well, the criminal jury couldn't get it right but the rest of America did. :patriot: :beer:

One of the criminal trial jurors appeared on Nightline and was asked who she thought was the most impressive witness at the trial. She said she felt it was Dr. Henry Lee. When asked why, she said that when Dr. Lee approached the witness stand he turned to the jury and smiled warmly... :D

[William Anthony]

This bias against Ms Arnell once again comes out. She and the detectives testified to the same fact but only Ms Arnell lied.

I have given it some thought and, IMHO, all the prosecution LE or former LE witnesses, save Ron Shipp, lied. Ron Shipp was mistaken and made human error, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

One of the criminal trial jurors appeared on Nightline and was asked who she thought was the most impressive witness at the trial. She said she felt it was Dr. Henry Lee. When asked why, she said that when Dr. Lee approached the witness stand he turned to the jury and smiled warmly... :D

I guess the sophisticated jury was tired of all the prosecution witnesses with those sour faces.:shrug:

[weezer]

One of the criminal trial jurors appeared on Nightline and was asked who she thought was the most impressive witness at the trial. She said she felt it was Dr. Henry Lee. When asked why, she said that when Dr. Lee approached the witness stand he turned to the jury and smiled warmly... :D

LOL -- I don't which of their idiotic statements I like best. Hey, maybe we can make a list? If we don't bash them, a list would be fun. :eek:

[William Anthony]

LOL -- I don't which of their idiotic statements I like best. Hey, maybe we can make a list? If we don't bash them, a list would be fun. :eek:

I'll bet the list of idiotic statements made by the prosecution and their witnesses would be considerably longer and much much more fun.

[tv]

LOL -- I don't which of their idiotic statements I like best. Hey, maybe we can make a list? If we don't bash them, a list would be fun. :eek:

It would be fun and it would illustrate the thought processing they engaged in.

One juror said after the verdict "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried absolutely no weight with me."

[William Anthony]

Marcia Clark's opening

"WHEN YOU HEAR THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHY I NEED THE HELP."

If the evidence was so much and so overwhelming, she would not have needed help.

Then she went on to give this profound statement.

"THE ONE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT THE EVIDENCE DESCRIBED TO YOU BY MR. DARDEN IS THAT IT SHOWS THAT MR. SIMPSON IS A MAN, NOT A STEREOTYPE, BUT FLESH AND BLOOD WHO CAN DO BOTH GOOD AND EVIL. BEING WEALTHY, BEING FAMOUS CANNOT CHANGE ONE SIMPLE TRUTH. HE'S A PERSON, AND PEOPLE HAVE GOOD SIDES AND BAD SIDES. WHETHER YOU SEE BOTH SIDES OR NOT, BOTH SIDES ARE ALWAYS THERE."

I guess by this time the jury was thinking she sure is long-winded and we know that Simpson is a man. She did not need to prove that to us. :D

[martin II]

The only one that mattered allegedly got it wrong but, IMHO, it does not matter what the rest of America got.

The rest of America got a lot of misinformation from the media and was surprised when the correct verdict was announced.

[William Anthony]

The rest of America got a lot of misinformation from the media and was surprised when the correct verdict was announced.

I think the evidence is some were outraged, emotionally distraught, suffered from Simpson verdict Syndrome, an affliction with long lasting effects which can cause a desire for revenge over what they feel the verdict should have been and are likely to see any misfortune that Simpson encounters as a result of some mystical force called Karma, which may be claimed as coming from the devil's underbelly.:)

[martin II]

We should all be proud that the jury keep their focus for 9 mo and brought justice to the court room.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
One juror said after the verdict "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried absolutely no weight with me."

That's pitiful. The juror admits they didn't understand the evidence, yet their verdict is upheld. And to say it was "way out there" & carried no weight with them? WOW!

[martin II]

I think the evidence is some were outraged, emotionally distraught, suffered from Simpson verdict Syndrome, an affliction with long lasting effects which can cause a desire for revenge over what they feel the verdict should have been and are likely to see any misfortune that Simpson encounters as a result of some mystical force called Karma, which may be claimed as coming from the devil's underbelly.:)

There are scientific studies that support your post imo

[martin II]

That's pitiful. The juror admits they didn't understand the evidence, yet their verdict is upheld. And to say it was "way out there" & carried no weight with them? WOW!

It is the responsibility of the prosecution to present evidence in a manner that the jury can understand. Based on the complaints from most that watched the trial and legal media very few understood that DNA,
But DNA was not all or the only evidence required to prove the prosecutions case. It was only a part of the prosecutions case and based on the collection
process and the lab manipulation of the evidence,even that could not be trusted.

[weezer]

That's pitiful. The juror admits they didn't understand the evidence, yet their verdict is upheld. And to say it was "way out there" & carried no weight with them? WOW!

what about "of course the gloves fit. they would fit anybody" -- :eek:

[GreenIce]

No, I said Arnelle lied when she testified that after the police woke her up she led two detectives around the house to the front door and she turned off the alarm before letting them into the house. Three detectives were mistaken when they testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it and let them into the house. Evidently they only assumed or thought that she unlocked it since she had keys in her hand. They didn’t lie about this; there was no reason for them to lie. It was not anything significant at the time and none of them realized that the door Arnelle opened could only be locked or unlocked from the inside.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Arnelle had no reason to lie and the detectives had several reasons to lie. Bottom line is that Arnelle was the only one who testified about what door was entered in the prelim hearing. Not only did Clark not confront her about this but she even confirmed that they did enter through the front door.

Here is a little reality check for you, the detectives all testified that they entered the grounds and wanted into the main house because they feared that there was another blood bath inside the main house. They testified that they concerned about Mr. Simpson's and the maid's well being.

They were also concerned that the "prep" was still inside the main house. They testified to this.

So what in the hell were they doing allowing Arnelle to even open the door let alone let her enter first?

Wasn't one of the reasons for their actions, like checking Kato's room, and the grounds for "officer security"? What about civillian security unless they already knew Arnelle wash the bloody clothes and therefore they were hoping she get blown away---they used her as their shield.

Didn't MF describe using another woman as a shield on the tapes?

Your detectives have no credibility. It was never proven that Arnelle lied. I can see where she may have been mistaken as well as Kato's being mistaken that morning---I would imagine that it didn't take them long to figure out that somethng horrible had happened and they just had to wait until they were told what was going on.

Again, your coppers used Arnelle as shield to enter the house, just like MF described on the tapes. Vanatter also testified that Arnelle said she did not live at Rockingham but only just happened to spend the night there. Why would he lie about this? What was the point?

Also it has been proven that the detectives only heard what they wanted to hear and when they heard it. They only saw what they wanted to see.

[GreenIce]

The fact that mf found a glove is not proof of how put it there. The fact that three detectvies testified that no one jumped the fense and there was no evidense found to prove that someone jumped the fence means that no one including oj jumped the fense and put that glove there.
It was very easy that a person could have just tossed the glove to where it was found or carried it to where it was found and then found it.

Martin,

IMO, MF testified it was planted---people just didn't realize it. Remember, he testified that he saw no evidence of anyone being back there or jumping the fence? He clear also added that he was "not looking" for any of this type of evidence.

The only reason not to look for it is because why would you look for something that you know you won't find? According to Clark, Simpson made two trips, once into the ally and once out of the alley. It appears to me that at least two detectives testified they weren't looking for evidence. Well that is a comforting thought isn't it? IMO.

[tv]

That's pitiful. The juror admits they didn't understand the evidence, yet their verdict is upheld. And to say it was "way out there" & carried no weight with them? WOW!

I guess that means that Barry Scheck and the defense DNA witnesses didn't carry any weight with the juror either. Simpson could have just kept his money in his pocket and left DNA out of his defense -- imo, the outcome would have been the same. Wow is right.

[GreenIce]

It must have been LE or where they too lazy to put up a sign saying danger wet floor?:);):cool:

William,

Maybe at the time, they couldn't read it---they could only remember the gist of it a few days later!:)

[tv]

what about "of course the gloves fit. they would fit anybody" -- :eek:

This juror may as well have called him a liar about the gloves. Wait -- she did! ;)

[GreenIce]

It is the responsibility of the prosecution to present evidence in a manner that the jury can understand. Based on the complaints from most that watched the trial and legal media very few understood that DNA,
But DNA was not all or the only evidence required to prove the prosecutions case. It was only a part of the prosecutions case and based on the collection
process and the lab manipulation of the evidence,even that could not be trusted.

Martin,

IMO, it was not to the DA's benefit for the jurors to understand DNA. What they wanted was for the jury to know who's blood it was or who's blood it could be. Which why Rock Harmon made a fool out of himself by asking the experts about one person's DNA flying across the room and turning into someone else's. The defense never made that argument and IMO, he insulted the jurors with those antics.

What also is interesting is which witnesses Rock Harmon refused to cross examine. IMO.

[weezer]

This juror may as well have called him a liar about the gloves. Wait -- she did! ;)

:D I hadn't thought of that but I guess that is exactly what happened. :biggrin:

[tv]

:D I hadn't thought of that but I guess that is exactly what happened. :biggrin:

Since she believed him to be lying about the gloves I wonder why she believed him about anything else? Det. Fuhrman's lie supposedly means he can't be believed about anything else -- why the double standard?

[GreenIce]

It is the responsibility of the prosecution to present evidence in a manner that the jury can understand. Based on the complaints from most that watched the trial and legal media very few understood that DNA,
But DNA was not all or the only evidence required to prove the prosecutions case. It was only a part of the prosecutions case and based on the collection
process and the lab manipulation of the evidence,even that could not be trusted.

Martin,

IMO, it was never really a question of who's blood it was, but how and when it got there was. You can't expect any juror, regardless of gender or race not to weigh both sides of the evidence. What good is DNA if you find it weeks and months later? What good is DNA on the socks when at least 4 state experts looked at the socks and saw no blood on them? The socks were more important the glove yet they were tossed aside for how long?

Also, there was the EDTA issue as well as the high counts and low counts of DNA. What is a jury to think when an expert and a trainee don't know enough to put the samples in the refridgerator? I have heard different accounts, was the refridgerator in the truck broken or did they just not put the samples in them?

We have AM's initials one minute and then next minute we don't. I think you posted that she never waivered on this, she always testified that she did put her initals on the bindles and doesn't know what happened to them.

I think the timeline also played a huge role in the verdict. If don't have the time, you can't have done the crime, IMO.

[weezer]

Since she believed him to be lying about the gloves I wonder why she believed him about anything else? Det. Fuhrman's lie supposedly means he can't be believed about anything else -- why the double standard?

welllll, you know. . .

[tv]

welllll, you know. . .

Yes, I do... ;)

[martin II]

welllll, you know. . .

She voted not guilty so the gloves were not that important for her.

Some have missed the point. Whether THOSE gloves fit was not proof that oj killed his ex and her boyfriend. imo

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, it was never really a question of who's blood it was, but how and when it got there was. You can't expect any juror, regardless of gender or race not to weigh both sides of the evidence. What good is DNA if you find it weeks and months later? What good is DNA on the socks when at least 4 state experts looked at the socks and saw no blood on them? The socks were more important the glove yet they were tossed aside for how long?

