Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

Thanks for setting the record straight.

Anytime.

[William Anthony]

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.

There seems to be a lot of trying to change what someone actually said to what some want to believe was said, IMHO.

[martin II]

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 civil juror said she didn't care how the rockingham glove got there. It made no differance to her.

[martin II]

There seems to be a lot of trying to change what someone actually said to what some want to believe was said, IMHO.

When the testimony proves what some believe is wrong they just TRY to change the testimony. No one has that right,

[Its just me]

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

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.


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.

Actually Phillips said "we walked in through the living room area" Take notice of the word "through" it's important to were he went. He said he walked in through what I'm going to call "a room" then into a kitchen area. Look at the layout Martin and if you can... forget about Phillips testimony for the moment and take you an imaginary stroll through the house going in the front door and then the back door.....you simply "do not" walk in the front door through the living room area...It clearly is a room off to it's self that you enter from the foyer if you come in the front door..... and one can only turn around and come back out the way they went in or go out the French doors to the pool area. Phillips didn't say he went back out the living room but "through it" and into the kitchen area. Where you want to believe it or not it's impossible to walk thru the living room area and then into the kitchen area with out turning your arse around and back tracking. Even I've got enough sense to see that....and it's on the lay out you provided. Its clear IMHOO that Phillips called the the family room the living room because of that important word "through".
FWIW I’m not changing testimony….just adding a little logic. I've covered my thoughts on Arnelle unlocking the door. A cya.

[martin II]

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.




Actually Phillips said "we walked in through the living room area" Take notice of the word "through" it's important to were he went. He said he walked in through what I'm going to call "a room" then into a kitchen area. Look at the layout Martin and if you can... forget about Phillips testimony for the moment and take you an imaginary stroll through the house going in the front door and then the back door.....you simply "do not" walk in the front door through the living room area...It clearly is a room off to it's self that you enter from the foyer if you come in the front door..... and one can only turn around and come back out the way they went in or go out the French doors to the pool area. Phillips didn't say he went back out the living room but "through it" and into the kitchen area. Where you want to believe it or not it's impossible to walk thru the living room area and then into the kitchen area with out turning your arse around and back tracking. Even I've got enough sense to see that....and it's on the lay out you provided. Its clear IMHOO that Phillips called the the family room the living room because of that important word "through".
FWIW I’m not changing testimony….just adding a little logic. I've covered my thoughts on Arnelle unlocking the door. A cya.

Phillips dIdn't say he entered the bar area to the family room to the dinning room to the kitchen
he said he entered the living room then to the kitchen.

[Its just me]

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:

LOL Don't worry about my riches....it took logic to get and keep them. Another LOL if you want to believe everyone lied except Ms. Simpson...go for it but it is not logical thinking imhoo. :);):cool:

[Its just me]

Phillips dIdn't say he entered the bar area to the family room to the dinning room to the kitchen
he said he entered the living room then to the kitchen.

Hahaha No he didn't but he said he went "through" the living room "area" to the kitchen area and that is impossible. You can't leave out the word "through" to make it fit. LOL it's right there in Phillips testimony...plain as day.

[tv]

Hahaha No he didn't but he said he went "through" the living room "area" to the kitchen area and that is impossible. You can't leave out the word "through" to make it fit. LOL it's right there in Phillips testimony...plain as day.

The testimony of Phillips is very clear and very easy to understand. The map removes all doubt as to what he was saying. It astonishes me that Arnelle might have thought no one would pick up on this lie and connect the dots.

[GreenIce]

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,

That is not what the detectives testified to. The bottom line, is they let her walk in first, they put her life in danager. Also, what if there was a blood bath in the main house? What if the maid was in fact killed? What if OJ Simpson hung himself or was murdered---should Arnelle been the person to discover such things?

If the thought of Simpson taking a huge chance that his children may have discovered their mother makes your blood boil, then the thought of Arnelle finding her father dead or the maid dead should, IMO, also make your blood boil.

The detectives are sworn to protect and serve and if necessary, take a bullet for a civilian, it is clear these detectives violated this oath when they allowed Arnelle to walk into the house first.

And both Vanatter and MF testified to "officer safety", no problem with that, why not "civillian safety"? Isn't that what they get paid for?

[GreenIce]

M Clarke didn't believe JS and sent her home.
AT one pooint she said the person was M Allen.

Martin,

IMO, it is more likely that Clark did believe JS and that is why she was sent packing. IMO, it is more likey that the person who was driving the Bronco was not OJ Simpson. IMO, it may have been the other driver who sealed her fate.

Also, JS gave a very vivid description of the Bronco, perhaps Clark realized that these details were not on Simpson's Bronco.

[GreenIce]

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.

Fgump2,

Don't you think the LAPD would have interviewed airport personnel? That they would have asked who was on duty that night and who was responsible for emptying the trash? The trash can that was said to be used is like the standard size that you see outside a store. These are not huge containers. The weight of the items alone would have been noticed.

According to Killing Time and Joe Bosco's book, the airport was searched and it was done very, early that morning, like around 3:00 a.m.

[bobaugust]

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.

You claim that Simpson put a bag on a trash can before he signed an autograph. Post the testimony to support that claim please. Be sure to include the date.

bobaugust

[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

If you believe Arnelle’s story is true then you must also believe Fuhrman never found the glove behind Kaelin’s room since according to Arnelle Fuhrman was talking to Kaelin outside Kaelin’s room during the time Fuhrman testified he went to the south path to investigate the noises

It seems to me in your desperation to avoid admitting that you are wrong you simply call any witness who testifies to facts that contradict your opinions a liar.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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.

Your comment that the police and Kaelin lied about the doors is just another false accusation by you that goes along with the rest of the false information you keep posting on this discussion group.

bobaugust

[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

Get the facts straight, three detectives said Arnelle unlocked the back door and led them into the house, not the front door. They were mistaken; the back door was already unlocked when Arnelle opened it. I was not there and you were not there, but the fact is that Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter were there with Arnelle when she let them in the back door. The fact is that Kaelin said he saw Arnelle and the detectives all enter the house through the back door, not the front door, and then he and Fuhrman followed them into the house through the same door.

What witness do you know of that corroborates Arnelle’s story that she led two detectives around the house to the front door?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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.

Why do you continue to post false information? Phillips said, “WE walked in through the living room AREA and then into a kitchen AREA”

[bobaugust]

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

Only Simpson knows what happened to the dark colored sweat suit he was seen wearing an hour before the murders.

[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?;)

The three detectives testified Arnelle unlocked the BACK door before she opened it, not the front door. Arnelle Simpson said she unlocked the front door, not the back door. Kato Kaelin corroborates the detectives’ testimony that Arnelle opened the BACK door to let the detectives in the house. No witness corroborates what Arnelle said she did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

No one corroborates Arnelle Simpson’s story. Phillips, Lange, Vannatter, Fuhrman, and Kaelin all contradict Arnelle’s story.

[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:

The testimony is what it is despite your repeated attempts to incorrectly quote it and the layout of the Rockingham estate is what it is. It’s impossible to enter into Simpson’s living room whether or not entry is made through the front door or the back door.

[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:

Phillips never said he entered the house into the living room. The lie Arnelle told was when she said she led two detectives from her room around to the front door when in fact she led three detectives from her room to the back door.

[Its just me]

The testimony of Phillips is very clear and very easy to understand. The map removes all doubt as to what he was saying. It astonishes me that Arnelle might have thought no one would pick up on this lie and connect the dots.

The testimony is clear and easy to understand....for anyone willing to read what Phillips actually said and compare it to the layout of the house.

When the dots were connected the front door became Arnelle's point of entrance. IMOO That's pretty clear also.

[bobaugust]

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?

Unfortunately during the criminal trial neither the prosecution nor the police realized why Arnelle lied about what door she opened when she let the detectives into the house. It wasn’t until the civil trial when Daniel Petrocelli learned facts from the witnesses who gave depositions that tell us why Arnelle lied about opening the back door to let the detectives into the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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.

Phillips said, “WE walked in through the living room AREA and then into a kitchen AREA”

[bobaugust]

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 except you and William. You both keep repeating the same false information that Phillips said he entered into the living room. Phillips said, “WE walked in through the living room AREA and then into a kitchen AREA”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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?

Why do you keep repeating false information? Phillips said, “WE walked in through the living room AREA and then into a kitchen AREA”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

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

Jill Shively said she saw Simpson’s bear arms and that’s why she thought his dark clothing had short sleeves. As I said before 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.

June 21, 1994 Jill Shively

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT MR. SIMPSON WAS WEARING?
A. I REMEMBER IT AS BEING SOMETHING DARK. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING BESIDES DARK.
Q. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THERE WERE LONG OR SHORT SLEEVES?
A. I THINK IT WAS SHORT.
Q. DO YOU RECALL SEEING BEAR ARMS?
A. I DO REMEMBER SEEING BEAR ARMS; RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS SHORT SLEEVED.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

Phillips never said he entered the house into the living room. The lie Arnelle told was when she said she led two detectives from her room around to the front door when in fact she led three detectives from her room to the back door.

Mr. August,

Kato contradicts VA walking into the house with Phillips and Lange. Arnelle's testimony regarding where VA was has always been consistent. The same can't be said of the detectives. IMO.

[William Anthony]

LOL Don't worry about my riches....it took logic to get and keep them. Another LOL if you want to believe everyone lied except Ms. Simpson...go for it but it is not logical thinking imhoo. :);):cool:

It's your logic that I am worried about as it may be false. It is illogical to think that those, who testified the same as Ms. Arnelle were not liars but she is.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Only Simpson knows what happened to the dark colored sweat suit he was seen wearing an hour before the murders.

The question is what happened to the one, without the white zipper, that the prosecution claimed he wore to kill two people. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

The three detectives testified Arnelle unlocked the BACK door before she opened it, not the front door. Arnelle Simpson said she unlocked the front door, not the back door. Kato Kaelin corroborates the detectives’ testimony that Arnelle opened the BACK door to let the detectives in the house. No witness corroborates what Arnelle said she did.

bobaugust

You know that the only door that was able to be unlocked was the front door.:biggrin:

[William Anthony]

No one corroborates Arnelle Simpson’s story. Phillips, Lange, Vannatter, Fuhrman, and Kaelin all contradict Arnelle’s story.

See above post.

[socaldiva]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9219841]*snip*
June 21, 1994 Jill Shively

Q. DO YOU RECALL SEEING BEAR ARMS?
A. I DO REMEMBER SEEING BEAR ARMS; RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS SHORT SLEEVED.

/QUOTE]

Does anyone besides myself think it's funny that the transcriber used "bear arms" rather than "bare arms"?

[William Anthony]

The testimony is what it is despite your repeated attempts to incorrectly quote it and the layout of the Rockingham estate is what it is. It’s impossible to enter into Simpson’s living room whether or not entry is made through the front door or the back door.

So, Simpson had a un-accessible living room to walk into.

[William Anthony]

Unfortunately during the criminal trial neither the prosecution nor the police realized why Arnelle lied about what door she opened when she let the detectives into the house. It wasn’t until the civil trial when Daniel Petrocelli learned facts from the witnesses who gave depositions that tell us why Arnelle lied about opening the back door to let the detectives into the house.

bobaugust

LE testified in the criminal trial. :biggrin:

[William Anthony]

Phillips said, “WE walked in through the living room AREA and then into a kitchen AREA”

So, where do you think the living room area was in the bedroom?:biggrin:

[William Anthony]

Why do you keep repeating false information? Phillips said, “WE walked in through the living room AREA and then into a kitchen AREA”

bobaugust

See above post.

[GreenIce]

If you believe Arnelle’s story is true then you must also believe Fuhrman never found the glove behind Kaelin’s room since according to Arnelle Fuhrman was talking to Kaelin outside Kaelin’s room during the time Fuhrman testified he went to the south path to investigate the noises

It seems to me in your desperation to avoid admitting that you are wrong you simply call any witness who testifies to facts that contradict your opinions a liar.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Was it Arnelle's job to know where MF was and who he was with and for how long? She passed MF and Kato, she walked into the house, went into the kitchen area to use the phone. Kato was not taken to the kitchen area, he was taken to the bar area.

Please explain why it is so imperative that Arnelle know where all these people were?

Also, you have always said that Kato was wrong about the clothes Simpson was wearing because he was terrified about the thumps. I think you also posted that he had no reason to focus on what Simpson was wearing.