Also, there was the EDTA issue as well as the high counts and low counts of DNA. What is a jury to think when an expert and a trainee don't know enough to put the samples in the refridgerator? I have heard different accounts, was the refridgerator in the truck broken or did they just not put the samples in them?

We have AM's initials one minute and then next minute we don't. I think you posted that she never waivered on this, she always testified that she did put her initals on the bindles and doesn't know what happened to them.

I think the timeline also played a huge role in the verdict. If don't have the time, you can't have done the crime, IMO.

The defense timeline proved to the jury that oj did not kill anyone.All the other small stuff and personal attacks on oj and the defense was the garbage part that was ignored as it should have been.imo

[martin II]

The trial was about murder. not car ride, abuse, stalking, how oj acted at a recital, or dinner, under wear. non istant phone call , who went in which door.
The prosecution did not prove oj murdered anyone because they had no proof. Oj not loving fred had nothing to do with it.imo

[William Anthony]

We should all be proud that the jury keep their focus for 9 mo and brought justice to the court room.

Martin,

To me the sophisticated jury is saying that the prosecution failed to adequately explain the DNA and the prosecution's explanation of the DNA evidence was "way out there" , consequently, they gave it no weight, which everyone should know, IMHO, that giving weight and credibility to the evidence is the jury's function, which that sophisticated jury understood. Ergo, the verdict should be upheld.

[William Anthony]

There are scientific studies that support your post imo

I believe that there is a empirical study that supports my post. ;)

[William Anthony]

what about "of course the gloves fit. they would fit anybody" -- :eek:

What about the gloves didn't fit and you must acquit. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

William,

Maybe at the time, they couldn't read it---they could only remember the gist of it a few days later!:)

Isn't there a theory that they were nervous, sleepy and careless?

[martin II]

Since she believed him to be lying about the gloves I wonder why she believed him about anything else? Det. Fuhrman's lie supposedly means he can't be believed about anything else -- why the double standard?

Simple. She was looking for proof of murder not gloves fitting.:cool:

[William Anthony]

Yes, I do... ;)

The double standard is that MF and his confused tongue lied and admitted unscrupulous and illegal conduct, while under the color of authority.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

The trial was about murder. not car ride, abuse, stalking, how oj acted at a recital, or dinner, under wear. non istant phone call , who went in which door.
The prosecution did not prove oj murdered anyone because they had no proof. Oj not loving fred had nothing to do with it.imo

Martin,

This is an excellent post, IMHO, keep up the good work.

[martin II]

Martin,

To me the sophisticated jury is saying that the prosecution failed to adequately explain the DNA and the prosecution's explanation of the DNA evidence was "way out there" , consequently, they gave it no weight, which everyone should know, IMHO, that giving weight and credibility to the evidence is the jury's function, which that sophisticated jury understood. Ergo, the verdict should be upheld.

Great

Thanks
After 2-3 months talking about the bowels of some new science, it was "out there" for most people.imo

[martin II]

Dr Cotton was a nice looking lady, Well spoken and seemed to know her job.It was easy for most to like her.Or fall over heads with her But even she under questioning by Scheak sp admitted that she did not know how the blood was collected and if collected wrongly it would impact on her results.And she was a regular paid client of the prosecution.I am sure she enjoyed the regular business the prosecution gave her so why would she not tell a fib or two in her testimony.imo

We all know how the blood was collected and handeled.

[William Anthony]

Marcia Clark's opening.

MS. CLARK: MR. WOODY CLARK AND MR. ROCHMOND HARMON. THEY WILL ALL BE PRESENTING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT RELATES TO THE BLOOD ANALYSIS AND DNA TESTING. WHEN YOU HEAR THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHY I NEED THE HELP.

*


MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH JUST A MINUTE?

THE COURT: YES. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WHILE COUNSEL IS APPROACHING SIDE BAR, IF WE COULD MAKE TAKE A LITTLE STRETCH BREAK AND JUST STAND UP.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR.

MR. COCHRAN: WE KIND OF HAVE LIKE A LITTLE AGREEMENT SO I DIDN'T WANT TO OBJECT, BUT WHEN SHE GOES INTO THINGS ABOUT AMNIOCENTESIS, SHE IS TESTIFYING.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU ARE SPEAKING OF IT IN TERMS OF YOU ARE TELLING THEM THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU TOLD THEM THAT.

MS. CLARK: YOU NEED TO SAY WITNESSES WILL TELL YOU, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

THE COURT: BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

MS. CLARK: I FORGOT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU PROBABLY FORGOT.

MS. CLARK: I DID.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST REMEMBER THAT.

The magnificent one even gave Ms. Clark assistance when she allegedly forgot and made those "idiotic" and objectionable statements.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, it was never really a question of who's blood it was, but how and when it got there was. You can't expect any juror, regardless of gender or race not to weigh both sides of the evidence. What good is DNA if you find it weeks and months later? What good is DNA on the socks when at least 4 state experts looked at the socks and saw no blood on them? The socks were more important the glove yet they were tossed aside for how long?

Also, there was the EDTA issue as well as the high counts and low counts of DNA. What is a jury to think when an expert and a trainee don't know enough to put the samples in the refridgerator? I have heard different accounts, was the refridgerator in the truck broken or did they just not put the samples in them?

We have AM's initials one minute and then next minute we don't. I think you posted that she never waivered on this, she always testified that she did put her initals on the bindles and doesn't know what happened to them.

I think the timeline also played a huge role in the verdict. If don't have the time, you can't have done the crime, IMO.


You have pointed out three what i call meat and potato issues that i am sure the jury took note of. Those are just some of the meat that the defense gave them to think about. The manipulation of AM SAMPLES was a kick in the gut of the prosecution. That little trick vannater and the nurse did with the blood must have opened their eyes. Martz took the stand and proved that the blood on the gate and socks was planted. imo

[GreenIce]

She voted not guilty so the gloves were not that important for her.

Some have missed the point. Whether THOSE gloves fit was not proof that oj killed his ex and her boyfriend. imo

Martin,

IMO, I think it was everybody's personal call if the gloves fit. I have heard people who believe OJ is guilty that the gloves didn't fit and others who believe he is innocent say they did fit. IMO, they didn't fit because the palms were so tight.

I think the DA's made a huge mistake in trying to explain why they didn't fit. When their "expert" gave false shrinkage percentages, that really, really hurt. Also, the latex glove do not add to the size of Simpson's hands.

By the DA's spinning this demonstration, they only highlighted that the size of the gloves was not imprinted on the gloves nor was the model number. Also, the receipt did not help them out.

In American Tragedy is where it explains Tom McCollum receiving two pairs of the same gloves from Nicole and that he gave one each to the DA's. I am not sure that he gave the others to the defense.

Another factor that has been overlooked is that the cut the DA's said left the blood drops was never explained. The cut was consistent with a jagged edge and not that of a knife blade.

The size of the gloves, IMO, really didn't matter nor Nicole's purchase of the gloves really mattered----until the DA's tried to force the issue. Too many times they tried to prove things they just couldn't prove and made it them look unprepared and desperate, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

To me the sophisticated jury is saying that the prosecution failed to adequately explain the DNA and the prosecution's explanation of the DNA evidence was "way out there" , consequently, they gave it no weight, which everyone should know, IMHO, that giving weight and credibility to the evidence is the jury's function, which that sophisticated jury understood. Ergo, the verdict should be upheld.

William and Martin,

I truly believe that any jury, regardless of race or gender would have rendered a not guilty verdict. Any jury would have been under the same instructions and the defense challenged every piece of evidence and IMO, they won the case in the DA's case in chief.

[tv]

LOL -- I don't which of their idiotic statements I like best. Hey, maybe we can make a list? If we don't bash them, a list would be fun. :eek:Simpson's blood was found on three areas of the Rockingham glove -- inside by wrist (mixed with Ron's), outside near wrist notch (mixed with Ron's and Nicole's) and wrist notch stiching (mixed with Ron's and Nicole's). This was a major part of the prosecution's case. Was this juror sleeping, daydreaming or simply tuning out the evidence against Simpson because she'd already made up her mind?

Carrie Bess --

"Had the cut [on OJ's hand] been as bad as they say it should have been, some of his blood should have been on the Rockingham glove somewhere but none of his blood was on it...I would say if his finger was cut and he was handling these things -- if he was wearing them -- his blood should be on one of those gloves. And his blood wasn't on either one of those gloves."

[GreenIce]

Dr Cotton was a nice looking lady, Well spoken and seemed to know her job.It was easy for most to like her.Or fall over heads with her But even she under questioning by Scheak sp admitted that she did not know how the blood was collected and if collected wrongly it would impact on her results.And she was a regular paid client of the prosecution.I am sure she enjoyed the regular business the prosecution gave her so why would she not tell a fib or two in her testimony.imo

We all know how the blood was collected and handeled.

Martin,

Dr. Cotton could not explain why traces of Simpson's blood was found in Ron and Nicole's reference sample. Which proves what the defense saying, that Dr. Cotton's results were not a surprise.

However, what did hurt Dr. Cotton is that the numbers she gave were based on something like 200 African-Americans. Just like with Dr. Weir, the DA's went for huge numbers but these numbers were misleading.

FYI, the DA's did not hire Dr. Cotton, it was the LAPD. According to Jeff Toobin's book, the LAPD sent the samples to Cellmark and did not tell the DA's. That leads me to believe that it was the LAPD who gave Cellmark alot of business. IMO.

And I agree with your comment--it was not Dr. Cotton's job to make comments on how the blood was collected and stored. For her to do so makes her an advocate for the DA's.

[fgump2]

That's pitiful. The juror admits they didn't understand the evidence, yet their verdict is upheld. And to say it was "way out there" & carried no weight with them? WOW!

The posting which this on commented on was:Originally Posted by tvdinner
*snip*
One juror said after the verdict "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried absolutely no weight with me."
I find what is worse than the ignorance of the jury is the fact that some of their supporters refer to the jury as sophisticated, thinking outside of the box, intelligent, educated, etc.

[tv]

The posting which this on commented on was:Originally Posted by tvdinner
*snip*
One juror said after the verdict "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried absolutely no weight with me."
I find what is worse than the ignorance of the jury is the fact that some of their supporters refer to the jury as sophisticated, thinking outside of the box, intelligent, educated, etc.

IMO, the majority of the jurors never found the box -- inside or out. IMO, their post-trial statements point to their minds being made up long before the end of the trial. I'm going to hazard a guess and say it was as early as opening statements.

[fgump2]

Le searched the trash cans at the terminal where oj was and found no bags.
No one testified that oj put a bag in any trash can.
There was one person who testified that Mr. Simpson put a bag on top of a trash can. I think this bag resembled the one that disappeared.

Original posting from GIOriginally Posted by GreenIce
fgump2,

Have you ever considered that the DA's knew Simpson was not lying and that is why they did not introduce the note, the chase and his statement? The statements make him look bad. For example he admitted he got the main cut in LA about 10:30, about the time Nicole was killed, and the cut was reopened in Chicago. I think the statements would have hurt him. To write that since the DAs didn't introduce them means that they wouldn't have helped the DAs makes no sense to me. Statements can hurt a defendent even if they weren't demonstratable lies.
IMO, he made one very damning statement during the Bronco chase. Also, in his statement, he said that the last time he was at Nicole's was I think at least 10 days prior to the murders.

I think TV later makes a post about the detectives being disappointed that certain evidence wasn't introduced as did MF in his testimony and his book. The fact that the DA's did not use this "evidence" proves that they could not trust the evidence or the people they were going to use to introduce it. Doesn't prove that at all. Tell me why there were untrustworthy. You have implied that if the DAs decided not to use a piece of evidence that means the evidence was useless. This is strange logic.
However, some of the evidence that the detectives thought should have been introduced, IMO, was laughable--like the trash can at the airport. Like nobody was going to check them? Like nobody would have seen this bag in the trash?
By the time the cops knew that SImpson might have committed a crime the trash cans had been dumped in a trash dump. There was no attempt to search the trash dumps in either LA or CHicago. Do you think that the airports search trash cans before dumping them in a garbage truck? The cops in both towns concluded that if Simpson had put stuff in a trash can it probably would have gotten to the trash dumps undetected
I think he showed some narcistic traits in his farewell note . Writing that the only reason he pled guilty to the 1989 NY incident was because that would cause press to drop the issue. In other words one of his thoughts in his suicde not was to protest that he wasn't at fault in the 1989 incident - so it was all Nicole's fault I suppose.

[tv]

There was one person who testified that Mr. Simpson put a bag on top of a trash can. I think this bag resembled the one that disappeared.

Original posting from GIOriginally Posted by GreenIce
fgump2,

Have you ever considered that the DA's knew Simpson was not lying and that is why they did not introduce the note, the chase and his statement? The statements make him look bad. For example he admitted he got the main cut in LA about 10:30, about the time Nicole was killed, and the cut was reopened in Chicago. I think the statements would have hurt him. To write that since the DAs didn't introduce them means that they wouldn't have helped the DAs makes no sense to me. Statements can hurt a defendent even if they weren't demonstratable lies.
IMO, he made one very damning statement during the Bronco chase. Also, in his statement, he said that the last time he was at Nicole's was I think at least 10 days prior to the murders.

I think TV later makes a post about the detectives being disappointed that certain evidence wasn't introduced as did MF in his testimony and his book. The fact that the DA's did not use this "evidence" proves that they could not trust the evidence or the people they were going to use to introduce it. Doesn't prove that at all. Tell me why there were untrustworthy. You have implied that if the DAs decided not to use a piece of evidence that means the evidence was useless. This is strange logic.
However, some of the evidence that the detectives thought should have been introduced, IMO, was laughable--like the trash can at the airport. Like nobody was going to check them? Like nobody would have seen this bag in the trash?
By the time the cops knew that SImpson might have committed a crime the trash cans had been dumped in a trash dump. There was no attempt to search the trash dumps in either LA or CHicago. Do you think that the airports search trash cans before dumping them in a garbage truck? The cops in both towns concluded that if Simpson had put stuff in a trash can it probably would have gotten to the trash dumps undetected
I think he showed some narcistic traits in his farewell note . Writing that the only reason he pled guilty to the 1989 NY incident was because that would cause press to drop the issue. In other words one of his thoughts in his suicde not was to protest that he wasn't at fault in the 1989 incident - so it was all Nicole's fault I suppose.

If the prosecution didn't admit some evidence because it was untrustworthy then what does it say about the witnesses that the defense decided not to call? There was some reason they lied about having a video tape of Pavelic's Rosa Lopez interview. The prosecution said the reason they didn't introduce the Bronco chase was because of the people cheering from the sidelines. They thought it would make Simpson too sympathetic to the jury. IMO, I wouldn't have been surprised to see some members of the jury among the cheering crowd.

As for the trash, it's emptied in a busy airport like LAX many times a day. Does anyone really expect the trash can to be unemptied so many hours later?

In the suicide note Simpson names many of his wealthy friends but doesn't personally refer to each of his children. I'm not sure what the psychology is behind that but I know it's not normal especially in a critical situation such as that.

[socaldiva]

Simpson's blood was found on three areas of the Rockingham glove -- inside by wrist (mixed with Ron's), outside near wrist notch (mixed with Ron's and Nicole's) and wrist notch stiching (mixed with Ron's and Nicole's). This was a major part of the prosecution's case. Was this juror sleeping, daydreaming or simply tuning out the evidence against Simpson because she'd already made up her mind?

Carrie Bess --

"Had the cut [on OJ's hand] been as bad as they say it should have been, some of his blood should have been on the Rockingham glove somewhere but none of his blood was on it...I would say if his finger was cut and he was handling these things -- if he was wearing them -- his blood should be on one of those gloves. And his blood wasn't on either one of those gloves."

Oh you're going to bring up that pesky DNA stuff again? :biggrin:

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I truly believe that any jury, regardless of race or gender would have rendered a not guilty verdict. Any jury would have been under the same instructions and the defense challenged every piece of evidence and IMO, they won the case in the DA's case in chief.

GreenIce.

I agree.They won the case by showing the prosecution did not have much, if any, trustworthy evidence, imho.

[William Anthony]

Simpson's blood was found on three areas of the Rockingham glove -- inside by wrist (mixed with Ron's), outside near wrist notch (mixed with Ron's and Nicole's) and wrist notch stiching (mixed with Ron's and Nicole's). This was a major part of the prosecution's case. Was this juror sleeping, daydreaming or simply tuning out the evidence against Simpson because she'd already made up her mind?

Carrie Bess --

"Had the cut [on OJ's hand] been as bad as they say it should have been, some of his blood should have been on the Rockingham glove somewhere but none of his blood was on it...I would say if his finger was cut and he was handling these things -- if he was wearing them -- his blood should be on one of those gloves. And his blood wasn't on either one of those gloves."

A very astute and sophisticated observation of Ms. Bess. The statistics did not prove and the testimony should not have been that there was a match between the blood found and Simpson's. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

The posting which this on commented on was:Originally Posted by tvdinner
*snip*
One juror said after the verdict "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried absolutely no weight with me."
I find what is worse than the ignorance of the jury is the fact that some of their supporters refer to the jury as sophisticated, thinking outside of the box, intelligent, educated, etc.

The jury showed their sophistication by not engaging in lengthy deliberations over untrustworthy evidence. There have been many legal scholars and legal practitioners, who believe there was reasonable doubt, thereby, lending validity to the conduct and conclusion of the jury, indicating to me that they were sophisticated, intelligent, educated and were able to think outside the jury box when they were taken to the jury room for deliberations. However, one, who is trained in a specific area and has practiced in that area for some years, shows their unsophistication and "ignorance" when the opposing party has to tell them what to say and do about the "idiotic statements" the other party made, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

IMO, the majority of the jurors never found the box -- inside or out. IMO, their post-trial statements point to their minds being made up long before the end of the trial. I'm going to hazard a guess and say it was as early as opening statements.

I see no reason to say that the jury didn't uphold its oath and sat there patiently listening for nine months waiting for the prosecution to put on a case that would prove Simpson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Picture it, the jury room-is there anyone in here who believes there wasn't reasonable doubt? Let's have Park's, IMHO, read back, where his mommy suggested to him what to say and remember she sat at the table, and that will show any doubters that there was reasonable doubt. Falsus in onus, falsus in ominbus.

[William Anthony]

You have implied that if the DAs decided not to use a piece of evidence that means the evidence was useless. This is strange logic. By Fgump2

The cops in both towns concluded that if Simpson had put stuff in a trash can it probably would have gotten to the trash dumps undetected. By Fgump2

The first post was made in response to evidence that was not produced being useless. Which is correct. The juries are not speculate about evidence that was not produced.

The second post speaks for itself, res ipsa loquitor. That type of rank speculation should not be allowed in any trial.

[William Anthony]

MS. CLARK: MR. WOODY CLARK AND MR. ROCHMOND HARMON. THEY WILL ALL BE PRESENTING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT RELATES TO THE BLOOD ANALYSIS AND DNA TESTING. WHEN YOU HEAR THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHY I NEED THE HELP.

It appears that neither Marcia, Chris nor Bill understood DNA.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

The testimony is what it is. Phillips didn’t lie, he testified he was with Arnelle Simpson, Lange, and Vannatter when Arnelle opened the back door and let them into the house.

The problem here is Martin’s confusion and false claims referring to Wagner’s diagram that had the names of the rooms in Simpson’s house on it when in fact the prosecution exhibit that was used in court didn’t have any names of the rooms in Simpson’s house on it.

bobugust

What is the basis for your stated fact that Phillips didn't lie, when according to you, he did not enter in the living room area, as he so testified and he testified the same as Ms. Arnelle that she unlocked the door?

Did Phillips say that he entered into the living room area?

Do you have any direct knowledge that the living room is not where Wagner places it on his diagram of Simpson's Rockingham/Ashford residence?

[William Anthony]

This is not my scenario; this is what all three detectives testified they did, some in more detail than others. Phillips referred to the room they first walked through as the living room area. That name has absolutely nothing to do with the room Wagner labeled the “living room.”

bobaugust

The testimony is what it is. It is my experience that living rooms are normally closer to the front door of the house than the rear door.

[GreenIce]

There was one person who testified that Mr. Simpson put a bag on top of a trash can. I think this bag resembled the one that disappeared.

Original posting from GIOriginally Posted by GreenIce
fgump2,

Have you ever considered that the DA's knew Simpson was not lying and that is why they did not introduce the note, the chase and his statement? The statements make him look bad. For example he admitted he got the main cut in LA about 10:30, about the time Nicole was killed, and the cut was reopened in Chicago. I think the statements would have hurt him. To write that since the DAs didn't introduce them means that they wouldn't have helped the DAs makes no sense to me. Statements can hurt a defendent even if they weren't demonstratable lies.
IMO, he made one very damning statement during the Bronco chase. Also, in his statement, he said that the last time he was at Nicole's was I think at least 10 days prior to the murders.

I think TV later makes a post about the detectives being disappointed that certain evidence wasn't introduced as did MF in his testimony and his book. The fact that the DA's did not use this "evidence" proves that they could not trust the evidence or the people they were going to use to introduce it. Doesn't prove that at all. Tell me why there were untrustworthy. You have implied that if the DAs decided not to use a piece of evidence that means the evidence was useless. This is strange logic.
However, some of the evidence that the detectives thought should have been introduced, IMO, was laughable--like the trash can at the airport. Like nobody was going to check them? Like nobody would have seen this bag in the trash?
By the time the cops knew that SImpson might have committed a crime the trash cans had been dumped in a trash dump. There was no attempt to search the trash dumps in either LA or CHicago. Do you think that the airports search trash cans before dumping them in a garbage truck? The cops in both towns concluded that if Simpson had put stuff in a trash can it probably would have gotten to the trash dumps undetected
I think he showed some narcistic traits in his farewell note . Writing that the only reason he pled guilty to the 1989 NY incident was because that would cause press to drop the issue. In other words one of his thoughts in his suicde not was to protest that he wasn't at fault in the 1989 incident - so it was all Nicole's fault I suppose.

fgump2,

Simpson never told the detectives that he gash he got on on his middle finger happened at Rockingham. On the way to Parker Center he was asked about different knicks he had his hand. When they went into the interview, Simpson thought they were talking about a different cut. Bottom line, the gash on top of his middle finger would not have gone un noticed.