Doesn't it only make sense that Kato again could be mistaken because he woke up the police, his room was being searched and he was asked several questions about the night before? And his testimony does not match MF's testimony about entering the house.

Also, why did it take MF 15 minutes to find the glove?

Why, if he came in the back door, would he go out the front door to investigate the thumps? Simpson's estate is not that big, it would not have taken him 15 minutes to find the glove. In fact, he testified that he thought it was possible that someone could be hurt or dead back there.

Not one book written ever contradicts Arnelle's version of events, not one book ever suggests that Arnelle was involved in any way, in fact, Lange and Vanatter wrote she was nothing but cooperative---even after she testified that she told them that her father was out of town but she didn't know where he was. Even after she testified that VA was not with the two detectives when she entered the house. Not one person wrote they found it odd that Arnelle would testify they entered the front of the house when in fact they entered through a back door.

Arnelle testified in the prelim hearing before the detectives, I think. The detectives were not asked which door they entered. Clark confirmed that they did enter through the front door during the prelim hearing.

You have yet to produce any evidence that Simpson even talked to Arnelle that day or in the early morning hours. You have yet to produce one state's witness who testified to the contents of the washing machine and if they were wet and it was in fact a sweat suit.

Until you produce evidence of any of this, you can't accuse Arnelle of being involved. There has never been any testimony that even compared those fibers to a sweat suit. None. Dr. Deedrick never, ever, ever testified that those fibers could have even come from a sweat suit.

I have no problem with people saying they believe Kato lied or was mistaken, etc., because Kato is not being accused of a crime. There is a difference.

Also, don't you think the Goldmans' would have gone on the offensive against Arnelle? They made it perfectly clear that they could not allow themselves to think of Simpson's minor children. I get that, I understand that. However, Arnelle is not a minor---so where is their outrage over Simpson's accomplice?

The facts are that the detectives lied on several key points and were beyond vague on others. You have yet to address how Phillips could ask a direct question to Arnelle regarding her father but refused to answer his question. You have yet to address why Phillips, after asking this important question, the two other detectives dismissed his question and asked their own.

Bottom line, Phillips wanted to give the clear impression that himself, Lange and Vanatter were always together at Rockingham until they got into the kitchen and used the phone.

It seems to me you are avoiding the obvious, that two detectives were on the estate investigating and both of them knew about the thumps and learned it from Kato and while outside, not inside like they claimed.

MF said he never told VA about the thumps, VA said that he did tell him about the thumps and Kato proved VA lied on this as well---it was Kato who told him about the thumps.

Now, why would Vanatter lie about this? Because he probably checked out the thumps before MF did and saw nothing and then was shocked stupid when MF came back and made his little discovery.

[Its just me]

It's your logic that I am worried about as it may be false. It is illogical to think that those, who testified the same as Ms. Arnelle were not liars but she is.:);):cool:

William I am as confident in my logic as you are yours...maybe more so because I fully believe if you would leave race out of it you are smart enough to see why people think OJ got off with murder.
I "know" race has zero bearing on my opinions but I can not judge you because I've never worn your shoes. You may have personal issues in life that help you form opinions. I am far from being pro LE....I had a brother that died under mysterious circumstances while surrounded by LE and after 3 years of digging thru the death investigation report done by the LE investigating their own....I am convinced some of the LE lied big time to cover things they did because it does not match what my family members witnessed and as a result I have an extremely hard time having full faith in LE but I am logic enough to look at things relating to LE as a "whole" and logic enough to know all LE are not crooks. I hope one day you can to that with the race issue.
I formed my opinions watching OJ's trial....it was not based on race and certainly not because I believe in all LE. LOL I'd have to be smart enough to write a book on all the "why s" that caused me to come to my guilty opinion...I'm not smart enough to do that so I'll just have to let you wonder for now.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

I got it!!!!!! I just posted this to Mr. August but I'll post it again.

The reason why the detectives are lying about VA's whereabouts is because he was told about the thumps by Kato while still outside. I bet Vanatter did check those thumps out and saw nothing, saw that both gates were closed and may have walked a few feet down and realized they were nothing.

Can you imagine his shock when MF found the glove? Or when he saw MF walk out the front door and it took him 15 minutes to find a glove that VA already knew was not back there?

There has to be a reason why the two detectives are sticking to the 3 detective enter into the house. IMO.

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

Aren't that at least two other witnesses how could have testified what door was entered? Didn't at least two uniforms go with them, in a black and white? Also, I don't remember if the Westec people left. I think if I was working for Westec and I knew something was up, I think I would stick around a bit to try to find out what was going on.

Just a thought!

[Its just me]

Martin and William,

I got it!!!!!! I just posted this to Mr. August but I'll post it again.

The reason why the detectives are lying about VA's whereabouts is because he was told about the thumps by Kato while still outside. I bet Vanatter did check those thumps out and saw nothing, saw that both gates were closed and may have walked a few feet down and realized they were nothing.

Can you imagine his shock when MF found the glove? Or when he saw MF walk out the front door and it took him 15 minutes to find a glove that VA already knew was not back there?

There has to be a reason why the two detectives are sticking to the 3 detective enter into the house. IMO.

IMHOO the reason is they are telling the truth.

[Its just me]

William and Martin,

Aren't that at least two other witnesses how could have testified what door was entered? Didn't at least two uniforms go with them, in a black and white? Also, I don't remember if the Westec people left. I think if I was working for Westec and I knew something was up, I think I would stick around a bit to try to find out what was going on.

Just a thought!

Don't you think if you know about two other witnesses the defense would also know and called them to the stand. :shrug:

[martin II]

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.




Actually Phillips said "we walked in through the living room area" Take notice of the word "through" it's important to were he went. He said he walked in through what I'm going to call "a room" then into a kitchen area. Look at the layout Martin and if you can... forget about Phillips testimony for the moment and take you an imaginary stroll through the house going in the front door and then the back door.....you simply "do not" walk in the front door through the living room area...It clearly is a room off to it's self that you enter from the foyer if you come in the front door..... and one can only turn around and come back out the way they went in or go out the French doors to the pool area. Phillips didn't say he went back out the living room but "through it" and into the kitchen area. Where you want to believe it or not it's impossible to walk thru the living room area and then into the kitchen area with out turning your arse around and back tracking. Even I've got enough sense to see that....and it's on the lay out you provided. Its clear IMHOO that Phillips called the the family room the living room because of that important word "through".
FWIW I’m not changing testimony….just adding a little logic. I've covered my thoughts on Arnelle unlocking the door. A cya.


If Phillips walked from the foyer to the entrance of the living room he only had to turn right to be in the kitchen.

According to the lay out how did he do this.

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.

PLEASE NOTE.
Not to the rear (south) OF THE MAIN HOUSE BUT THE BACK PORTION (EAST)
OF THE MAIN HOUSE WHERE THERE WAS SOME FRENCH DOORS AND ANOTHER SMALL DOOR (FIRST OF THE DOORS GOING SOUTH) right next to it,
(next to french doors)


if he said he was in a room with french doors that would be the living room.

Another issue.

Kato.
Phillip[s said he entered the house with Arnell,vannater,lang. According to his testimony furhman and kato did not enter the house with them. So why did kato testify that he entered the house with Arnell and the others if he didn't.

[martin II]

Don't you think if you know about two other witnesses the defense would also know and called them to the stand. :shrug:

i am not sure westec stayed around but there are many reasons why some witnesses were not called by both side.I don't think le would allow westec to go in with them.They would not want witnesses.

[tv]

Don't you think if you know about two other witnesses the defense would also know and called them to the stand. :shrug:

The Westec officer got another call and left the scene before the detectives entered the estate. If anyone had seen Arnelle take the detectives in the front door the defense would have called them. Imo, it's just more distractions thrown in to make Arnelle look like she's telling the truth when it's obvious she's not. :shrug:

[martin II]

William I am as confident in my logic as you are yours...maybe more so because I fully believe if you would leave race out of it you are smart enough to see why people think OJ got off with murder.
I "know" race has zero bearing on my opinions but I can not judge you because I've never worn your shoes. You may have personal issues in life that help you form opinions. I am far from being pro LE....I had a brother that died under mysterious circumstances while surrounded by LE and after 3 years of digging thru the death investigation report done by the LE investigating their own....I am convinced some of the LE lied big time to cover things they did because it does not match what my family members witnessed and as a result I have an extremely hard time having full faith in LE but I am logic enough to look at things relating to LE as a "whole" and logic enough to know all LE are not crooks. I hope one day you can to that with the race issue.
I formed my opinions watching OJ's trial....it was not based on race and certainly not because I believe in all LE. LOL I'd have to be smart enough to write a book on all the "why s" that caused me to come to my guilty opinion...I'm not smart enough to do that so I'll just have to let you wonder for now.

There are those that post here that the verdict was based on a ignorant,uneducated r88888 Jury. Furhman and the media brought race into this case. Some see it some don't.
Most saw the case live on tv and came to different opinions than you. Some believe testimony that helps the prosecution and try to change testimony that dosen't.
i am not saying you are purposely changing phillips testimony but your ideas of what he said he did is in clonflict with what he actually saide.
It appears that you are saying that kato entered the house with Arnell and the others when testimony proves he was still at his room including phillip's and Furhmans testimony.

The detectives say Arnell unlocked the door from the outside but then say that door was unlocked.(south door)

Some detectives gave different testimony at different times yet all of their testimonies are believed by some. :shrug:

I will allow phillips testimony to remain as recorded.

[martin II]

The testimony is clear and easy to understand....for anyone willing to read what Phillips actually said and compare it to the layout of the house.

When the dots were connected the front door became Arnelle's point of entrance. IMOO That's pretty clear also.

Phillips testimony provers where he was.He connected those dots.

[martin II]

No one is changing Phillips testimony except you and William. You both keep repeating the same false information that Phillips said he entered into the living room. Phillips said, “WE walked in through the living room AREA and then into a kitchen AREA”

bobaugust

So thats proof that he was in the living room.

[martin II]

LOL Don't worry about my riches....it took logic to get and keep them. Another LOL if you want to believe everyone lied except Ms. Simpson...go for it but it is not logical thinking imhoo. :);):cool:

Well
Did Arnell lie about unlocking the a door or did the detectives lie when they said she did?

[martin II]

Many wrote books that were in conflict with the facts that came out in the case. Especially those that came out during defense cross of some prosecution withnesses.imo.Most wrote books based on their perspective and others based on some bias that they brought to the their effort.

[tv]

William I am as confident in my logic as you are yours...maybe more so because I fully believe if you would leave race out of it you are smart enough to see why people think OJ got off with murder.
I "know" race has zero bearing on my opinions but I can not judge you because I've never worn your shoes. You may have personal issues in life that help you form opinions. I am far from being pro LE....I had a brother that died under mysterious circumstances while surrounded by LE and after 3 years of digging thru the death investigation report done by the LE investigating their own....I am convinced some of the LE lied big time to cover things they did because it does not match what my family members witnessed and as a result I have an extremely hard time having full faith in LE but I am logic enough to look at things relating to LE as a "whole" and logic enough to know all LE are not crooks. I hope one day you can to that with the race issue.
I formed my opinions watching OJ's trial....it was not based on race and certainly not because I believe in all LE. LOL I'd have to be smart enough to write a book on all the "why s" that caused me to come to my guilty opinion...I'm not smart enough to do that so I'll just have to let you wonder for now.

IJM, I'm sorry for your loss and the unanswered questions that make it even more painful for you and your family. I can see where that experience would give you a unique perspective on this case.

[martin II]

IMHOO the reason is they are telling the truth.

There is testimony that proves your comment is not true.

[William Anthony]

William I am as confident in my logic as you are yours...maybe more so because I fully believe if you would leave race out of it you are smart enough to see why people think OJ got off with murder.
I "know" race has zero bearing on my opinions but I can not judge you because I've never worn your shoes. You may have personal issues in life that help you form opinions. I am far from being pro LE....I had a brother that died under mysterious circumstances while surrounded by LE and after 3 years of digging thru the death investigation report done by the LE investigating their own....I am convinced some of the LE lied big time to cover things they did because it does not match what my family members witnessed and as a result I have an extremely hard time having full faith in LE but I am logic enough to look at things relating to LE as a "whole" and logic enough to know all LE are not crooks. I hope one day you can to that with the race issue.
I formed my opinions watching OJ's trial....it was not based on race and certainly not because I believe in all LE. LOL I'd have to be smart enough to write a book on all the "why s" that caused me to come to my guilty opinion...I'm not smart enough to do that so I'll just have to let you wonder for now.