Did you see the size of the trash can? Also, that airport was searched and searched by 3:00 a.m. that morning and I imagine other searches took place. Also, the DA's made it clear, they never believed Simpson either went back to Rockingham with the items or took them with him. Which is why they did not present any theory other then an alleged missing bag, which was not missing.

As for the evidence not used by the DA's, read Mark Fuhrman's book as well as Lange and Vanatter's book. Also, MF testified about how sad it was that a lot evidence was being ignored. That is a direct dig at Clark. IMO.

You need to check a few things out before you make statements like they never searched the dump. They did search the dump, they searched areas in Chicago and they even searched the waste container on the airplane.

They searched and they searched and they found nothing. Bodies have been found in dumps before.

Also, do you really think the LAPD did not ask who emptied the trash can and when it was done? These are common sense questions. IMO.

[William Anthony]

"ms. Clark: Uh-huh. Thank you. There was no rush to judgment in this case. It was very carefully considered before it was filed. The evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, that as of june the 15th many dna results had already been returned. As of june the 15th there had already been a match between the defendant and the blood found at bundy drive. There had already been a match between the victims and the blood found on the glove at his house. Many things were known and yet it was examined carefully, the entire case examined very carefully, and was not filed until two days after those results were obtained. My job is to seek justice. I've had cases before this one, there will be cases after it. This this case not about the lawyers, myself, mr. Hodgman, mr. Darden or mr. Cochran. You will have to remember what this case is about; justice for all. Ladies and gentlemen, if those words are to mean anything, we must all be equal in the eyes of the law and we cannot use a sliding scale to judge guilt or innocence based on a defendant or a victim's popularity. We live in very, very strange times.

Mr. Cochran: Your honor, she is arguing.

The court: Counsel, this has all been argument for the last five minutes.

Ms. Clark: I will wrap up, your honor.

the court: Please."

[GreenIce]

MS. CLARK: MR. WOODY CLARK AND MR. ROCHMOND HARMON. THEY WILL ALL BE PRESENTING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT RELATES TO THE BLOOD ANALYSIS AND DNA TESTING. WHEN YOU HEAR THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHY I NEED THE HELP.

It appears that neither Marcia, Chris nor Bill understood DNA.:);):cool:

William,

They might not have understood DNA but they certainly understood EDTA! Please note, Rock Harmon would not cross Roger Martz or Dr. Rieders. Harmon believed there was EDTA in the samples and, IMO, believed that it was a real possibility that the blood was planted. Remember he was the one who said that if EDTA is found in the samples, the case never should have been filed. At least he kind of stood his ground on this issue. IMO.

He also had to be alarmed about traces of Simpson's blood being found in Ron and Nicole's reference samples that were sent to Cell Mark.

[William Anthony]

William,

They might not have understood DNA but they certainly understood EDTA! Please note, Rock Harmon would not cross Roger Martz or Dr. Rieders. Harmon believed there was EDTA in the samples and, IMO, believed that it was a real possibility that the blood was planted. Remember he was the one who said that if EDTA is found in the samples, the case never should have been filed. At least he kind of stood his ground on this issue. IMO.

He also had to be alarmed about traces of Simpson's blood being found in Ron and Nicole's reference samples that were sent to Cell Mark.

GreenIce,

IMHO, any unbiased clear and reasonable thinking person should have been alarmed.

[William Anthony]

William,

I tend to agree with on this. However, in this case, we must consider the death of Simpson's daughter as a possible reason why the "traditional" rooms were changed.

Also, Nicole was an interior decorator, she may have prefered an unconventional vs conconventional set up of the rooms.

GreenIce,

Phillips testified it was the living room. There is no reason to think it was any room other than the living room. Phillips had a slip of the tongue, which proved, imho, that he and the other detectives lied about what door they entered.

[GreenIce]

The posting which this on commented on was:Originally Posted by tvdinner
*snip*
One juror said after the verdict "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried absolutely no weight with me."
I find what is worse than the ignorance of the jury is the fact that some of their supporters refer to the jury as sophisticated, thinking outside of the box, intelligent, educated, etc.

fgump2,

Do you know reference for this quote and do you know the full content of the interview?

Why did the DNA loose its value to the DA's? Because of testimony of the state's witnesses, who at the very least, appeared to be totally incompetent.

If you can't explain me to me how and when it got there, what you found on it means nothing. How could Michelle Kestler and the DA's expect any juror to believe they did not use the correct lighting to search for blood on the socks? There is no acceptable explaination.

How is it that Ron Goldman's blood was only found in the Bronco after the 3rd or 4th blood collection. Did you read Michelle Kestler's testimony about blood collection in the Bronco and when collection and testing took place?

If not please do say but I will warn you, you need a strong stomach!

Also, only a complete and totally uneducated adult human being would believe that OJ Simpson was not the prime suspect and that they only went over to Rockingham to give a personal notification. And believe the cover up story by them.

IMO, it appears to me that the uneducated ones were the ones sitting home on their living rooms and grabbing every sound byte they could and treated that like it came from the gospel. IMO.

[GreenIce]

What is the basis for your stated fact that Phillips didn't lie, when according to you, he did not enter in the living room area, as he so testified and he testified the same as Ms. Arnelle that she unlocked the door?

Did Phillips say that he entered into the living room area?

Do you have any direct knowledge that the living room is not where Wagner places it on his diagram of Simpson's Rockingham/Ashford residence?

William,

Please note, it appears that not one G is disputing the fact that the detectives used Arnelle as a human shield. I guess since it is OJ's daughter, then she deserved to be used as a human shield. That is the only logical explaination---IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

Phillips testified it was the living room. There is no reason to think it was any room other than the living room. Phillips had a slip of the tongue, which proved, imho, that he and the other detectives lied about what door they entered.

William,

I misunderstood your post. However, I think the layout off the house may have been altered because of his daughter's death and that Sydney and Justin were toddlers at Rockingham. I would think any parent would do everything possible to make sure that never happened again.

What I find odd is that Ron Phillips later changes his testimony that he saw MF enter the house and leave the house. I also think Vanatter was told by Kato while still outside about the thumps. IMO, the only reason why VA told both Phillips and MF to go back and check out the other glove was to get MF out of there.

Also, if pictures were already taken of the glove, why did Lange feel the need to see the Rockingham glove at Bundy? I know there is a dispute between Fung and Lange on where he saw the glove or what Lange wanted him to do and Fung refused to do it.

IMO, it was because of stunts like this is why Fung shook hands with the defense. He knew what was going on and he wanted it known, IMO. If he had to take the beating on the stand, so be it. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Preaching to the choir again?

fgump2,

Your response is not called for. I have posted many times that I believe that any jury, regardless of race or gender would have rendered a not guilty verdict and that was the only legal verdict they could have rendered.

[bobaugust]

wth? where is the affidavit attached to the warrant and what did MF, big grin, claim it said, to be seized from the washing machine, to be seized from anyplace we can find one? What does this do to jill shively's story about seeing simpson's bare arm?

A logical explanation is that Simpson rolled his sleeves up so he wouldn’t transfer the blood that was on his sleeves to his car.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The theory is that MS. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door but the detectives said the same thing. I have asked and never got an answer to the question does this mean the detectives lied or are, for some reason, because they are in some manner different from Ms. Arnelle, simply mistaken.

You do understand that Arnelle was talking about a different door than the police, don’t you? The detectives evidently assumed or thought Arnelle unlocked the back door since she was carrying keys in her hand. They didn’t say they actually saw her unlock it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This bias against Ms Arnell once again comes out. She and the detectives testified to the same fact but only Ms Arnell lied.

Do you think the front door is the same door as the back door?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Arnelle had no reason to lie and the detectives had several reasons to lie. Bottom line is that Arnelle was the only one who testified about what door was entered in the prelim hearing. Not only did Clark not confront her about this but she even confirmed that they did enter through the front door.

Here is a little reality check for you, the detectives all testified that they entered the grounds and wanted into the main house because they feared that there was another blood bath inside the main house. They testified that they concerned about Mr. Simpson's and the maid's well being.

They were also concerned that the "prep" was still inside the main house. They testified to this.

So what in the hell were they doing allowing Arnelle to even open the door let alone let her enter first?

Wasn't one of the reasons for their actions, like checking Kato's room, and the grounds for "officer security"? What about civillian security unless they already knew Arnelle wash the bloody clothes and therefore they were hoping she get blown away---they used her as their shield.

Didn't MF describe using another woman as a shield on the tapes?

Your detectives have no credibility. It was never proven that Arnelle lied. I can see where she may have been mistaken as well as Kato's being mistaken that morning---I would imagine that it didn't take them long to figure out that somethng horrible had happened and they just had to wait until they were told what was going on.

Again, your coppers used Arnelle as shield to enter the house, just like MF described on the tapes. Vanatter also testified that Arnelle said she did not live at Rockingham but only just happened to spend the night there. Why would he lie about this? What was the point?

Also it has been proven that the detectives only heard what they wanted to hear and when they heard it. They only saw what they wanted to see.

Nothing you have said changes the fact that Kato Kaelin corroborated the detectives’ testimony regarding Arnelle letting the detectives into Simpson’s house through the back door. No witness corroborates Arnelle’s story.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What is the basis for your stated fact that Phillips didn't lie, when according to you, he did not enter in the living room area, as he so testified and he testified the same as Ms. Arnelle that she unlocked the door?

Did Phillips say that he entered into the living room area?

Do you have any direct knowledge that the living room is not where Wagner places it on his diagram of Simpson's Rockingham/Ashford residence?

Phillips testified he entered the house through the rear door with Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter. When Phillips was asked where he went he referred to the room they all walked through as the “living room area” or “living room.” Lange referred to that area as the rear den, Vannatter and Kaelin referred to it as the “bar area,” and Arnelle referred to it as the “TV room.” Wagner labeled that room on his diagram the “family room.”


February 16, 1995 Ronald Phillips

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The testimony is what it is. It is my experience that living rooms are normally closer to the front door of the house than the rear door.

The fact is that the room Wagner labeled “living room” is located at the north side of the house and not near the back door that everyone used that morning. Arnelle’s room was much closer to the back door of Simpson’s house than the front door of Simpson’s house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

William,

Please note, it appears that not one G is disputing the fact that the detectives used Arnelle as a human shield. I guess since it is OJ's daughter, then she deserved to be used as a human shield. That is the only logical explaination---IMO.

That’s because it isn’t a fact, its only your opinion.

[Its just me]

A logical explanation is that Simpson rolled his sleeves up so he wouldn’t transfer the blood that was on his sleeves to his car.

bobaugust

Or simply removed the bloody mess of a garment.

[martin II]

There was one person who testified that Mr. Simpson put a bag on top of a trash can. I think this bag resembled the one that disappeared.

Original posting from GIOriginally Posted by GreenIce
fgump2,

Have you ever considered that the DA's knew Simpson was not lying and that is why they did not introduce the note, the chase and his statement? The statements make him look bad. For example he admitted he got the main cut in LA about 10:30, about the time Nicole was killed, and the cut was reopened in Chicago. I think the statements would have hurt him. To write that since the DAs didn't introduce them means that they wouldn't have helped the DAs makes no sense to me. Statements can hurt a defendent even if they weren't demonstratable lies.
IMO, he made one very damning statement during the Bronco chase. Also, in his statement, he said that the last time he was at Nicole's was I think at least 10 days prior to the murders.

I think TV later makes a post about the detectives being disappointed that certain evidence wasn't introduced as did MF in his testimony and his book. The fact that the DA's did not use this "evidence" proves that they could not trust the evidence or the people they were going to use to introduce it. Doesn't prove that at all. Tell me why there were untrustworthy. You have implied that if the DAs decided not to use a piece of evidence that means the evidence was useless. This is strange logic.
However, some of the evidence that the detectives thought should have been introduced, IMO, was laughable--like the trash can at the airport. Like nobody was going to check them? Like nobody would have seen this bag in the trash?
By the time the cops knew that SImpson might have committed a crime the trash cans had been dumped in a trash dump. There was no attempt to search the trash dumps in either LA or CHicago. Do you think that the airports search trash cans before dumping them in a garbage truck? The cops in both towns concluded that if Simpson had put stuff in a trash can it probably would have gotten to the trash dumps undetected
I think he showed some narcistic traits in his farewell note . Writing that the only reason he pled guilty to the 1989 NY incident was because that would cause press to drop the issue. In other words one of his thoughts in his suicde not was to protest that he wasn't at fault in the 1989 incident - so it was all Nicole's fault I suppose.

OJ had a bag in his hand when another sky cap asked for a autograph . he put the bag on a trash can,signed the autograph and then put tyhe bag on the sky cap wagon for curb side check in.

The trash cans at lax terminal where oj was WAS SEARCHED. Chicago le searched the trash cans and the dumpsters in the vacinity near the hotel.
No bag was found because oj did not try to get rid of one.

If the porosecution does not use certain evidence it is because they believe that evidence would not add anything to their case and in some instances open the door to stuff they don't want to be discussed.

[martin II]

William,

I misunderstood your post. However, I think the layout off the house may have been altered because of his daughter's death and that Sydney and Justin were toddlers at Rockingham. I would think any parent would do everything possible to make sure that never happened again.

What I find odd is that Ron Phillips later changes his testimony that he saw MF enter the house and leave the house. I also think Vanatter was told by Kato while still outside about the thumps. IMO, the only reason why VA told both Phillips and MF to go back and check out the other glove was to get MF out of there.

Also, if pictures were already taken of the glove, why did Lange feel the need to see the Rockingham glove at Bundy? I know there is a dispute between Fung and Lange on where he saw the glove or what Lange wanted him to do and Fung refused to do it.

IMO, it was because of stunts like this is why Fung shook hands with the defense. He knew what was going on and he wanted it known, IMO. If he had to take the beating on the stand, so be it. Again, IMO.

The layout of the house was not altered. the french doors inside locks were put up high and the other two doors were nailed shut.

The cops and kato lied about the doors.

[martin II]

A logical explanation is that Simpson rolled his sleeves up so he wouldn’t transfer the blood that was on his sleeves to his car.

bobaugust

opinion

[martin II]

William,

They might not have understood DNA but they certainly understood EDTA! Please note, Rock Harmon would not cross Roger Martz or Dr. Rieders. Harmon believed there was EDTA in the samples and, IMO, believed that it was a real possibility that the blood was planted. Remember he was the one who said that if EDTA is found in the samples, the case never should have been filed. At least he kind of stood his ground on this issue. IMO.

He also had to be alarmed about traces of Simpson's blood being found in Ron and Nicole's reference samples that were sent to Cell Mark.

The white juror said the DNA was shakey not the whole jury.Two jurors wrote a book and stated the glove fit. not the whole jury.

The complete jury voted NOT GUILTY.

[martin II]

Phillips testified he entered the house through the rear door with Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter. When Phillips was asked where he went he referred to the room they all walked through as the “living room area” or “living room.” Lange referred to that area as the rear den, Vannatter and Kaelin referred to it as the “bar area,” and Arnelle referred to it as the “TV room.” Wagner labeled that room on his diagram the “family room.”


February 16, 1995 Ronald Phillips

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

bobaugust


fgump2
When Arnell and the three detectives entered the front door and for some time after Kato was at his door talking to furhman. When Arnell went to her room Kato was still standing at his roon talking to furhman.When Arnell dressed and was walking back to the house kato was in front of his room talking to furhman.imo

[martin II]

You do understand that Arnelle was talking about a different door than the police, don’t you? The detectives evidently assumed or thought Arnelle unlocked the back door since she was carrying keys in her hand. They didn’t say they actually saw her unlock it.

bobaugust

She walked pass the pool around the north side of the house to the front door. They said she unlocked the door you say she didn't. you were not at the door with them. unless you are holding out. imo

[Its just me]

The fact is that the room Wagner labeled “living room” is located at the north side of the house and not near the back door that everyone used that morning. Arnelle’s room was much closer to the back door of Simpson’s house than the front door of Simpson’s house.

bobaugust

Exactly...it is just a short distance down the walk way...You come out of Arnelle's room turn to the right and go past Kaelin's room and IIRC go up or down some steps and you are right there.
It is just a fact of life that a den area is often called the living room and saying someone lied because they did so is an argument as useless as a sty on a pigs eye IMHOO. To me it's crystal clear the men are all saying they entered the house thru the back door where there is a bar area that Kaelin included in his testimony.

Arnelle even admits she normally would go to that door if it was not locked. IMHOO It was not locked and Arnelle knew it because she had already been inside but to do a good CYA job Arnelle took the keys. The door not being un-lockable from the outside became an issue so Arnelle had no choice but to say she went to the front door unless she explained how the door was unlocked. Any day of the week I'll take the testimony of 4 over one especially when they all describe the same thing but use different terms. To say there was a conspiracy with the back door is hog wash IMHOO. I guess they all just happened to know which door Arnelle normally used.



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.

[martin II]

Fgump2

The bag you think dissapeared looked like what??

[martin II]

Exactly...it is just a short distance down the walk way...You come out of Arnelle's room turn to the right and go past Kaelin's room and IIRC go up or down some steps and you are right there.
It is just a fact of life that a den area is often called the living room and saying someone lied because they did so is an argument as useless as a sty on a pigs eye IMHOO. To me it's crystal clear the men are all saying they entered the house thru the back door where there is a bar area that Kaelin included in his testimony.

Arnelle even admits she normally would go to that door if it was not locked. IMHOO It was not locked and Arnelle knew it because she had already been inside but to do a good CYA job Arnelle took the keys. The door not being un-lockable from the outside became an issue so Arnelle had no choice but to say she went to the front door unless she explained how the door was unlocked. Any day of the week I'll take the testimony of 4 over one especially when they all describe the same thing but use different terms. To say there was a conspiracy with the back door is hog wash IMHOO. I guess they all just happened to know which door Arnelle normally used.



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.


Thats true only if that door was left open on 6/13. I doubt that oj would leave a door open to his house at night when the house is locked down for the night.Too many valuables in the house. Maby during the day when people are up and moving in and out of the house but not at night.

There is testimony that this south door was not left unlocked. There is testimony that that door was unlocked from the inside by Arnell after entering the front door and going to get dressed at the order to go get the kids.

When you leave Arnells room you turn left to the steps then then to the first south door. That door had no outside locks. only inside locks so she did not unlock that door. the next two doors were nailed shut with no outside locks.so she did not unlock those doors. to the north there were two french doors with no outside locks but two inside very high locks so she did not unlock those doors.
She walked around the north side of the house to the front door, detectives said she unlocked the door.

Prior to his testimony Phillips spent a lot of time inside the house to say that
by the time he testified he did not know one room from another makes no sense. His words speak for themselves.

The south most door remained lock until Arnell unlocked it from the inside to go get dressed to pick up the kids. Kato was still talking to furhman at his room. So he did not enter the house with Arnell and the other detectives.

When Arnell was dressed and going back to the house Kato was at his room door talking to furhman.
Arnell left to go get the kids with AC.

When furhman finished talking to kato at his room furhman brought kato through the south door that Arnell had just unlocked/opened and he put kato on a stool. So kato testimony was wrong.

Phillips testimony is what it is.

[Its just me]

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

According to the bottom layout of the house....if you go in the front door you enter the foyer where the stairs are located....the room labeled living room is located to the right at the end of the foyer as is completely off to its self. You don't enter thru the front door and go thru the living room unless you are going out the back doors of the living room to the pool area. IMHOO this clearly shows Phillips called the family room the living room.

[Its just me]

Thats true only if that door was left open on 6/13. I doubt that oj would leave a door open to his house at night when the house is locked down for the night.Too many valuables in the house. Maby during the day when people are up and moving in and out of the house but not at night.

There is testimony that this south door was not left unlocked. There is testimony that that door was unlocked from the inside by Arnell after entering the front door and going to get dressed at the order to go get the kids.

When you leave Arnells room you turn left to the steps then then to the first south door. That door had no outside locks. only inside locks so she did not unlock that door. the next two doors were nailed shut with no outside locks.so she did not unlock those doors. to the north there were two french doors with no outside locks but two inside very high locks so she did not unlock those doors.
She walked around the north side of the house to the front door, detectives said she unlocked the door.

Prior to his testimony Phillips spent a lot of time inside the house to say that
by the time he testified he did not know one room from another makes no sense. His words speak for themselves.

The south most door remained lock until Arnell unlocked it from the inside to go get dressed to pick up the kids. Kato was still talking to furhman at his room. So he did not enter the house with Arnell and the other detectives.

When Arnell was dressed and going back to the house Kato was at his room door talking to furhman.
Arnell left to go get the kids with AC.

When furhman finished talking to kato at his room furhman brought kato through the south door that Arnell had just unlocked/opened and he put kato on a stool. So kato testimony was wrong.

Phillips testimony is what it is.

"Who" testified the back door was locked when the LE arrived.

From what I get thru posted testimony is LE went to Arnelle's and Kato's rooms and talked to each. IIRC Arnelle states Kato was at/in his door way with MF as she was leaving her room to go open the door. IMOO They all went inside the house including Arnelle. I don't remember reading how long they stayed but at some point Arnelle left to go to her room to get dressed to go get the kids. What evidence do you have that MF and Kato did not go in the house with Arnelle and do exactly like Arnelle...go in and leave...and what evidence is there to say they did not leave before Arnelle to walk back to Kato's room area where Arnelle saw them on the way to get dressed. IIRC Arnelle testifies seeing Kato and MF when she on her way to open the door house and again when she went to get dressed and IIRC where she said they were standing is not exactly the same.

I have NO Doubt that Phillips knew the layout of the house....he simply called the family room the living room....as people do every single day especially men folks...Its usually the more feminine folks that is concerned about what you call certain rooms but what ever one is called it doesn't change where it is located and how you get to it and where you go when you go thru it. IMHOO The fact remains the only way Phillips went "thru" the living room is he did so to go out the back doors to the pool area or those are the doors he entered the house and IIRC you've stated those doors were nailed shut. It is what it is.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I think it was everybody's personal call if the gloves fit. I have heard people who believe OJ is guilty that the gloves didn't fit and others who believe he is innocent say they did fit. IMO, they didn't fit because the palms were so tight.