The point is that it is thought many others got off with murder but I have not seen an equal amount of outrage over their acquittal as with the thought that Simpson got away with murder, due to the posts on this board stating that the jury was uneducated, ignorant, racially biased and the magnificent one played the race card. That was what made me join this message board and, perhaps, you should tell others that their posts indicate that race is the subject of their outrage.

Without any stated reasons why you came to the conclusion that Simpson was guilty, it would be a waste of my time for me to wonder why you reached that conclusion, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

I got it!!!!!! I just posted this to Mr. August but I'll post it again.

The reason why the detectives are lying about VA's whereabouts is because he was told about the thumps by Kato while still outside. I bet Vanatter did check those thumps out and saw nothing, saw that both gates were closed and may have walked a few feet down and realized they were nothing.

Can you imagine his shock when MF found the glove? Or when he saw MF walk out the front door and it took him 15 minutes to find a glove that VA already knew was not back there?

There has to be a reason why the two detectives are sticking to the 3 detective enter into the house. IMO.

GreenIce,

Yes, and that explains why the rush to get MF back to Bundy, risking cross contamination.

[martin II]

The Westec officer got another call and left the scene before the detectives entered the estate. If anyone had seen Arnelle take the detectives in the front door the defense would have called them. Imo, it's just more distractions thrown in to make Arnelle look like she's telling the truth when it's obvious she's not. :shrug:

The detectives all said Arnell unlocked the door to let them in. later they say the door they entered was unlocked. Which is the lie?

Actually i believe the prosecution brought up the question about the doors and it was all a distraction from the fact they had no proof of the murders.

[William Anthony]

William I am as confident in my logic as you are yours...maybe more so because I fully believe if you would leave race out of it you are smart enough to see why people think OJ got off with murder.
I "know" race has zero bearing on my opinions but I can not judge you because I've never worn your shoes. You may have personal issues in life that help you form opinions. I am far from being pro LE....I had a brother that died under mysterious circumstances while surrounded by LE and after 3 years of digging thru the death investigation report done by the LE investigating their own....I am convinced some of the LE lied big time to cover things they did because it does not match what my family members witnessed and as a result I have an extremely hard time having full faith in LE but I am logic enough to look at things relating to LE as a "whole" and logic enough to know all LE are not crooks. I hope one day you can to that with the race issue.
I formed my opinions watching OJ's trial....it was not based on race and certainly not because I believe in all LE. LOL I'd have to be smart enough to write a book on all the "why s" that caused me to come to my guilty opinion...I'm not smart enough to do that so I'll just have to let you wonder for now.

Many families have had an experience with their family members and friends as you have. I am truly sorry for your loss.

[martin II]

William I am as confident in my logic as you are yours...maybe more so because I fully believe if you would leave race out of it you are smart enough to see why people think OJ got off with murder.
I "know" race has zero bearing on my opinions but I can not judge you because I've never worn your shoes. You may have personal issues in life that help you form opinions. I am far from being pro LE....I had a brother that died under mysterious circumstances while surrounded by LE and after 3 years of digging thru the death investigation report done by the LE investigating their own....I am convinced some of the LE lied big time to cover things they did because it does not match what my family members witnessed and as a result I have an extremely hard time having full faith in LE but I am logic enough to look at things relating to LE as a "whole" and logic enough to know all LE are not crooks. I hope one day you can to that with the race issue.
I formed my opinions watching OJ's trial....it was not based on race and certainly not because I believe in all LE. LOL I'd have to be smart enough to write a book on all the "why s" that caused me to come to my guilty opinion...I'm not smart enough to do that so I'll just have to let you wonder for now.

I know a few famalies that have suffered as yours did. Sorry to her about your experience. It seems there are a few bad apples in every le department.

[martin II]

The point is that it is thought many others got off with murder but I have not seen an equal amount of outrage over their acquittal as with the thought that Simpson got away with murder, due to the posts on this board stating that the jury was uneducated, ignorant, racially biased and the magnificent one played the race card. That was what made me join this message board and, perhaps, you should tell others that their posts indicate that race is the subject of their outrage.

Without any stated reasons why you came to the conclusion that Simpson was guilty, it would be a waste of my time for me to wonder why you reached that conclusion, IMHO.

I thought about that also but came to the same conclusion as you did.

[martin II]

The Westec officer got another call and left the scene before the detectives entered the estate. If anyone had seen Arnelle take the detectives in the front door the defense would have called them. Imo, it's just more distractions thrown in to make Arnelle look like she's telling the truth when it's obvious she's not. :shrug:

Sounds like you dissagree with the detectives testimony.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

Aren't that at least two other witnesses how could have testified what door was entered? Didn't at least two uniforms go with them, in a black and white? Also, I don't remember if the Westec people left. I think if I was working for Westec and I knew something was up, I think I would stick around a bit to try to find out what was going on.

Just a thought!

Westec gave vannater ojs house phone number. He rang it and got a message in ojs voice saying i am not home.

[William Anthony]

Sounds like you dissagree with the detectives testimony.

Martin,

They must disagree with the detectives even though the detectives agree with Ms. Arnelle in that she unlocked the door and the only door to have a lock that could be opened with a key was the front, as Ms. Arnelle testified she entered, because that is the only way they can attempt to paint Ms. Arnelle in an ugly criminal light and say that she lied when she testified to unlocking the door but not claim the detectives lied when they testified she unlocked the door. Hatred can overrule logic, :);):cool: IMHO, as the evidence supports that MF planted the glove.

[martin II]

William

Some listened to the prosecution presentation witnesses and made long list of claimes and came to the conclusion,thats it. He is guilty.
Others listened to the defense cross examination of those witnesses and witnessed many being caught in lies and deception. The jury heard both and could not find that the porosecution proved their case.So they just did what the prosecution had forced them to do vote not guilty. That verdict stands regardless of how smart some think they are.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

They must disagree with the detectives even though the detectives agree with Ms. Arnelle in that she unlocked the door and the only door to have a lock that could be opened with a key was the front, as Ms. Arnelle testified she entered, because that is the only way they can attempt to paint Ms. Arnelle in an ugly criminal light and say that she lied when she testified to unlocking the door but not claim the detectives lied when they testified she unlocked the door. Hatred can overrule logic, :);):cool: IMHO, as the evidence supports that MF planted the glove.

Everyone has some form of logic but i think to change what a seasoned detective testified to in a court of law is kinda illogical. imo

[William Anthony]

William

Some listened to the prosecution presentation witnesses and made long list of claimes and came to the conclusion,thats it. He is guilty.
Others listened to the defense cross examination of those witnesses and witnessed many being caught in lies and deception. The jury heard both and could not find that the porosecution proved their case.So they just did what the prosecution had forced them to do vote not guilty. That verdict stands regardless of how smart some think they are.imo

Simpson is and will remain forever not guilty.

[Its just me]

Is Williams post the only post you have read where race was injected into the discussion? Why have you selected his post and ignored the others.?

Race was a part of the case made so by Fuhrman,the media and others. If one ignores the racism that showed up in the case one may be ignoring possible motives. I see nothing wrong with discussing race when it was a part of the case.Posters have called the entire criminal jury racist.imo

As if it is any of your business....I post to William because William posts to me and I appreciated it. Do you have a problem with William and I posting to each other...if so spill it out...get it off your chest.

To be honest I don't respond to others about race because they've never posted anything to me personally about race. I see you have made several posts to me while I've been out. I try to answer all posts quoting me but I'm ignoring you and not replying mainly because I have an electrician hired and he needs me to help him put up light fixtures. Plus I've found you lack the ablility to understand facts....so today I'm just gonna leave you to carry on trying to blame the men who went inside the back door with Ms.Simpson carrying her keys as if she was going to unlock an already unlocked door. In my very humble opinion she fooled the det. only until they realized she could not unlock the door. :seeya:

[Hotwater]

Race in the case discussion is closed.

[William Anthony]

As if it is any of your business....I post to William because William posts to me and I appreciated it. Do you have a problem with William and I posting to each other...if so spill it out...get it off your chest.

To be honest I don't respond to others about race because they've never posted anything to me personally about race. I see you have made several posts to me while I've been out. I try to answer all posts quoting me but I'm ignoring you and not replying mainly because I have an electrician hired and he needs me to help him put up light fixtures. Plus I've found you lack the ablility to understand facts....so today I'm just gonna leave you to carry on trying to blame the men who went inside the back door with Ms.Simpson carrying her keys as if she was going to unlock an already unlocked door. In my very humble opinion she fooled the det. only until they realized she could not unlock the door. :seeya:

Just to set the record straight. This was my post.

It's your logic that I am worried about as it may be false. It is illogical to think that those, who testified the same as Ms. Arnelle were not liars but she is.:);):cool:[/QUOTE]

This is your response to that post.

William I am as confident in my logic as you are yours...maybe more so because I fully believe if you would leave race out of it you are smart enough to see why people think OJ got off with murder.
I "know" race has zero bearing on my opinions but I can not judge you because I've never worn your shoes. You may have personal issues in life that help you form opinions. I am far from being pro LE....I had a brother that died under mysterious circumstances while surrounded by LE and after 3 years of digging thru the death investigation report done by the LE investigating their own....I am convinced some of the LE lied big time to cover things they did because it does not match what my family members witnessed and as a result I have an extremely hard time having full faith in LE but I am logic enough to look at things relating to LE as a "whole" and logic enough to know all LE are not crooks. I hope one day you can to that with the race issue.
I formed my opinions watching OJ's trial....it was not based on race and certainly not because I believe in all LE. LOL I'd have to be smart enough to write a book on all the "why s" that caused me to come to my guilty opinion...I'm not smart enough to do that so I'll just have to let you wonder for now.

I enjoy jousting with you and this is not to point the finger. It is just to show that I did not mention race when you replied. However, I will not deny that the subject of race and inequality is of paramount interest to me. The reason I joined this message board was because I saw the comments made about the criminal jury and the magnificent one. I will address the remainder of your post in another post.

[William Anthony]

As if it is any of your business....I post to William because William posts to me and I appreciated it. Do you have a problem with William and I posting to each other...if so spill it out...get it off your chest.

To be honest I don't respond to others about race because they've never posted anything to me personally about race. I see you have made several posts to me while I've been out. I try to answer all posts quoting me but I'm ignoring you and not replying mainly because I have an electrician hired and he needs me to help him put up light fixtures. Plus I've found you lack the ablility to understand facts....so today I'm just gonna leave you to carry on trying to blame the men who went inside the back door with Ms.Simpson carrying her keys as if she was going to unlock an already unlocked door. In my very humble opinion she fooled the det. only until they realized she could not unlock the door. :seeya:

The detectives were trained to testify and, IMHONESTO, trained to testilie. Therefore, they did not know they were caught, IMHO, testilying until they saw that the rear doors could not be unlocked. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I see my post with the link to the killings by LE was deleted and it was only put there to show that killings of citizens under questionable circumstances happen everyday and, if it has happened to one of our family members or loved ones, we can possibly understand the possible life experiences the jurors bought to this case.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Kato contradicts VA walking into the house with Phillips and Lange. Arnelle's testimony regarding where VA was has always been consistent. The same can't be said of the detectives. IMO.

You claim that Kaelin contradicts Vannatter walking into the house with Phillips and Lange. Support your claim please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You know that the only door that was able to be unlocked was the front door.:biggrin:

And you should know that has nothing to do with the fact that five witnesses testified they all entered Simpson’s house through the back door of the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

So, Simpson had a un-accessible living room to walk into.

You wouldn’t be so confused if you looked at the diagram of the Rockingham layout. If someone entered Simpson’s house through the front door and wanted to got directly to Simpson’s living room they would have to walk through a large foyer and then turn left into the living room. If they had had entered Simpson’s front door and wanted to go to the kitchen they would walk through the foyer and turn right at the hall way that leads to the kitchen.

If someone entered Simpson’s house through the back door they would enter a large open area that Wagner labeled the “family room.” If they wanted to go to Simpson’s living room they would turn to their right and walk across the large family room and then a short left and short right to enter the living room. If they had entered the back door and wanted to go to the kitchen, they would continue walking straight through the large open area directly to the kitchen going through the rooms Wagner labeled the “family room,” and “dining room.” That is what all three detectives testified they did..

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

LE testified in the criminal trial. :biggrin:

Of course they did except it wasn’t until the civil trial that Petrocelli figured out why Arnelle lied.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

So, where do you think the living room area was in the bedroom?:biggrin:


If you incorrectly post what you think Phillips actually said then it’s understandable why you can’t understand what he said.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Was it Arnelle's job to know where MF was and who he was with and for how long? She passed MF and Kato, she walked into the house, went into the kitchen area to use the phone. Kato was not taken to the kitchen area, he was taken to the bar area.

Please explain why it is so imperative that Arnelle know where all these people were?

Also, you have always said that Kato was wrong about the clothes Simpson was wearing because he was terrified about the thumps. I think you also posted that he had no reason to focus on what Simpson was wearing.

Doesn't it only make sense that Kato again could be mistaken because he woke up the police, his room was being searched and he was asked several questions about the night before? And his testimony does not match MF's testimony about entering the house.

Also, why did it take MF 15 minutes to find the glove?

Why, if he came in the back door, would he go out the front door to investigate the thumps? Simpson's estate is not that big, it would not have taken him 15 minutes to find the glove. In fact, he testified that he thought it was possible that someone could be hurt or dead back there.

Not one book written ever contradicts Arnelle's version of events, not one book ever suggests that Arnelle was involved in any way, in fact, Lange and Vanatter wrote she was nothing but cooperative---even after she testified that she told them that her father was out of town but she didn't know where he was. Even after she testified that VA was not with the two detectives when she entered the house. Not one person wrote they found it odd that Arnelle would testify they entered the front of the house when in fact they entered through a back door.

Arnelle testified in the prelim hearing before the detectives, I think. The detectives were not asked which door they entered. Clark confirmed that they did enter through the front door during the prelim hearing.

You have yet to produce any evidence that Simpson even talked to Arnelle that day or in the early morning hours. You have yet to produce one state's witness who testified to the contents of the washing machine and if they were wet and it was in fact a sweat suit.

Until you produce evidence of any of this, you can't accuse Arnelle of being involved. There has never been any testimony that even compared those fibers to a sweat suit. None. Dr. Deedrick never, ever, ever testified that those fibers could have even come from a sweat suit.

I have no problem with people saying they believe Kato lied or was mistaken, etc., because Kato is not being accused of a crime. There is a difference.

Also, don't you think the Goldmans' would have gone on the offensive against Arnelle? They made it perfectly clear that they could not allow themselves to think of Simpson's minor children. I get that, I understand that. However, Arnelle is not a minor---so where is their outrage over Simpson's accomplice?

The facts are that the detectives lied on several key points and were beyond vague on others. You have yet to address how Phillips could ask a direct question to Arnelle regarding her father but refused to answer his question. You have yet to address why Phillips, after asking this important question, the two other detectives dismissed his question and asked their own.

Bottom line, Phillips wanted to give the clear impression that himself, Lange and Vanatter were always together at Rockingham until they got into the kitchen and used the phone.

It seems to me you are avoiding the obvious, that two detectives were on the estate investigating and both of them knew about the thumps and learned it from Kato and while outside, not inside like they claimed.

MF said he never told VA about the thumps, VA said that he did tell him about the thumps and Kato proved VA lied on this as well---it was Kato who told him about the thumps.

Now, why would Vanatter lie about this? Because he probably checked out the thumps before MF did and saw nothing and then was shocked stupid when MF came back and made his little discovery.

No, it wasn’t Arnelle’s job to know where Fuhrman was. But Arnelle fabricated a story about entering the house through the front door so she had to continue fabricated the rest of her story that Kaelin was never in the house that morning because Kaelin had testified he saw her enter the house through the back door and followed her into the house. On lie leads to another lie.

Yes, after Kaelin and Fuhrman followed Arnelle and the other detectives into the house through the back door Kaelin took a seat at the bar while Fuhrman went to the kitchen to find Vannatter. Kaelin testified that near the end of that conversation he heard Arnelle scream “Oh, My God” from the kitchen and then Vannatter told him that Nicole had been murdered. Kaelin said that Arnelle then came into the bar area, they hugged and they both returned to the kitchen. Kaelin said Arnelle made a phone call and was crying as she talked to Nicole’s mother. Kaelin said he remained in Simpson’s house until Simpson’s young kids arrived and then he asked the police to return to his room to change his clothes since he was still wearing his pajama bottoms.

And during this whole time Arnelle testified that Kaelin was still talking to Fuhrman out side his room. And Martin claims that none of what Kaelin testified to ever happened, that Kaelin is lying.

Fuhrman left Simpson’s house to check out the noises before Kaelin told Vannatter about the noises. Support your claim that Vannatter said Fuhrman told him about the noises Kaelin heard.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

And you should know that has nothing to do with the fact that five witnesses testified they all entered Simpson’s house through the back door of the house.

bobaugust

And four testified that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door and the only door that could be unlocked was the front door. :);):cool:

[bobaugust]

So thats proof that he was in the living room.

Evidently you can’t understand what the word “WE” means.

It’s impossible to walk from the living room into the kitchen area without walking through other areas of the house.

[bobaugust]

Well
Did Arnell lie about unlocking the a door or did the detectives lie when they said she did?

One has nothing to do with the other. The three detectives said Arnelle unlocked the back door, they were mistaken. Arnelle said she unlocked the front door after walking around the house with two detectives. She lied.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Westec gave vannater ojs house phone number. He rang it and got a message in ojs voice saying i am not home.

You say when the detectives called Simpson’s phone they got a message in Simpson’s voice saying he’s not home? Support that claim please.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You wouldn’t be so confused if you looked at the diagram of the Rockingham layout. If someone entered Simpson’s house through the front door and wanted to got directly to Simpson’s living room they would have to walk through a large foyer and then turn left into the living room. If they had had entered Simpson’s front door and wanted to go to the kitchen they would walk through the foyer and turn right at the hall way that leads to the kitchen.

If someone entered Simpson’s house through the back door they would enter a large open area that Wagner labeled the “family room.” If they wanted to go to Simpson’s living room they would turn to their right and walk across the large family room and then a short left and short right to enter the living room. If they had entered the back door and wanted to go to the kitchen, they would continue walking straight through the large open area directly to the kitchen going through the rooms Wagner labeled the “family room,” and “dining room.” That is what all three detectives testified they did..

bobaugust

Phillips testified he walked into/through the living room area.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Of course they did except it wasn’t until the civil trial that Petrocelli figured out why Arnelle lied.

bobaugust

They testified that she unlocked the door and it wasn't until the video was shown that they realized it was impossible for her to have unlocked a rear door.

[William Anthony]

If you incorrectly post what you think Phillips actually said then it’s understandable why you can’t understand what he said.

Is it your understanding that the living room could be found in the bedroom area?:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

One has nothing to do with the other. The three detectives said Arnelle unlocked the back door, they were mistaken. Arnelle said she unlocked the front door after walking around the house with two detectives. She lied.

bobaugust

The three detectives lied but Ms. Arnelle told the truth. Isn't the fact that she told the truth beautiful?

[martin II]

The testimony is clear and easy to understand....for anyone willing to read what Phillips actually said and compare it to the layout of the house.

When the dots were connected the front door became Arnelle's point of entrance. IMOO That's pretty clear also.

I though you were the person that said he did not mean what he said.That when he said living room he meant family room. My position is he was where he said he was.living room. You look at the living room and think he would not go there, yet you post where he said he went to a roon to the back of the house (which is east) where there were french doors. The only room in the house that had french doors was the living room. So i will stick with his words
and not try to change them to fit some other idea.:cool:

Phillips testimony is clear what you think he meant is not.imo

[martin II]

You say when the detectives called Simpson’s phone they got a message in Simpson’s voice saying he’s not home? Support that claim please.

bobaugust

I think it is Phillips testimony.

[martin II]

Evidently you can’t understand what the word “WE” means.

It’s impossible to walk from the living room into the kitchen area without walking through other areas of the house.

You are wrong the living room has a large opening at the foyer and the kitchen so it is very possible to walk from the living room to the kitchen if one has legs.

[martin II]

And you should know that has nothing to do with the fact that five witnesses testified they all entered Simpson’s house through the back door of the house.

bobaugust

Not true.

[martin II]

It is easy to walk from the living room to the kitchen if one walks into the kitchen entrance.

[martin II]

As if it is any of your business....I post to William because William posts to me and I appreciated it. Do you have a problem with William and I posting to each other...if so spill it out...get it off your chest.

To be honest I don't respond to others about race because they've never posted anything to me personally about race. I see you have made several posts to me while I've been out. I try to answer all posts quoting me but I'm ignoring you and not replying mainly because I have an electrician hired and he needs me to help him put up light fixtures. Plus I've found you lack the ablility to understand facts....so today I'm just gonna leave you to carry on trying to blame the men who went inside the back door with Ms.Simpson carrying her keys as if she was going to unlock an already unlocked door. In my very humble opinion she fooled the det. only until they realized she could not unlock the door. :seeya:


On this message board i will respond to any post made.
You are the one that brough that R888 subject up.
i will not respond to that subject again.

[Hotwater]

The subject regarding the living room/family room appears to be getting out of hand. Smart alec(k) remarks don't help the situation either. Perhaps all of you should move on to another subject.

[martin II]

The botton line is that Phillips testified to being in a room different from that that some would have liked him to have been in. Since this damages their ideas on another issue, they just make the statement HE DID NOT MEAN what he said and then try to change the names of the rooms printed on the house layout and claim that othere are not capable of reading the diagram.

Phillips then says he was in a room with french doors and we know that the only room in the house with french doors was the living room.

That is a illogical thought in my opinion. One cannot move Phillips from one room
to the room they would like for him to be in because of a obvious agenda they have. imo

[martin II]

Well there are many other subjects we can discuss. Like why was the prosecution
not able to prove that some one jumped the fense. Or how could oj be in the walkway at 10:40 and at Bundy and dorothy at 10:40

[Hotwater]

Telling others to shut-up about their opinion is against discussion rules. If you can't find a polite way to disagree or get your point across then don't post.

Timeouts/Vacations will be next.

[William Anthony]

Well there are many other subjects we can discuss. Like why was the prosecution
not able to prove that some one jumped the fense. Or how could oj be in the walkway at 10:40 and at Bundy and dorothy at 10:40

Why did no one but Jill Shively see the alleged near accident or come forward to say they saw it and Simpson was involved?

[martin II]

Why did no one but Jill Shively see the alleged near accident or come forward to say they saw it and Simpson was involved?

I hink JS said oj either ran into a person in a blue Nissan or caused that driver
to stop for some time. le looked for that driver but he/she never came forward and was never found to verify what she claimed.

At about 11 pm there should have been others at that intersection.imo
She first claimed it was M Allen driving the car. wonder why she came up with that name. someone so close to oj.

[bobaugust]

And four testified that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door and the only door that could be unlocked was the front door. :);):cool:

No not four, three detectives, Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door. They were mistaken. Arnelle did unlock the front door and turned off the alarm when she walked around the house with her laundry basket before the police arrived at Rockingham. She left the by unlocking the back door and using that door to go back to her room like she said she always did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Phillips testified he walked into/through the living room area.:);):cool:

You almost have it right, but not yet. Phillips testified that WE walked through the living room area. Phillips called the room Wagner labeled the “family room” the living room area. Lange called it the rear den, Vannatter and Kaelin called it the bar area, and Arnelle called it the TV room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

They testified that she unlocked the door and it wasn't until the video was shown that they realized it was impossible for her to have unlocked a rear door.

You claim that the three detectives didn’t realize that the back door could not be unlocked from the outside until they saw a video.

Support your claim please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The three detectives lied but Ms. Arnelle told the truth. Isn't the fact that she told the truth beautiful?