I think the DA's made a huge mistake in trying to explain why they didn't fit. When their "expert" gave false shrinkage percentages, that really, really hurt. Also, the latex glove do not add to the size of Simpson's hands.

By the DA's spinning this demonstration, they only highlighted that the size of the gloves was not imprinted on the gloves nor was the model number. Also, the receipt did not help them out.

In American Tragedy is where it explains Tom McCollum receiving two pairs of the same gloves from Nicole and that he gave one each to the DA's. I am not sure that he gave the others to the defense.

Another factor that has been overlooked is that the cut the DA's said left the blood drops was never explained. The cut was consistent with a jagged edge and not that of a knife blade.

The size of the gloves, IMO, really didn't matter nor Nicole's purchase of the gloves really mattered----until the DA's tried to force the issue. Too many times they tried to prove things they just couldn't prove and made it them look unprepared and desperate, IMO.

I believe the prosecution knew or thought the gloves would not fit but they could just try to use it to their advantage regardless. If they had paid close attention to Rubin they never would have used him. He misjudged the size of oJS hands. especially his very large palms and gave Darden some bad info.
He then tossed out some unprovable info on glove shrinkasge as to why the gloves didn't fit and then under cross by Cochran admitted that some liquid on his tight fitting gloves would NOT CAUSE THEM TO SHRINK.
He also bragged that his tight fitting fit gloves could not be taken off unless by finger by finger which destroyed the prosecutions claim that the left glove dropped off in a fight with Ron.He was obviously a guy trying his best to support the prosecutions claims but he did more damage than good for them.

The latex had no effect of the size of ojs hands or the gloves as they could not change either. It means nothing that two jiurors wrote their opinion on the gloves fitting as the gloves was not proof of who killed nicole and Ron.That was just another side issue the prosecution tried to use and it ended up making them look like they didn't know what happened. imo

[martin II]

"Who" testified the back door was locked when the LE arrived. Arnells testimony proves it.

Arnell testified that she unlocked the south door after she had let vanatter.lang and phillips in the front door and she left the tv area to go get dressed.She unlocked the south door and walked to her room, she saw Kato and furhman at Katos door.When she walked from her room going to the house she saw Kato and furhman stand not in the exact spot but a little further away from katos door towards the house but still outside. She went back through the south door she had unlocked to go to her room and met AC in the kitchen or the house and they left to go get the kids.
After she left Furhman brought Kato from outside to the south door Arnell had previously opened put him on a bar stool and she saw Kato for the first time inside the house when she came back with the kids.
From what I get thru posted testimony is LE went to Arnelle's and Kato's rooms and talked to each. IIRC Arnelle states Kato was at/in his door way with MF as she was leaving her room to go open the door. IMOO They all went inside the house including Arnelle. I don't remember reading how long they stayed but at some point Arnelle left to go to her room to get dressed to go get the kids. What evidence do you have that MF and Kato did not go in the house with Arnelle and do exactly like Arnelle...go in and leave.Furhman testified that he brought kato from katos door area through the south door and put him on the bar stool. That is how furhman testified he entered the house. He never testified that he went in and then out and then in again so i have no reason to believe he did do that....and what evidence is there to say they did not leave before Arnelle to walk back to Kato's room area where Arnelle saw them on the way to get dressed. IIRC Arnelle testifies seeing Kato and MF when she on her way to open the door house and again when she went to get dressed and IIRC where she said they were standing is not exactly the same. Furhman was asked how he got into the house. He testified he brought Kato in through the south door. He did not testify that he walked in and out of any door with Kato so we cannot say walked in and out of the house.

I have NO Doubt that Phillips knew the layout of the house....he simply called the family room the living room....as people do every single day especially men folks...Its usually the more feminine folks that is concerned about what you call certain rooms but what ever one is called it doesn't change where it is located and how you get to it and where you go when you go thru it. IMHOO The fact remains the only way Phillips went "thru" the living room is he did so to go out the back doors to the pool area or those are the doors he entered the house and IIRC you've stated those doors were nailed shut. It is what it is.


Phillips said he enter the living room when asked how he got into the house.He could do that by the front door as the french doors on the east of the living room had no outside locks.The family room was south of the living room in the middle of the house and not next to the south door that Arnell and Furhman used. Phillips was i8n that house all day and maby other days later. I think he was smart enough to know one room from another.

[William Anthony]

William,

Please note, it appears that not one G is disputing the fact that the detectives used Arnelle as a human shield. I guess since it is OJ's daughter, then she deserved to be used as a human shield. That is the only logical explaination---IMO.

GreenIce,

There is one other obvious consideration, which is the detectives knew Simpson was not home and they knew no one was injured, perpetrator or victim, who remained on Simpson's property.

[William Anthony]

William,

I misunderstood your post. However, I think the layout off the house may have been altered because of his daughter's death and that Sydney and Justin were toddlers at Rockingham. I would think any parent would do everything possible to make sure that never happened again.

What I find odd is that Ron Phillips later changes his testimony that he saw MF enter the house and leave the house. I also think Vanatter was told by Kato while still outside about the thumps. IMO, the only reason why VA told both Phillips and MF to go back and check out the other glove was to get MF out of there.

Also, if pictures were already taken of the glove, why did Lange feel the need to see the Rockingham glove at Bundy? I know there is a dispute between Fung and Lange on where he saw the glove or what Lange wanted him to do and Fung refused to do it.

IMO, it was because of stunts like this is why Fung shook hands with the defense. He knew what was going on and he wanted it known, IMO. If he had to take the beating on the stand, so be it. Again, IMO.

I understand but I want to believe that Phillips knew what a living room was when he saw one, although some may not want to give him that much credit. :)

[William Anthony]

A logical explanation is that Simpson rolled his sleeves up so he wouldn’t transfer the blood that was on his sleeves to his car.

bobaugust

Where is the garment with the blood on the sleeve that the prosecution introduced or are you inventing evidence?

[William Anthony]

You do understand that Arnelle was talking about a different door than the police, don’t you? The detectives evidently assumed or thought Arnelle unlocked the back door since she was carrying keys in her hand. They didn’t say they actually saw her unlock it.

bobaugust

They testified that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door. They did not testify that they assumed she unlocked the door or that the didn't recall. The testimonies are what they are and you can't change them and the only door that had a lock was the front door. :);):cool: You may try to change the testimony but they said Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door. Isn't that beautiful?;)

[William Anthony]

Nothing you have said changes the fact that Kato Kaelin corroborated the detectives’ testimony regarding Arnelle letting the detectives into Simpson’s house through the back door. No witness corroborates Arnelle’s story.

bobaugust

Phillips did with his confused tongue, IMHO.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Phillips testified he entered the house through the rear door with Arnelle, Lange, and Vannatter. When Phillips was asked where he went he referred to the room they all walked through as the “living room area” or “living room.” Lange referred to that area as the rear den, Vannatter and Kaelin referred to it as the “bar area,” and Arnelle referred to it as the “TV room.” Wagner labeled that room on his diagram the “family room.”


February 16, 1995 Ronald Phillips

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

bobaugust

Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door (which we now know could have only been the front door) for them and Phillips walked into the living room. The testimony is what it is. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

The fact is that the room Wagner labeled “living room” is located at the north side of the house and not near the back door that everyone used that morning. Arnelle’s room was much closer to the back door of Simpson’s house than the front door of Simpson’s house.

bobaugust

Ms. Arnelle knew the estate better than anyone and she said she opened the front door and Phillips said he walked into the living room and, therefore, your posts indicates that Ms. Arnelle did not lie but the detectives did, imho. :);):cool:

[tv]

"Who" testified the back door was locked when the LE arrived.

From what I get thru posted testimony is LE went to Arnelle's and Kato's rooms and talked to each. IIRC Arnelle states Kato was at/in his door way with MF as she was leaving her room to go open the door. IMOO They all went inside the house including Arnelle. I don't remember reading how long they stayed but at some point Arnelle left to go to her room to get dressed to go get the kids. What evidence do you have that MF and Kato did not go in the house with Arnelle and do exactly like Arnelle...go in and leave...and what evidence is there to say they did not leave before Arnelle to walk back to Kato's room area where Arnelle saw them on the way to get dressed. IIRC Arnelle testifies seeing Kato and MF when she on her way to open the door house and again when she went to get dressed and IIRC where she said they were standing is not exactly the same.

I have NO Doubt that Phillips knew the layout of the house....he simply called the family room the living room....as people do every single day especially men folks...Its usually the more feminine folks that is concerned about what you call certain rooms but what ever one is called it doesn't change where it is located and how you get to it and where you go when you go thru it. IMHOO The fact remains the only way Phillips went "thru" the living room is he did so to go out the back doors to the pool area or those are the doors he entered the house and IIRC you've stated those doors were nailed shut. It is what it is.

Thanks for posting the layout. Of course it doesn't matter who called what room what. I have a family room and there are many people that have called it a living room...I do it myself unintentionally sometimes. The ojers have to claim that the stories of the detectives don't match or are lies. If the detectives aren't lying it means that Arnelle lied which leads to questioning why and the only reason would be to cover for her daddy. Without the evidence that someone disarmed the alarm and left the back door unlocked after doing a load of laundry the damning evidence against Simpson still amounts to a mountain. In other words, whether or not Arnelle took the detectives in the back door is much more important to the ng's position than it is to the g's. All my opinion, of course.

Like you said, it is what it is. :)

[William Anthony]

Or simply removed the bloody mess of a garment.

What bloody mess of a garment was produced as being worn by Simpson or is this just more made up evidence?

[William Anthony]

Exactly...it is just a short distance down the walk way...You come out of Arnelle's room turn to the right and go past Kaelin's room and IIRC go up or down some steps and you are right there.
It is just a fact of life that a den area is often called the living room and saying someone lied because they did so is an argument as useless as a sty on a pigs eye IMHOO. To me it's crystal clear the men are all saying they entered the house thru the back door where there is a bar area that Kaelin included in his testimony. (Which, IMHO, means the men lied.)

Arnelle even admits she normally would go to that door if it was not locked. IMHOO It was not locked and Arnelle knew it because she had already been inside but to do a good CYA job Arnelle took the keys. The door not being un-lockable from the outside became an issue so Arnelle had no choice but to say she went to the front door unless she explained how the door was unlocked. Any day of the week I'll take the testimony of 4 over one especially when they all describe the same thing but use different terms. To say there was a conspiracy with the back door is hog wash IMHOO. I guess they all just happened to know which door Arnelle normally used.



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.

They came up with the idea that Simpson wore a magical sweatsuit, which they allegedly found wet in the washing machine and they had to say they entered the back door and it wasn't alarm in order to attempt to explain why the allegedly observed sweatsuit was still allegedly wet and sold some a bill of goods that Ms. Arnelle was an accessory after the fact, when there is no evidence to support that and no charges were brought against Ms. Arnelle. She is left living well and some are left with their speculations, IMHO. Isn't that beautiful?

[William Anthony]

The white juror said the DNA was shakey not the whole jury.Two jurors wrote a book and stated the glove fit. not the whole jury.