Arnelle lied when she said she led two detectives around to the front of house to let them into the house. Arnelle told the truth when she said she unlocked the front door when she had gone around the house with her laundry basket before the police arrived at Rockingham. That was when she turned off the house alarm, washed her clothing and her father’s dark colored sweat suit, and unlocked the back door that she opened to go back to her room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I though you were the person that said he did not mean what he said.That when he said living room he meant family room. My position is he was where he said he was.living room. You look at the living room and think he would not go there, yet you post where he said he went to a roon to the back of the house (which is east) where there were french doors. The only room in the house that had french doors was the living room. So i will stick with his words
and not try to change them to fit some other idea.:cool:

Phillips testimony is clear what you think he meant is not.imo

Phillips said, “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.”

There were two French doors off the “family room.” The smaller door next to it was the door to the pool area that Arnelle opened to let the detectives into the house.

Wagner wrote,
“This picture was taken in December, so there is a Christmas tree to the right of the entertainment center. To the right of that are French doors to the back yard and pool. It was through the farthest of these doors ("D") that Arnelle brought the detectives into the house.

At the back left of the pool room is seen an open door (also "O" on Figure 36); this connects to the back office in the bungalow complex, and after going through that finally comes to Kato's room.”

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/!int11.jpg

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You are wrong the living room has a large opening at the foyer and the kitchen so it is very possible to walk from the living room to the kitchen if one has legs.

No I am not wrong. Yes it is possible to walk out of the living room and enter the foyer and then either walk through the dining room to the kitchen area or walk through the foyer to a small hallway that leads to the kitchen. As I said it’s impossible to walk from the living room into the kitchen area without walking through other areas of the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Not true.

Yes it is true. If you think any of the detectives and Kato Kaelin entered the house through a different door post the testimony where any of them said that.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The botton line is that Phillips testified to being in a room different from that that some would have liked him to have been in. Since this damages their ideas on another issue, they just make the statement HE DID NOT MEAN what he said and then try to change the names of the rooms printed on the house layout and claim that othere are not capable of reading the diagram.

Phillips then says he was in a room with french doors and we know that the only room in the house with french doors was the living room.

That is a illogical thought in my opinion. One cannot move Phillips from one room
to the room they would like for him to be in because of a obvious agenda they have. imo

Bottom line you are wrong on all counts. Phillips testified he was with the other detectives and Arnelle when he entered the back door of Simpson’s house. Phillips simply called to the family room area as the living room area.

There were two French doors off the family next to the smaller back door that Arnelle opened to let the detectives into the house.

bobaugust

[Its just me]

The botton line is that Phillips testified to being in a room different from that that some would have liked him to have been in. Since this damages their ideas on another issue, they just make the statement HE DID NOT MEAN what he said and then try to change the names of the rooms printed on the house layout and claim that othere are not capable of reading the diagram.

Phillips then says he was in a room with french doors and we know that the only room in the house with french doors was the living room.

That is a illogical thought in my opinion. One cannot move Phillips from one room
to the room they would like for him to be in because of a obvious agenda they have. imo

Let me make it clear...I DON'T HAVE AN AGENDA and it's disgusting to keep hearing you bark about it...we all have stated our opinions and just because they don't match up with your one track opinion it doesn't mean we have more of an agenda than you do.

An open mind is a "beautiful thing" ;)

[Its just me]

On this message board i will respond to any post made.
You are the one that brough that R888 subject up.
i will not respond to that subject again.

Oh Lawd, Who have told you you can't respond to any post your heart desires. My dad use to warn us kids about pulling things out of thin air...meaning with zip to back it up. :D

Well I am so sorry I didn't mean to mistreat anyone... like you have never brought up the R 3 8's word and are stopping cold turkey. :eek:

In your very next post you made the remark posted below...Will you explain what the "obvious agenda" is about. It wouldn't be that bad ole R 3 8's word would it. ;)

snip from Martin's post
One cannot move Phillips from one room
to the room they would like for him to be in because of a obvious agenda they have. imo

[William Anthony]

No not four, three detectives, Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door. They were mistaken. Arnelle did unlock the front door and turned off the alarm when she walked around the house with her laundry basket before the police arrived at Rockingham. She left the by unlocking the back door and using that door to go back to her room like she said she always did.

bobaugust

You should read what I post more carefully. I said four, the three detectives and Ms. Arnelle, testified she unlocked the door. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

You almost have it right, but not yet. Phillips testified that WE walked through the living room area. Phillips called the room Wagner labeled the “family room” the living room area. Lange called it the rear den, Vannatter and Kaelin called it the bar area, and Arnelle called it the TV room.

bobaugust

You are assuming that we meant all four. :);):cool: From the testimony all three went in the door Ms. Arnelle unlocked and then they begin running around like the Keystone Cops.

[William Anthony]

Arnelle lied when she said she led two detectives around to the front of house to let them into the house. Arnelle told the truth when she said she unlocked the front door when she had gone around the house with her laundry basket before the police arrived at Rockingham. That was when she turned off the house alarm, washed her clothing and her father’s dark colored sweat suit, and unlocked the back door that she opened to go back to her room.

bobaugust

Post this testimony to support your claim that "Arnelle told the truth when she said she unlocked the front door when she had gone around the house with her laundry basket before the police arrived at Rockingham."

[Its just me]

I though you were the person that said he did not mean what he said.That when he said living room he meant family room. My position is he was where he said he was.living room. You look at the living room and think he would not go there, yet you post where he said he went to a roon to the back of the house (which is east) where there were french doors. The only room in the house that had french doors was the living room. So i will stick with his words
and not try to change them to fit some other idea.:cool:

Phillips testimony is clear what you think he meant is not.imo

LOL Martin I do believe you are trying to pick on me and twist words. I've told you more than one time what I think and Ha I've read your position even more times.

LOL I'd peat and repeat it all over again for you but I'm skeered of Hotwater.

[William Anthony]

You almost have it right, but not yet. Phillips testified that WE walked through the living room area. Phillips called the room Wagner labeled the “family room” the living room area. Lange called it the rear den, Vannatter and Kaelin called it the bar area, and Arnelle called it the TV room.

bobaugust

I think we should follow the moderator's suggestion or shall I say I shall. :);):cool:

[Its just me]

IJM, I'm sorry for your loss and the unanswered questions that make it even more painful for you and your family. I can see where that experience would give you a unique perspective on this case.

Many families have had an experience with their family members and friends as you have. I am truly sorry for your loss.

I know a few famalies that have suffered as yours did. Sorry to her about your experience. It seems there are a few bad apples in every le department.

Thank You, tvdinner, William and Martin. I deeply appreciate your kindness.
Sincerely, IJM

[martin II]

LOL Martin I do believe you are trying to pick on me and twist words. I've told you more than one time what I think and Ha I've read your position even more times.

LOL I'd peat and repeat it all over again for you but I'm skeered of Hotwater.

I know what i have posted and i have left that subject some post back.

[Its just me]

I know what i have posted and i have left that subject some post back.

Ohhhh!!! I see, I hadn't noticed. Do you have a new subject?

[bobaugust]

You should read what I post more carefully. I said four, the three detectives and Ms. Arnelle, testified she unlocked the door. :);):cool:

They were talking about two different doors. Three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door. Arnelle testified she unlocked the front door.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You are assuming that we meant all four. :);):cool: From the testimony all three went in the door Ms. Arnelle unlocked and then they begin running around like the Keystone Cops.

The fact is that Arnelle, the four detectives, and Kato Kaelin all entered Simpson’s house that morning through the same back door. Arnelle couldn’t and didn’t unlock that back door when she opened it to let the three detectives into Simpson’s house because it was already unlocked. That’s one of the reason’s she lied.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Support you claim that they did not realize until the socio political production that Ms. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door.

I never said what you’re claiming I said so there’s nothing for me to support. You claimed that the three detectives didn’t realize the back door could not be unlocked from the outside until they saw a video.

Support your claim. What video are you claiming they saw and when are you claiming they saw it?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think we should follow the moderator's suggestion or shall I say I shall. :);):cool:

Of course you will since you understand that the evidence is that Arnelle lied about this, not the four detectives and not Kato Kaelin.

[martin II]

Ohhhh!!! I see, I hadn't noticed. Do you have a new subject?

I have suggested two. i can suggest more if it is needed.

[martin II]

I never said what you’re claiming I said so there’s nothing for me to support. You claimed that the three detectives didn’t realize the back door could not be unlocked from the outside until they saw a video.

Support your claim. What video are you claiming they saw and when are you claiming they saw it?

bobaugust

See post 16346

[William Anthony]

They were talking about two different doors. Three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door. Arnelle testified she unlocked the front door.

bobaugust

The only door that could be unlocked with a key was the front door, the one Ms. Arnelle testified she unlocked.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Arnelle, the four detectives, and Kato Kaelin all entered Simpson’s house that morning through the same back door. Arnelle couldn’t and didn’t unlock that back door when she opened it to let the three detectives into Simpson’s house because it was already unlocked. That’s one of the reason’s she lied.

bobaugust

The evidence is that they all entered through the front door, which is the only door that could be unlocked with a key. Therefore, the evidence supports an inference that all others lied and Ms. Arnelle told the truth.

[William Anthony]

I never said what you’re claiming I said so there’s nothing for me to support. You claimed that the three detectives didn’t realize the back door could not be unlocked from the outside until they saw a video.

Support your claim. What video are you claiming they saw and when are you claiming they saw it?

bobaugust

This is what you said.

Unfortunately during the criminal trial neither the prosecution nor the police realized why Arnelle lied about what door she opened when she let the detectives into the house. It wasn’t until the civil trial when Daniel Petrocelli learned facts from the witnesses who gave depositions that tell us why Arnelle lied about opening the back door to let the detectives into the house.

bobaugust
Reply With Quote

Asked and answered. The video/picture was shown during Ms. Arnelle's testimony, IIRC.

[William Anthony]

Of course you will since you understand that the evidence is that Arnelle lied about this, not the four detectives and not Kato Kaelin.

I shall because I have respect. It was Phillips that mentioned the unmentionable not Ms. Arnelle.:);):cool:

[martin II]

Oh Lawd, Who have told you you can't respond to any post your heart desires. My dad use to warn us kids about pulling things out of thin air...meaning with zip to back it up. :D

Well I am so sorry I didn't mean to mistreat anyone... like you have never brought up the R 3 8's word and are stopping cold turkey. :eek:

In your very next post you made the remark posted below...Will you explain what the "obvious agenda" is about. It wouldn't be that bad ole R 3 8's word would it. ;)

snip from Martin's post
One cannot move Phillips from one room
to the room they would like for him to be in because of a obvious agenda they have. imo


You seem to be bent of continuing this.So i will respond briefely.
I asked you why you out of the clear blue sky accused William of using r888 in his decision making prosess .Quite a charge imo.You then posted to me 'As if it is your business.' my response was if i choose i will response to any post on this public message board.

It is my opinion that your original position was, although Phillips testified to being in the living room he was not actually there and was in another room.
I dissagreed as i don't believe anyone had standing to change the testimony of a seasoned cop that knows how to testify in court. I see no reason to try such a thing unless Phillips testimony is in serious conflict with some other idea one has.

I read a flow chart as well as anyone else and i understand exactly what Phillips testified to and see no flow chart problem with it.

I also understand from i think it was your post but not sure,that when he said
he was in the back of the house (the back is considered opposite the fronT)
in a room that had french doors he was in the living room as that is the only room in the house with french doors. My logic does not allow me to assume this was the family room.
The last issue is Arnell testified that she saw furhman and kato at kato's door
talking after she had opened the south door from the inside and walked to and from her room. This is after she and the other detectives had entered the house. This is why i believe kato's testimony was not true.
The tone of your "As if it is any of your business" comment indicated to me that you may have become a little what they call here uncivil or up set at my positions on the issue. So i believe it is best that i just say we dissagree
on what Phillips meant in his testimony. i accept his words and you seem to believe he meant something else.:cool:

[martin II]

This is what you said.



Asked and answered. The video/picture was shown during Ms. Arnelle's testimony, IIRC.

I read last week during Ms Arnells testimony that a video/picture on the elmo was zoomed in on the handles of the back doors.

[martin II]

le nor the DA ever presented a sweat suit in court that some believe were the murder clothes. A picture of something dark in the bottom of a washing machine is proof of something dark in a washing machine and NOTHING ELSE.
For sure it has nothing to do with which door people entered to get into the house so it is my opinion that the claimes some had made about Ms Arnell is what one person called a red herring to divert attention to the nonexistant sweats and away from proof of murder. The prosecution tried to create as many diversions as they could for public consumption but failed to give the jury what they were sitting for 9 months to hear. Proof of murder and that is why they were given a not guilty verdict for their efforts.imo

[William Anthony]

I read last week during Ms Arnells testimony that a video/picture on the elmo was zoomed in on the handles of the back doors.

Yes, that is what I am talking about and that squares with my recollection, which is why I say asked and answered and to continue to post the same information becomes cumulative, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

At some point Simpson became a suspect before Mr. Ford took the video, as LE had commenced to collect evidence, but no one thought to ask Kato what Simpson wore the last time he saw Simpson, is this what we are asked to believe?

[Its just me]

You seem to be bent of continuing this.So i will respond briefely.
I asked you why you out of the clear blue sky accused William of using r888 in his decision making prosess .Quite a charge imo.You then posted to me 'As if it is your business.' my response was if i choose i will response to any post on this public message board.

It is my opinion that your original position was, although Phillips testified to being in the living room he was not actually there and was in another room.
I dissagreed as i don't believe anyone had standing to change the testimony of a seasoned cop that knows how to testify in court. I see no reason to try such a thing unless Phillips testimony is in serious conflict with some other idea one has.

I read a flow chart as well as anyone else and i understand exactly what Phillips testified to and see no flow chart problem with it.

I also understand from i think it was your post but not sure,that when he said
he was in the back of the house (the back is considered opposite the fronT)
in a room that had french doors he was in the living room as that is the only room in the house with french doors. My logic does not allow me to assume this was the family room.
The last issue is Arnell testified that she saw furhman and kato at kato's door
talking after she had opened the south door from the inside and walked to and from her room. This is after she and the other detectives had entered the house. This is why i believe kato's testimony was not true.
The tone of your "As if it is any of your business" comment indicated to me that you may have become a little what they call here uncivil or up set at my positions on the issue. So i believe it is best that i just say we dissagree
on what Phillips meant in his testimony. i accept his words and you seem to believe he meant something else.:cool:

:patriot: I'll let you have the last sermon but it doesn't change that facts show that Phillips went in the back and "thru" a room to get to the kitchen area....and it simply is NOT possible to go "thru" the living room to get to the kitchen area. My daddy use to say anyone with one eye and half sense can see that....but he was part comedian even when he was close to putting a whooping on our tails.
I'm off to work....it's a pet project but it does include work. :beer: Have a good day Martin.

[William Anthony]

:patriot: I'll let you have the last sermon but it doesn't change that facts show that Phillips went in the back and "thru" a room to get to the kitchen area....and it simply is NOT possible to go "thru" the living room to get to the kitchen area. My daddy use to say anyone with one eye and half sense can see that....but he was part comedian even when he was close to putting a whooping on our tails.
I'm off to work....it's a pet project but it does include work. :beer: Have a good day Martin.

My daddy use to say take care of the job and it will take care of you but he never worked for Enron.

[martin II]

At some point Simpson became a suspect before Mr. Ford took the video, as LE had commenced to collect evidence, but no one thought to ask Kato what Simpson wore the last time he saw Simpson, is this what we are asked to believe?

Well testimony proves that Furhman held Kato at his room for a externded time talking asking questions of Kato. It would be my opinion that he asked Kato everything he could think of.Especially since Kato asked him if oj missed his plane or something close to that.imo

[William Anthony]

Well testimony proves that Furhman held Kato at his room for a externded time talking asking questions of Kato. It would be my opinion that he asked Kato everything he could think of.Especially since Kato asked him if oj missed his plane or something close to that.imo

I believe they knew what Kato saw Simpson wearing. Hence the, IMHO, the lie about a WET sweatsuit in the washing machine and THE LIE THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WET SWEATSUIT BUT WHEN THEY FIGURED IT OUT IT DISAPPEARED.

[martin II]

:patriot: I'll let you have the last sermon but it doesn't change that facts show that Phillips went in the back and "thru" a room to get to the kitchen area....and it simply is NOT possible to go "thru" the living room to get to the kitchen area. My daddy use to say anyone with one eye and half sense can see that....but he was part comedian even when he was close to putting a whooping on our tails.
I'm off to work....it's a pet project but it does include work. :beer: Have a good day Martin.

If one has legs it is very possible to walk from the living room, the room with the french doors, the room Phillips said he was in, to the kitchen. The entrance hall/walkway to the kitchen is right at the entrance to the living room.

I started off having a great day and have no reason to believe it will not continue to be so. You have a great day also.:cool:

[Its just me]

My daddy use to say take care of the job and it will take care of you but he never worked for Enron.

Now you really don't want to hear my opinion about the scumbags, thieves and jerks that were in control at Enron. Hotwater would give the boot in a hurry.

I think your dad was a smart man.

I really am out of here but while reading old posts I found this one last night and thought it would be good for discussion. :seeya: Hope you have a good day to. ETA: this was the civil trial.

HARRY SCULL, free-lance photographer: (VT-RT) Took head-to-toe picture of Simpson in September 1993. Nov. 7, 1996:

DR. ROBERT HUIZENGA, former Los Angeles Raiders physician: Examined Simpson twice the week after killings, noted three cuts and seven abrasions on left hand; estimated wounds were five to seven days old, which would include date of killings; Simpson had arthritis and other football-related problems.

KENNETH BERRIS, Chicago police detective: (RT) Saw what appeared to be blood spots on sheets and pillowcase in Simpson's hotel room; found broken glass in bathroom sink, glass shards on bathroom counter; saw no blood on glass. Nov. 8, 1996:

DR. WERNER SPITZ, forensic pathologist, former Detroit coroner: Ms. Simpson died in about 15 seconds, Goldman about a minute; killings committed by one attacker with one knife; Simpson's hand injuries could have been caused by victims' fingernails as they struggled; all wounds inflicted in way that killer would have very little blood on him; raked his own arm with fingernails, drawing no blood, to show how Goldman could have torn at killer; Ms. Simpson punched near mouth. Nov. 12, 1996:

DOUGLAS DEEDRICK, special agent for FBI: Hair matching Simpson's found on Goldman's shirt, entwined in knit cap; hair matching both victims found on right glove; limb hair from unidentified black person found on right glove; Ms. Simpson's hair found on Goldman's shirt, on glove and hat found near bodies; carpet fibers matching samples taken from Simpson's 1994 Bronco found inside cap and on glove at Simpson's - such carpet was installed in 72,000 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks made after May 1993; Goldman's shirt had hair fragment that could have been Simpson's and cashmere strands that could have come from glove linings; glove found at Simpson home yielded a hair from Ms. Simpson, hairs from Goldman, limb hair from black person, bloody fibers from Goldman's shirt, carpet fiber and mysterious blue-black cotton strand; other blue-black strands found on Goldman's shirt and on socks from Simpson's bedroom; negroid hairs not belonging to Simpson found in cap.

ROBIN COTTON, director Cellmark Diagnostics: Simpson's genetic markers match those found in blood drops near bodies and in foyer of house; chances 1 in 170 million that someone else's type would match blood drop near bodies; less-sophisticated testing on four other blood drops gave better chance blood could have been someone else's, but calculations still overwhelmingly against him; unlikely Ms. Simpson's test tube blood was planted on socks because test results on samples so different - DNA in Ms. Simpson's blood vial degraded more than DNA in sock blood sample. Nov. 14-15, 1996:

GARY SIMS, biochemist for California Department of Justice: Conducted DNA tests confirming many Cellmark findings; chances of 1 in 57 billion to 1 in 150 billion that blood on back gate was not Simpson's. Nov. 18, 1996:

[martin II]

I believe they knew what Kato saw Simpson wearing. Hence the, IMHO, the lie about a WET sweatsuit in the washing machine and THE LIE THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WET SWEATSUIT BUT WHEN THEY FIGURED IT OUT IT DISAPPEARED.

i have no proof but i have always believed le took what ever was in the bottom of the washing machine when they left the property. Finding that it was not useful they tried to blame oj for it not being there some time later.

It seems when certain things don't fit, the poster uses the excuse that le failed to realize this and failed to realize that. That paints a picture of a group of officers constantly stumbelling around unable to add 2 and 2 to get 4

:cool:

[martin II]

Now you really don't want to hear my opinion about the scumbags, thieves and jerks that were in control at Enron. Hotwater would give the boot in a hurry.

I think your dad was a smart man.

I really am out of here but while reading old posts I found this one last night and thought it would be good for discussion. :seeya: Hope you have a good day to. ETA: this was the civil trial.

Since you mentioned Enron.

Comming off the civil trial Petro landed a very high paying job defending the top Enron guy and promptly got him a long prison sentance. The defendant then sued Petro for wrongful defence theory and asked for his money back.imo

[martin II]

Now you really don't want to hear my opinion about the scumbags, thieves and jerks that were in control at Enron. Hotwater would give the boot in a hurry.

I think your dad was a smart man.

I really am out of here but while reading old posts I found this one last night and thought it would be good for discussion. :seeya: Hope you have a good day to. ETA: this was the civil trial.

Cross examinations in the criminal trial proved that some of those claims could not believed.

[tv]

Now you really don't want to hear my opinion about the scumbags, thieves and jerks that were in control at Enron. Hotwater would give the boot in a hurry.

I think your dad was a smart man.

I really am out of here but while reading old posts I found this one last night and thought it would be good for discussion. :seeya: Hope you have a good day to. ETA: this was the civil trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer
HARRY SCULL, free-lance photographer: (VT-RT) Took head-to-toe picture of Simpson in September 1993. Nov. 7, 1996:

DR. ROBERT HUIZENGA, former Los Angeles Raiders physician: Examined Simpson twice the week after killings, noted three cuts and seven abrasions on left hand; estimated wounds were five to seven days old, which would include date of killings; Simpson had arthritis and other football-related problems.

KENNETH BERRIS, Chicago police detective: (RT) Saw what appeared to be blood spots on sheets and pillowcase in Simpson's hotel room; found broken glass in bathroom sink, glass shards on bathroom counter; saw no blood on glass. Nov. 8, 1996:

DR. WERNER SPITZ, forensic pathologist, former Detroit coroner: Ms. Simpson died in about 15 seconds, Goldman about a minute; killings committed by one attacker with one knife; Simpson's hand injuries could have been caused by victims' fingernails as they struggled; all wounds inflicted in way that killer would have very little blood on him; raked his own arm with fingernails, drawing no blood, to show how Goldman could have torn at killer; Ms. Simpson punched near mouth. Nov. 12, 1996:

*snipped*

It's always been MY OPINION that Simpson staged the glass breaking incident in Chicago. As for the fingernail marks, he tried to say in the civil trial that they were caused by wrestling with Justin. It's too much of a coincidence for me that he would sustain those injuries on the same day that Nicole and Ron were killed. There's never been any testimony or evidence of any other person in Nicole or Ron's lives having similiar injuries at that time or any injuries at all. Even if I believed in coincidence I wouldn't believe in one that big. It simply defies the odds.

[William Anthony]

i have no proof but i have always believed le took what ever was in the bottom of the washing machine when they left the property. Finding that it was not useful they tried to blame oj for it not being there some time later.

It seems when certain things don't fit, the poster uses the excuse that le failed to realize this and failed to realize that. That paints a picture of a group of officers constantly stumbelling around unable to add 2 and 2 to get 4

:cool:


ditto

[William Anthony]

Since you mentioned Enron.

Comming off the civil trial Petro landed a very high paying job defending the top Enron guy and promptly got him a long prison sentance. The defendant then sued Petro for wrongful defence theory and asked for his money back.imo

I mentioned Enron but IJM said "Now you really don't want to hear my opinion about the scumbags, thieves and jerks that were in control at Enron", which Petrocelli represented.

[William Anthony]

i have no proof but i have always believed le took what ever was in the bottom of the washing machine when they left the property. Finding that it was not useful they tried to blame oj for it not being there some time later.

It seems when certain things don't fit, the poster uses the excuse that le failed to realize this and failed to realize that. That paints a picture of a group of officers constantly stumbelling around unable to add 2 and 2 to get 4

:cool:

I certainly would like to know where Simpson shopped for clothes, as I would not want to purchase clothes that had the ability to disappear after they were worn. Did anyone search Lang's trunk for the sweatsuit, as he placed Simpson's sneakers in his trunk and kept them or his drawers because of his proclivity to take evidence from the scene without booking it and keeping it?