The complete jury voted NOT GUILTY.

And that is how Simpson will forever remain NOT GUILTY.

[William Anthony]

Thanks for posting the layout. Of course it doesn't matter who called what room what. I have a family room and there are many people that have called it a living room...I do it myself unintentionally sometimes. The ojers have to claim that the stories of the detectives don't match or are lies. If the detectives aren't lying it means that Arnelle lied which leads to questioning why and the only reason would be to cover for her daddy. Without the evidence that someone disarmed the alarm and left the back door unlocked after doing a load of laundry the damning evidence against Simpson still amounts to a mountain. In other words, whether or not Arnelle took the detectives in the back door is much more important to the ng's position than it is to the g's. All my opinion, of course.

Like you said, it is what it is. :)

Yes, it is what it is and Phillips did not say I walked into a room I would call a living room but some woman may unintentionally call it a living room when it is a family room. :);):cool: He said he walked into the living room. All from testimony and posts.

[martin II]

According to the bottom layout of the house....if you go in the front door you enter the foyer where the stairs are located....the room labeled living room is located to the right at the end of the foyer as is completely off to its self. You don't enter thru the front door and go thru the living room unless you are going out the back doors of the living room to the pool area. IMHOO this clearly shows Phillips called the family room the living room.

When one enters the front door he walkes through the foyer to the living room. i think Phillips was smart enough to know a foyer from a living room.The foyer was only a small walk through area.

As furhman testified he entered the south door and was right at the bar area.
If you enter the south door you are at the bar area. To walk from the outside to the family room would be through the two doors just north of the south most door and those doors were nailed shut.
I posted the layout a few days ago.

[martin II]

No one has the authority to change Phillips actual testimony to fit what they think it should have been. He was a experienced officer that i assume had been in many houses and had several months to think about his testimony before he testified.

I cannot change Furhmans testimony from he entered the house at a bar area to he entered the house at the family room or living room or somer other room. Phillips testimony was that he entered to the living room. it stands as he testified.imo

[weezer]

Thanks for posting the layout. Of course it doesn't matter who called what room what. I have a family room and there are many people that have called it a living room...I do it myself unintentionally sometimes. The ojers have to claim that the stories of the detectives don't match or are lies. If the detectives aren't lying it means that Arnelle lied which leads to questioning why and the only reason would be to cover for her daddy. Without the evidence that someone disarmed the alarm and left the back door unlocked after doing a load of laundry the damning evidence against Simpson still amounts to a mountain. In other words, whether or not Arnelle took the detectives in the back door is much more important to the ng's position than it is to the g's. All my opinion, of course.

Like you said, it is what it is. :)

I have a living room and a family room and a library. We refer to two of them as the living room and all three as the den. . . .:shrug:

[tv]

I have a living room and a family room and a library. We refer to two of them as the living room and all three as the den. . . .:shrug:

Oh, a library...I'm jealous. Do a couple of old bookcases count, lol? :tongue:

You're right, of course. People use various names for different rooms. Sometimes it comes from where you live or grew up. Some people say family room, some say rec room, some say den. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

No one has the authority to change Phillips actual testimony to fit what they think it should have been. He was a experienced officer that i assume had been in many houses and had several months to think about his testimony before he testified.

I cannot change Furhmans testimony from he entered the house at a bar area to he entered the house at the family room or living room or somer other room. Phillips testimony was that he entered to the living room. it stands as he testified.imo

Martin,

Why am I reminded of lyrics from a Luther song, 'a chair is not a chair and a room is not a room...". I would add that a living room is not a book case or set of book cases and a library is not a tv and a computer.

[William Anthony]

Why are there discussions about food and drink and where one lives, when the topic being discussed was that Phillips said he walked into a living room, unless there is now a theory that where Phillips came from they called a bar and/or a kitchen a living room?

[weezer]

Sweet tea -- my addiction! :eek:

empty your mailbox

[William Anthony]

No one has the authority to change Phillips actual testimony to fit what they think it should have been. He was a experienced officer that i assume had been in many houses and had several months to think about his testimony before he testified.

I cannot change Furhmans testimony from he entered the house at a bar area to he entered the house at the family room or living room or somer other room. Phillips testimony was that he entered to the living room. it stands as he testified.imo

Vast liberties are being taken, IMHO.

[Its just me]

They came up with the idea that Simpson wore a magical sweatsuit, which they allegedly found wet in the washing machine and they had to say they entered the back door and it wasn't alarm in order to attempt to explain why the allegedly observed sweatsuit was still allegedly wet and sold some a bill of goods that Ms. Arnelle was an accessory after the fact, when there is no evidence to support that and no charges were brought against Ms. Arnelle. She is left living well and some are left with their speculations, IMHO. Isn't that beautiful?

That is some sentence you got there. ;) Lots of stuff before getting to
period...looks like something I'd do not an attorney. I haven't kept up with any to see how they are living. I've seen MF being brought in on TV to give his expert opinion. He looks good and always makes a lot of sense to me....I'd think he makes sense to the ones that call him...or they would not call. What ya think.

Money and material things does not make a person happy and riches certainly are not always beautiful but I do cherish most of mine. I'd much rather be dirt poor and have a good conscience than have a mansion and be guilty of Murder or help cover for one that murdered. IMHOO that is highly possible in the OJ case and IMOO it makes much more sense than claiming everyone is telling lies except Ms. Simpson. I take logic over riches to form my opinions but that’s "Its just me".

BTW....the next time you add something to my post that you are quoting make sure you acknowledge it in your reply. I did not post the "(Which, IMHO, means the men lied.) and I do not appreciate it was added. It can easily be interpreted that is "my" opinion and NOTHING is farther from the truth. I believe things like that are called misleading.

[Its just me]

No one has the authority to change Phillips actual testimony to fit what they think it should have been. He was a experienced officer that i assume had been in many houses and had several months to think about his testimony before he testified.

I cannot change Furhmans testimony from he entered the house at a bar area to he entered the house at the family room or living room or somer other room. Phillips testimony was that he entered to the living room. it stands as he testified.imo

No one is changing Phillips testimony....He said living room but all logic and common sense points to him calling the living room a family room/den and he entered it thru the back door like the rest...including Arnelle. IMOO

So if I'm not entitled to state my opinion of what I think Phillip actually testifed to it will take more authority than you to say I can't...Hotwater comes to mind. No offense intended as it was you that opened the discussion.

[William Anthony]

That is some sentence you got there. ;) Lots of stuff before getting to
period...looks like something I'd do not an attorney. I haven't kept up with any to see how they are living. I've seen MF being brought in on TV to give his expert opinion. He looks good and always makes a lot of sense to me....I'd think he makes sense to the ones that call him...or they would not call. What ya think.
(I think you might be right as I have always said most of America is wuick to embrace a convicted perjurer and a stipulated to racist. I am sure he makes sense to those that think as he does. What do you think?)
Money and material things does not make a person happy and riches certainly are not always beautiful but I do cherish most of mine. I'd much rather be dirt poor and have a good conscience than have a mansion and be guilty of Murder or help cover for one that murdered. (No one has been charged with helping anyone cover for murder. I would be happier being rich and unhappy than poor and unhappy and rich and happy than poor and happy. IMHOO that is highly possible in the OJ case and IMOO it makes much more sense than claiming everyone is telling lies except Ms. Simpson. I take logic over riches to form my opinions but that’s "Its just me".

BTW....the next time you add something to my post that you are quoting make sure you acknowledge it in your reply. I did not post the "(Which, IMHO, means the men lied.) and I do not appreciate it was added. It can easily be interpreted that is "my" opinion and NOTHING is farther from the truth. I believe things like that are called misleading.

This has been done when posters make long posts but since you take umbrage at this being done, I will certainly so do. You may take logic over riches but just make sure that you haven't passed up riches for fake logic. For instance, there was a post that said Ms. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door. However, when it was pointed out that the men all claimed she unlocked the door, it was not claimed that the men lied. The only door that could have been unlocked was the front door, which Ms. Arnelle said she unlocked and let in the men. Talking logically, then if Ms. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door, then the men lied.:);):cool:

[GreenIce]

A logical explanation is that Simpson rolled his sleeves up so he wouldn’t transfer the blood that was on his sleeves to his car.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Your star witness, Jill S., she said that he was wearing short sleeves.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

There is one other obvious consideration, which is the detectives knew Simpson was not home and they knew no one was injured, perpetrator or victim, who remained on Simpson's property.

William,

The point is, G's are not contesting this is what they did. They used a young woman as human shield. And people wonder why the LAPD has the reputation it has.

[fgump2]

A very astute and sophisticated observation of Ms. Bess. The statistics did not prove and the testimony should not have been that there was a match between the blood found and Simpson's. :);):cool:

You misunderstand the situation. She said there was no Orenthal blood on either glove. The DAs said there was blood on the right hand glove, the defense never disputed that.

[William Anthony]

William,

The point is, G's are not contesting this is what they did. They used a young woman as human shield. And people wonder why the LAPD has the reputation it has.

I think that somewhere in the recesses of their consciousness they realize there was no threat to Ms. Arnelle, because, IMHO, they know LE lied.

[William Anthony]

You misunderstand the situation. She said there was no Orenthal blood on either glove. The DAs said there was blood on the right hand glove, the defense never disputed that.

The sophisticated jury understood, imho, that just because they were claiming it was a match, it wasn't and that, as was later testified, the DNA was used not as an inclusion but only that someone could not be excluded as the source and that a lot of the conclusion was subjective.

[William Anthony]

empty your mailbox

I think she did. :);):cool:

[fgump2]

The first post was made in response to evidence that was not produced being useless. Which is correct. The juries are not speculate about evidence that was not produced. I was writing this in response to a point that GI has made that I disagree with. GI has posted that since the DAs didn't enter a piece of evidence, that means that the evidence was useless for the DAs case. I disagree, the fact that a piece of evidence wasn't entered means that the jury shouldn't consider it. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider it. A lot of books and magazine articles have been written about trials, such as Jeffrey Macdodonald, the Rosenburgs, Alger Hiss and more. Many of these articles or books consider evidence that wasn't in the trial, for example evidence that may have come up later. I consider Simpson's 1998 or 1999 statement that "even if I did kill her it would have had to be because I loved her so much" as evidence that he did kill her (not conclusive, but still evidence). This statement was made well after the 1995 trial, so obviously it wasn't a part of it.
The second post speaks for itself, res ipsa loquitor. That type of rank speculation should not be allowed in any trial.
I was writing this in response to the statement that many have made that Simpson couldn't have put incriminating evidence in an airport trash can because it would have been found (I think GI wrote 'like no one would have noticed?). Since the cops at both cities said that if he had put evidence in an airport trash can, it would probably not have been noticed, I included this fact.
I don't know if the defense made the claim that any evidence in air port trash cans would have been discovered. In some poor countries, India and Mexico I think, low income people known as trash pickers go through trash before it gets to the dump and sometimes afterwards' but this isn't India or Mexico.

I am not a legal expert. I don't have a good understanding of rank speculation. Does rank speculation include the idea that if nobody noticed cuts or bandages on Mr. Simpson's left hand that we can assume there were none? If the defense said that one person couldn't have killed two people without making a lot more noise and taking more than a few minutes, does that count as rank speculation?Are there degrees of speculation?Perhaps rank speculation, and speculation of a more modest level? I think that perhaps there should be several levels of speculation; but I don't consider myself an expert.