[weezer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer
HARRY SCULL, free-lance photographer: (VT-RT) Took head-to-toe picture of Simpson in September 1993. Nov. 7, 1996:

DR. ROBERT HUIZENGA, former Los Angeles Raiders physician: Examined Simpson twice the week after killings, noted three cuts and seven abrasions on left hand; estimated wounds were five to seven days old, which would include date of killings; Simpson had arthritis and other football-related problems.

KENNETH BERRIS, Chicago police detective: (RT) Saw what appeared to be blood spots on sheets and pillowcase in Simpson's hotel room; found broken glass in bathroom sink, glass shards on bathroom counter; saw no blood on glass. Nov. 8, 1996:

DR. WERNER SPITZ, forensic pathologist, former Detroit coroner: Ms. Simpson died in about 15 seconds, Goldman about a minute; killings committed by one attacker with one knife; Simpson's hand injuries could have been caused by victims' fingernails as they struggled; all wounds inflicted in way that killer would have very little blood on him; raked his own arm with fingernails, drawing no blood, to show how Goldman could have torn at killer; Ms. Simpson punched near mouth. Nov. 12, 1996:

*snipped*

It's always been MY OPINION that Simpson staged the glass breaking incident in Chicago. As for the fingernail marks, he tried to say in the civil trial that they were caused by wrestling with Justin. It's too much of a coincidence for me that he would sustain those injuries on the same day that Nicole and Ron were killed. There's never been any testimony or evidence of any other person in Nicole or Ron's lives having similiar injuries at that time or any injuries at all. Even if I believed in coincidence I wouldn't believe in one that big. It simply defies the odds.

LOL -- orenthal experienced sooooo many coincidences that defy logic that night. . .Actually, I can see him throwing a fit and smashing the glass out of anger.

[William Anthony]

Want to talk about a defect in the chain of custody. Where is the log of the individuals who went in Lang's trunk or desk drawer?

[Its just me]

Cross examinations in the criminal trial proved that some of those claims could not believed.

Well....Surely "something" had to be crediable....He was found liable you know.

[Its just me]

I mentioned Enron but IJM said "Now you really don't want to hear my opinion about the scumbags, thieves and jerks that were in control at Enron", which Petrocelli represented.


Am I reading you and Martin insinuating that because Petrocelli represented the scumbags (which they are imhoo and a dang strong one) from Enron....it puts him in their catagory. I don't think so or I'll change that and say I know it doesn't.

[tv]

LOL -- orenthal experienced sooooo many coincidences that defy logic that night. . .Actually, I can see him throwing a fit and smashing the glass out of anger.

I can see him doing that too except imo he'd already vented his anger the night before and was now in survival mode. I think it was a calculated staging. Didn't he tell Lange and Vannatter that he cut his finger at home and was bleeding before he went to Chicago?

Q: Do you recall on the 17th any discussion as to how you were cut?

A: Not at all.

Q: And how did you suffer the cut on the middle finger?

A: I broke a glass when I was in Chicago, and in the process of cleaning it up I evidently cut my finger.

MR. KELLY: I couldn't hear that. I'm sorry, Mr. Simpson.

THE Witness: I said, in the process of cleaning--not cleaning it up, but scooping it up, I evidently cut my finger.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Did you remember cutting your finger?

A: I remember bleeding.

Q: Do you remember cutting your middle finger on--

A: I remember bleeding and seeing that I was bleeding, so...

Q: This was on the morning of June 13, 1994?

A: Yes.

Q: At your hotel in Chicago?

A: Yes.

Q: Name of that hotel?

A: I don't remember.

Q: And exactly how did you cut it with the glass?

A: I was trying to scoop the glass into the sink with some toilet paper and I believe a towel.

Q: You were at the sink of the hotel room?

A: Yes.

Q: In the bathroom.

A: Yes.

Q: What were you doing there at that time?

A: I don't know. I was going back and forth to the phone. I was trying to pack. I was trying to brush my teeth. I was in and out of the bathroom.

Q: And at some point you did something to a glass?

A: Yes.

Q: A drinking glass?

A: Yes.

[tv]

Am I reading you and Martin insinuating that because Petrocelli represented the scumbags (which they are imhoo and a dang strong one) from Enron....it puts him in their catagory. I don't think so or I'll change that and say I know it doesn't.

If that were true there would be a lot of lawyers in the scumbag category. F. Lee Bailey is highly regarded by many of the NG's but it doesn't seem to bother them that he defended Albert DeSalvo who is believed by many to be the Boston Strangler.

[Its just me]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer
HARRY SCULL, free-lance photographer: (VT-RT) Took head-to-toe picture of Simpson in September 1993. Nov. 7, 1996:

DR. ROBERT HUIZENGA, former Los Angeles Raiders physician: Examined Simpson twice the week after killings, noted three cuts and seven abrasions on left hand; estimated wounds were five to seven days old, which would include date of killings; Simpson had arthritis and other football-related problems.

KENNETH BERRIS, Chicago police detective: (RT) Saw what appeared to be blood spots on sheets and pillowcase in Simpson's hotel room; found broken glass in bathroom sink, glass shards on bathroom counter; saw no blood on glass. Nov. 8, 1996:

DR. WERNER SPITZ, forensic pathologist, former Detroit coroner: Ms. Simpson died in about 15 seconds, Goldman about a minute; killings committed by one attacker with one knife; Simpson's hand injuries could have been caused by victims' fingernails as they struggled; all wounds inflicted in way that killer would have very little blood on him; raked his own arm with fingernails, drawing no blood, to show how Goldman could have torn at killer; Ms. Simpson punched near mouth. Nov. 12, 1996:

*snipped*

It's always been MY OPINION that Simpson staged the glass breaking incident in Chicago. As for the fingernail marks, he tried to say in the civil trial that they were caused by wrestling with Justin. It's too much of a coincidence for me that he would sustain those injuries on the same day that Nicole and Ron were killed. There's never been any testimony or evidence of any other person in Nicole or Ron's lives having similiar injuries at that time or any injuries at all. Even if I believed in coincidence I wouldn't believe in one that big. It simply defies the odds.

I thought about Simpson staging the broken glass. IMHOO if he got the injuries wrestling with Justin he was teaching his kid to be like Dad....Sadistic.

[Its just me]

If that were true there would be a lot of lawyers in the scumbag category. F. Lee Bailey is highly regarded by many of the NG's but it doesn't seem to bother them that he defended Albert DeSalvo who is believed by many to be the Boston Strangler.

Exactly and all the other attorney's who have represented murderers.

And I guess the LE got the FBI involved in their conspircy to frame OJ and plucking OJ's hair out to do so. Maybe that is something else OJ didn't remember...Pun intended because at the civil trial he couldn't remember lots of things.

snip
DOUGLAS DEEDRICK, special agent for FBI: Hair matching Simpson's found on Goldman's shirt, entwined in knit cap; hair matching both victims found on right glove; limb hair from unidentified black person found on right glove; Ms. Simpson's hair found on Goldman's shirt, on glove and hat found near bodies; carpet fibers matching samples taken from Simpson's 1994 Bronco found inside cap and on glove at Simpson's - such carpet was installed in 72,000 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks made after May 1993; Goldman's shirt had hair fragment that could have been Simpson's and cashmere strands that could have come from glove linings; glove found at Simpson home yielded a hair from Ms. Simpson, hairs from Goldman, limb hair from black person, bloody fibers from Goldman's shirt, carpet fiber and mysterious blue-black cotton strand; other blue-black strands found on Goldman's shirt and on socks from Simpson's bedroom; negroid hairs not belonging to Simpson found in cap.

[tv]

Exactly and all the other attorney's who have represented murderers.

And I guess the LE got the FBI involved in their conspircy to frame OJ and plucking OJ's hair out to do so. Maybe that is something else OJ didn't remember...Pun intended because at the civil trial he couldn't remember lots of things.

snip
DOUGLAS DEEDRICK, special agent for FBI: Hair matching Simpson's found on Goldman's shirt, entwined in knit cap; hair matching both victims found on right glove; limb hair from unidentified black person found on right glove; Ms. Simpson's hair found on Goldman's shirt, on glove and hat found near bodies; carpet fibers matching samples taken from Simpson's 1994 Bronco found inside cap and on glove at Simpson's - such carpet was installed in 72,000 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks made after May 1993; Goldman's shirt had hair fragment that could have been Simpson's and cashmere strands that could have come from glove linings; glove found at Simpson home yielded a hair from Ms. Simpson, hairs from Goldman, limb hair from black person, bloody fibers from Goldman's shirt, carpet fiber and mysterious blue-black cotton strand; other blue-black strands found on Goldman's shirt and on socks from Simpson's bedroom; negroid hairs not belonging to Simpson found in cap.

Yes, there were many things during Simpson's testimony that he didn't remember or was very vague about. Petrocelli asked him for specifics of the planting/framing theory and he couldn't give them. Just throwing it out there didn't work in the civil trial.

There is a huge amount of hair and fiber evidence -- that's before you add the blood evidence, the Bronco chase and the suicide note...etc., etc.

[martin II]

Well....Surely "something" had to be crediable....He was found liable you know.

Based on what that jury was allowed to hear they had little choice. Especially when one said she didn't care if the glove was planted or not.

I took that as meaning IF Furhman did plant the glove it didn't matter to her.

The other issue for me was the civil trial was a social political event staged to extract money, which is what all civil trials are about. I was sure he would be found liable and when the judge cut the legs from under the defense arguments i understood the set up was taking place. I did not follow that trial
because the criminal trial was about taking ojs freedom and when that didn't happen i was satisfied that justice had prevailed.imo

[tv]

I thought about Simpson staging the broken glass. IMHOO if he got the injuries wrestling with Justin he was teaching his kid to be like Dad....Sadistic.

I've read several times that he was very demanding of his sons and, without really knowing what went on in their home, I think it might have been part of the problem between Simpson and Jason. Just my opinion.

[weezer]

Am I reading you and Martin insinuating that because Petrocelli represented the scumbags (which they are imhoo and a dang strong one) from Enron....it puts him in their catagory. I don't think so or I'll change that and say I know it doesn't.

soooo -- using that logic, we can assume that any defense attorney (no matter how magnificent and well known) who represents a scumbag accused of murder is in their category? :eek: And then of course, what does that say for Baker and Galanter? :tongue:

[martin II]

Exactly and all the other attorney's who have represented murderers.

And I guess the LE got the FBI involved in their conspircy to frame OJ and plucking OJ's hair out to do so. Maybe that is something else OJ didn't remember...Pun intended because at the civil trial he couldn't remember lots of things.

snip
DOUGLAS DEEDRICK, special agent for FBI: Hair matching Simpson's found on Goldman's shirt, entwined in knit cap; hair matching both victims found on right glove; limb hair from unidentified black person found on right glove; Ms. Simpson's hair found on Goldman's shirt, on glove and hat found near bodies; carpet fibers matching samples taken from Simpson's 1994 Bronco found inside cap and on glove at Simpson's - such carpet was installed in 72,000 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks made after May 1993; Goldman's shirt had hair fragment that could have been Simpson's and cashmere strands that could have come from glove linings; glove found at Simpson home yielded a hair from Ms. Simpson, hairs from Goldman, limb hair from black person, bloody fibers from Goldman's shirt, carpet fiber and mysterious blue-black cotton strand; other blue-black strands found on Goldman's shirt and on socks from Simpson's bedroom; negroid hairs not belonging to Simpson found in cap.


Thank god for defense lawyers because without them all the accused would go to jail. Usually we don't know if the accused was guilty or not until the end of ther trial and a verdict is made. imo

[martin II]

I mentioned Enron but IJM said "Now you really don't want to hear my opinion about the scumbags, thieves and jerks that were in control at Enron", which Petrocelli represented.

I just read a negative post about defense lawyers defending murders. IMO Petro defended a guy that "murdered" and actually stole millions of peoples 401 k retirement money leaving lives destroyed. Many of them the elderly.imo

[tv]

soooo -- using that logic, we can assume that any defense attorney (no matter how magnificent and well known) who represents a scumbag accused of murder is in their category? :eek: And then of course, what does that say for Baker and Galanter? :tongue:

I guess that's what that means. :shrug:

Everyone has the right to legal representation in this country and that includes corporations. Are some posters now saying if the client needing representation is unsavory or unpopular that they don't have that right?
Wow. :eek:

[Its just me]

Based on what that jury was allowed to hear they had little choice. Especially when one said she didn't care if the glove was planted or not.