[martin II]

fgump2,

Simpson never told the detectives that he gash he got on on his middle finger happened at Rockingham. On the way to Parker Center he was asked about different knicks he had his hand. When they went into the interview, Simpson thought they were talking about a different cut. Bottom line, the gash on top of his middle finger would not have gone un noticed.

Did you see the size of the trash can? Also, that airport was searched and searched by 3:00 a.m. that morning and I imagine other searches took place. Also, the DA's made it clear, they never believed Simpson either went back to Rockingham with the items or took them with him. Which is why they did not present any theory other then an alleged missing bag, which was not missing.

As for the evidence not used by the DA's, read Mark Fuhrman's book as well as Lange and Vanatter's book. Also, MF testified about how sad it was that a lot evidence was being ignored. That is a direct dig at Clark. IMO.

You need to check a few things out before you make statements like they never searched the dump. They did search the dump, they searched areas in Chicago and they even searched the waste container on the airplane.

They searched and they searched and they found nothing. Bodies have been found in dumps before.

Also, do you really think the LAPD did not ask who emptied the trash can and when it was done? These are common sense questions. IMO.

I am pleased that you took the time to inform the poster of the searches that were made looking for a bag that he thinks was missing.
some time ago i posted a picture of vannatter taking what some said was the missing bag from oj at rockingham

Most that have posted here know le searched lax and the chicago police searched the hotel area. some need to create facts when there are none.

[fgump2]

GreenIce,

There is one other obvious consideration, which is the detectives knew Simpson was not home and they knew no one was injured, perpetrator or victim, who remained on Simpson's property.

The detecives said that they were concerned at one point about injured people or the possibility of criminals still there. At some point they decided that wasn't so likely. Whether they still thought criminals might still be there at that time is something I don't know.

I don't think that the cops thougt Arnelle was in much danger. I doubt that a criminal would have tried to injure or kill her. The main danger would have been from bullets, and having the cops go first wouldn't protect her much. They could have asked her to hide at a distance, around some corner, but it would be faster to go through with her. I don't have all the facts of their actions here, and even if I did I wouldn't want to juder their motives unless I had a good knowledge of police procedures, what the proper thing to do in certain situations.

[fgump2]

Mr. August,

Your star witness, Jill S., she said that he was wearing short sleeves.

I doubt that Jill could have told the difference between rolled up sleeves and short sleeves. Also Simpson could have taken off his sweat shirt and put it in a plastic bag, and put on a short sleeve shirt, or had one under his sweat shirt.

[martin II]

I was writing this in response to the statement that many have made that Simpson couldn't have put incriminating evidence in an airport trash can because it would have been found (I think GI wrote 'like no one would have noticed?). Since the cops at both cities said that if he had put evidence in an airport trash can, it would probably not have been noticed, I included this fact.
I don't know if the defense made the claim that any evidence in air port trash cans would have been discovered. In some poor countries, India and Mexico I think, low income people known as trash pickers go through trash before it gets to the dump and sometimes afterwards' but this isn't India or Mexico.

I am not a legal expert. I don't have a good understanding of rank speculation. Does rank speculation include the idea that if nobody noticed cuts or bandages on Mr. Simpson's left hand that we can assume there were none? If the defense said that one person couldn't have killed two people without making a lot more noise and taking more than a few minutes, does that count as rank speculation?Are there degrees of speculation?Perhaps rank speculation, and speculation of a more modest level? I think that perhaps there should be several levels of speculation; but I don't consider myself an expert.

le searched lax airport trash cans. Chicago police searched the hotel trash cans and the dumpsters i believe on 6/13 6/14.
no bag was found as there was no missing bag as you claim. The bags that were loaded in the limo were returned. oj had no reason to hide any bag as he was in his house when the murders happened so there was nothing to be missing.
To say there was no search is another inaccurate statement.

[fgump2]

I am pleased that you took the time to inform the poster of the searches that were made looking for a bag that he thinks was missing.
some time ago i posted a picture of vannatter taking what some said was the missing bag from oj at rockingham

Most that have posted here know le searched lax and the chicago police searched the hotel area. some need to create facts when there are none.

I thought I had read that the police in both cities made no attempt to search the trash dumps because there was so much stuff there, something like many tons added a day, not all from airports of course.

I could be wrong about the cops not searching the dumps.

Remember, we are all amateurs here. Most of us have made posts without putting in days of research.

A knife an some bloody clothing would have been a small needle in a very large hay stack. Very easy to overlook.

I think that part of the search of the Chicago hotel room showed that a sheet and perhaps a plastic bag were missing. Also there was blood on the remaining parts of the bed where they would be most unlikely to be shed while talking on the phone as Simpson said.

[William Anthony]

I was writing this in response to the statement that many have made that Simpson couldn't have put incriminating evidence in an airport trash can because it would have been found (I think GI wrote 'like no one would have noticed?). Since the cops at both cities said that if he had put evidence in an airport trash can, it would probably not have been noticed, I included this fact.
I don't know if the defense made the claim that any evidence in air port trash cans would have been discovered. In some poor countries, India and Mexico I think, low income people known as trash pickers go through trash before it gets to the dump and sometimes afterwards' but this isn't India or Mexico.

I am not a legal expert. I don't have a good understanding of rank speculation. Does rank speculation include the idea that if nobody noticed cuts or bandages on Mr. Simpson's left hand that we can assume there were none? If the defense said that one person couldn't have killed two people without making a lot more noise and taking more than a few minutes, does that count as rank speculation?Are there degrees of speculation?Perhaps rank speculation, and speculation of a more modest level? I think that perhaps there should be several levels of speculation; but I don't consider myself an expert.

My point is that no LE enforcement personnel should have been allowed to engage in the rank speculation in a trial that if someone did something. I do not consider myself an expert on speculation but I do know what is rank to me when I hear it, such as an officer of the law, especially one trying to convict a person even speaking out of court saying if.... The proper response is that on a tip we searched trash cans but nothing was found and they could have been emptied before our search or some poverty stricken person may have removed items from the trash (mid level speculation) which is not to say the defendant placed anything in the trash (low level speculation) because no one saw him place anything in the trash (fact).

The fact is that no one saw Simpson's hand cut, allowing the reasonable inference that it was not cut and the argument that it was not cut and, if it had been someone would have noticed. The defense provided experts, who testified to how long it would have taken to commit the murders. Hence, the defense could argue, not speculate, that it took some time, since there was evidence to support it. I sincerely hopes this helps you and you are right one can speculate all they desire, because Simpson will forever remain not guilty of murder.

[weezer]

I doubt that Jill could have told the difference between rolled up sleeves and short sleeves. Also Simpson could have taken off his sweat shirt and put it in a plastic bag, and put on a short sleeve shirt, or had one under his sweat shirt.

didn't he write in his confession book that he removed his top?

[William Anthony]

I doubt that Jill could have told the difference between rolled up sleeves and short sleeves. Also Simpson could have taken off his sweat shirt and put it in a plastic bag, and put on a short sleeve shirt, or had one under his sweat shirt.

Why is there a need to change testimony. She testified short sleeved.

[martin II]

I doubt that Jill could have told the difference between rolled up sleeves and short sleeves. Also Simpson could have taken off his sweat shirt and put it in a plastic bag, and put on a short sleeve shirt, or had one under his sweat shirt.

Simpson could have been at home also.

your post assume that JS actually saw oj, clarke didn't believe she did.

SIMPSOM COULD HAVE DONE.SIMPSON COULD DONE, SIMPSON COULD HAVE DONE.

Simpson did not do what you think he did and you have zip proof of any of it.

[tv]

didn't he write in his confession book that he removed his top?

Yes, I believe he did.

[William Anthony]

didn't he write in his confession book that he removed his top?

We know that in his work of fiction, it can't be true, unless we say that Ms, Shively lied.

[weezer]

Yes, I believe he did.

and I think jill shively said 'bare arms' --

[martin II]

didn't he write in his confession book that he removed his top?

In "If i did it' NO OJ never wrote a "confession" book.

[martin II]

Why is there a need to change testimony. She testified short sleeved.

M Clarke didn't believe JS and sent her home.
AT one pooint she said the person was M Allen.

[William Anthony]

and I think jill shively said 'bare arms' --

June 21th-Ms. Shively

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT MR. SIMPSON WAS WEARING?
7 A. I REMEMBER IT AS BEING SOMETHING DARK.
8 I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING BESIDES DARK.
9 Q. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THERE WERE LONG OR SHORT
10 SLEEVES?
11 A. I THINK IT WAS SHORT.
12 Q. DO YOU RECALL SEEING BEAR ARMS?
13 A. I DO REMEMBER SEEING BEAR ARMS; RIGHT.
14 THAT'S WHY I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS SHORT
15 SLEEVED.

[tv]

and I think jill shively said 'bare arms' --

That would fit right in with what Simpson wrote in his confession book about taking off his shirt. Just like pieces of a puzzle. :):)

[weezer]

That would fit right in with what Simpson wrote in his confession book about taking off his shirt. Just like pieces of a puzzle. :):)

exactly!

[tv]

exactly!

Speaking of his confession book, the ghostwriter, Pablo Fenjves said this:

He talked about when he left the alley," Fenjves added. "And I had been under the impression that at the end of the alley, he had made a right to the corner of Bundy and Montana, and then made a left toward San Vicente. And he said, 'No, no. You know, why would I have made that right? I made a left.' And then he saw the look on my face, and he said, 'Well, that's the way I would've gone.' "

[martin II]

We know that in his work of fiction, it can't be true, unless we say that Ms, Shively lied.

The poster may be confused as oj never wrote a confession book. Thats just false info. But when the subject is proof of murder some talk about a book where a guy tried to change the title and the book was then a complete bust.

[martin II]

Speaking of his confession book, the ghostwriter, Pablo Fenjves said this:

He talked about when he left the alley," Fenjves added. "And I had been under the impression that at the end of the alley, he had made a right to the corner of Bundy and Montana, and then made a left toward San Vicente. And he said, 'No, no. You know, why would I have made that right? I made a left.' And then he saw the look on my face, and he said, 'Well, that's the way I would've gone.' "

This shows that the whole thing was just some made up stuff to sell books by oj and Fenjves.
"Thats they way i would;ve gone" He didn't go either way.
hahaha

[martin II]

June 21th-Ms. Shively

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT MR. SIMPSON WAS WEARING?
7 A. I REMEMBER IT AS BEING SOMETHING DARK.
8 I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING BESIDES DARK.
9 Q. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THERE WERE LONG OR SHORT
10 SLEEVES?
11 A. I THINK IT WAS SHORT.
12 Q. DO YOU RECALL SEEING BEAR ARMS?
13 A. I DO REMEMBER SEEING BEAR ARMS; RIGHT.
14 THAT'S WHY I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS SHORT
15 SLEEVED.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

[William Anthony]

That would fit right in with what Simpson wrote in his confession book about taking off his shirt. Just like pieces of a puzzle. :):)

He said in his book of fiction that he would have gotten naked.