I took that as meaning IF Furhman did plant the glove it didn't matter to her.

The other issue for me was the civil trial was a social political event staged to extract money, which is what all civil trials are about. I was sure he would be found liable and when the judge cut the legs from under the defense arguments i understood the set up was taking place. I did not follow that trial
because the criminal trial was about taking ojs freedom and when that didn't happen i was satisfied that justice had prevailed.imo

To my understanding the Goldman's felt the same when Simpson was found liable for Ron's death in the civil trial.

[martin II]

Am I reading you and Martin insinuating that because Petrocelli represented the scumbags (which they are imhoo and a dang strong one) from Enron....it puts him in their catagory. I don't think so or I'll change that and say I know it doesn't.

I cannot speak for William. But for me that was not my insinuation at all.
My point was that Petro used his success in the civil trial to get the job as defense council representing a crook for millions. That everyone quickly found out that he was in over his head in that type case which caused the federal prosecutors to rip his defense apart pronto.When his client was foung guilty and given a hugh prison sentance the client realized that Petro's defense was faulty and he sued Petro to get his millions back.
However i have head the comment 'Birds of a feather flock togeather" or something like that. You think there is the chance that Petro knew his client was guilty,and put up a faulty defense and just took the money anyway?

[Its just me]

I just read a negative post about defense lawyers defending murders. IMO Petro defended a guy that "murdered" and actually stole millions of peoples 401 k retirement money leaving lives destroyed. Many of them the elderly.imo

What the Enron guy did to these people is beyond disgusting but it's not murder. Material things can often be replaced with something else ....a life can not be. Ask the Goldman's and Nicole's family.

[Its just me]

I cannot speak for William. But for me that was not my insinuation at all.
My point was that Petro used his success in the civil trial to get the job as defense council representing a crook for millions. That everyone quickly found out that he was in over his head in that type case which caused the federal prosecutors to rip his defense apart pronto.When his client was foung guilty and given a hugh prison sentance the client realized that Petro's defense was faulty and he sued Petro to get his millions back.
However i have head the comment 'Birds of a feather flock togeather" or something like that. You think there is the chance that Petro knew his client was guilty and just took the money anyway?

Haha I've heard the comment "Birds of a feather flock together" lots of times and somethings it's right on target..... I could give you some examples but I'm afraid Hotwater would get me. Too Too funny.

Do you think Petro did more than any other attorney....including OJ's criminal and civil attorneys. I'll have to see the proof.

[tv]

What the Enron guy did to these people is beyond disgusting but it's not murder. Material things can often be replaced with something else ....a life can not be. Ask the Goldman's and Nicole's family.

Excellent point. Also, we continually hear that the civil trial wasn't about murder...wouldn't it be an even bigger stretch to say the Enron trial was about murder?

This is one of the NG's favorite subjects -- criticizing Petrocelli for the Enron trial even though it has no bearing on the civil trial of OJ Simpson.

[martin II]

What the Enron guy did to these people is beyond disgusting but it's not murder. Material things can often be replaced with something else ....a life can not be. Ask the Goldman's and Nicole's family.

I agree that murder is the ultimate crime just as sending a person to jail or to a death sentence ,that did not commit the crime.
But if you speak to some of the millions that suffered from Petros client crimes
some may think it is a equal crime. imo

[Its just me]

I guess that's what that means. :shrug:

Everyone has the right to legal representation in this country and that includes corporations. Are some posters now saying if the client needing representation is unsavory or unpopular that they don't have that right?
Wow. :eek:

LOL I guess it depends on who the client is and how popular they are. I agree everyone has the right to legal representation in this great US of A.

[tv]

LOL I guess it depends on who the client is and how popular they are. I agree everyone has the right to legal representation in this great US of A.

I've criticized Johnny Cochran and the rest of the defense but my problem with them isn't that they represented OJ Simpson; it's the tactics they used. IMO, they resorted to the only thing they had -- jury bias and unproven allegations of LE misconduct.

[Its just me]

I agree that murder is the ultimate crime just as sending a person to jail or to a death sentence ,that did not commit the crime.
But if you speak to some of the millions that suffered from Petros client crimes
some may think it is a equal crime. imo

Well....I've got news for them...it's not and I actually doubt they think it anyway. I think the loved ones of all the victims who have been murdered by another scumbag...the scum of the earth....could shed some light on your thoughts also. Taking wealth is nothing even close to taking a loved one's life....for the normal person anyway. Some folks do put a lot of importance in wealth...but when they die they leave this world just as broke as the homeless.

[Hipcheck]

I agree that murder is the ultimate crime just as sending a person to jail or to a death sentence ,that did not commit the crime.
But if you speak to some of the millions that suffered from Petros client crimes
some may think it is a equal crime. imo

So Martin just how many millions suffered? I think your way high when you say millions suffered.

[martin II]

Haha I've heard the comment "Birds of a feather flock together" lots of times and somethings it's right on target..... I could give you some examples but I'm afraid Hotwater would get me. Too Too funny.

Do you think Petro did more than any other attorney....including OJ's criminal and civil attorneys. I'll have to see the proof.

Based on how Petro failed in that case i believe he had to know that he was lacking in experience in that type case at that level. The prosecutors proved that when the trial got underway and they made a fool of him and the derfense he presented. I cannot compare ojs trials to Enrons as they require different knowledge of the law and different experience at different levels.I am sure you know the differance between a regular murder trial and a corporate conspiracy, money laundering, price fixing, investor fraud,contract default trial. But Petro used his well known civil trial success to negoiate a defense for a client for millions and then screwed it up because imo he was over his head and he knew it. But nothing like a big fat payday.Right?

[tv]

Well....I've got news for them...it's not and I actually doubt they think it anyway. I think the loved ones of all the victims who have been murdered by another scumbag...the scum of the earth....could shed some light on your thoughts also. Taking wealth is nothing even close to taking a loved one's life....for the normal person anyway. Some folks do put a lot of importance in wealth...but when they die they leave this world just as broke as the homeless.

I agree. Money and possessions can be replaced or you can learn to live with out them. Nothing replaces the life of a loved one.

[Its just me]

I've criticized Johnny Cochran and the rest of the defense but my problem with them isn't that they represented OJ Simpson; it's the tactics they used. IMO, they resorted to the only thing they had -- jury bias and unproven allegations of LE misconduct.

At least you don't put Cochran in OJ's catagory....Liable for the death of Ron Goldman.

OJ's defense team showed no mercy for any of the innocent people called to the stand....they couldn't destoy what they said so they tried to destroy the person...My thoughts are: the criminal trial didn't get OJ but the civil trial did....some times we just to have to settle for second best.

[martin II]

So Martin just how many millions suffered? I think your way high when you say millions suffered.

I believe there were millions effected by Enrons criminal conduct world wide. if you believe the number is much lower. ok.
How many people do you believe were effected by the crimes they commited?
If you can give a more accurate number please do so.

[tv]

At least you don't put Cochran in OJ's catagory....Liable for the death of Ron Goldman.

OJ's defense team showed no mercy for any of the innocent people called to the stand....they couldn't destoy what they said so they tried to destroy the person...My thoughts are: the criminal trial didn't get OJ but the civil trial did....some times we just to have to settle for second best.

I'm satisfied that the civil trial proved OJ Simpson to be a double-murderer. Imo, the criminal trial did also but I look to the civil trial and OJ Simpson's testimony as the "Triumph of Justice" as Petrocelli called his book.

My interest in Daniel Petrocelli is only his involvement in the civil trial...whatever he did or didn't do to represent Enron doesn't have anything to do with it. I wonder why Petrocelli is the only attorney in the civil trial that seems to bug some people? The other plaintiff's had lawyers of their own.

[martin II]

At least you don't put Cochran in OJ's catagory....Liable for the death of Ron Goldman.

OJ's defense team showed no mercy for any of the innocent people called to the stand....they couldn't destoy what they said so they tried to destroy the person...My thoughts are: the criminal trial didn't get OJ but the civil trial did....some times we just to have to settle for second best.

See. we agree on something. Thats a good thing .The civil trial was second best and this caused me not to be concerned.

[Its just me]

Based on how Petro failed in that case i believe he had to know that he was lacking in experience in that type case at that level. The prosecutors proved that when the trial got underway and they made a fool of him and the derfense he presented. I cannot compare ojs trials to Enrons as they require different knowledge of the law and different experience at different levels.I am sure you know the differance between a regular murder trial and a corporate conspiracy, money laundering, price fixing, investor fraud,contract default trial. But Petro used his well known civil trial success to negoiate a defense for a client for millions and then screwed it up because imo he was over his head and he knew it. But nothing like a big fat payday.Right?

Of course I know the difference...I've just posted to you about it.

I'm just different than you....I have to add OJ's defense team to the same pot....didn't OJ fill their pockets and I don't remember reading about any of them during the civil trial. OHHHHH maybe that is why OJ was found liable. :shrug:

[weezer]

What the Enron guy did to these people is beyond disgusting but it's not murder. Material things can often be replaced with something else ....a life can not be. Ask the Goldman's and Nicole's family.

let me see if I understand this: orenthal was mistreated and it was all wrong because he was sued for money for the deaths of Ron and Nicole?

not real sure what enron has to do with orenthal murdering Ron and Nicole - :shrug:

[Hipcheck]

I believe there were millions effected by Enrons criminal conduct world wide. if you believe the number is much lower. ok.
How many people do you believe were effected by the crimes they commited?
If you can give a more accurate number please do so.

I believe there were thousands of victis but not millons. Where did you come with a figure of millions?

Daniel Petrcelli lost his trial representing Jeffrey Skillings just like most defense lawyer do. Defense lawyer loss a lot more cases then they win and that includes Johnnie Cochran.

[tv]

let me see if I understand this: orenthal was mistreated and it was all wrong because he was sued for money for the deaths of Ron and Nicole?

not real sure what enron has to do with orenthal murdering Ron and Nicole - :shrug:

It has zero to do with it but it's one poster's favorite subject. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Well....Surely "something" had to be crediable....He was found liable you know.

Are you aware of the difference in the standard of proof and the evidence that was included and excluded via the judge's rulings in, IMHO, the socio political civil trial production?

[William Anthony]

Am I reading you and Martin insinuating that because Petrocelli represented the scumbags (which they are imhoo and a dang strong one) from Enron....it puts him in their catagory. I don't think so or I'll change that and say I know it doesn't.

That statement was made about Simpson and the magnificent one by some Gs on this board. However, I believe that everyone is entitled to a defense from a lawyer. If I had an opinion that Petrocelli is a scumbag, it wouldn't be because of who he represented.

[martin II]

At least you don't put Cochran in OJ's catagory....Liable for the death of Ron Goldman.

OJ's defense team showed no mercy for any of the innocent people called to the stand....they couldn't destoy what they said so they tried to destroy the person...My thoughts are: the criminal trial didn't get OJ but the civil trial did....some times we just to have to settle for second best.

i am sure you know the following.
A defense lawyer is required by law to do everything in his power,leagally, to get his client off. They take a oath to do so.

No witness could be called innocent as they were not charged or convicted with a crime. The purpose of defense cross is to dig for the truth of witness testimony. The defense did a great job of this as this in many instances was when it was proved that some prosecution witnesses did not tell the truth.
Take Martz and Rubin as examples.
Martz was hired by the prosecution FBI EXPERT.When he gave his results that proved he was dead the prosecution did not call him.The defense did and he proved there was EDTA on the sock and the gate sample. That was good strong defense work. The defense treated AM with kid gloves and respect but her testimony on cross indicated that someone had manipulated ojs blood sample.
I never saw the defense treat any prosecution witness as you say they did. The judge did not allow it.

[martin II]

I believe there were thousands of victis but not millons. Where did you come with a figure of millions?

Daniel Petrcelli lost his trial representing Jeffrey Skillings just like most defense lawyer do. Defense lawyer loss a lot more cases then they win and that includes Johnnie Cochran.

Well since you failed to prove my estimate was wrong i will stick to my number.
If you read my previous post of Cochrans bio you will find that you comment about Cochrans win lost record is not correct.

[William Anthony]

Exactly and all the other attorney's who have represented murderers.

And I guess the LE got the FBI involved in their conspircy to frame OJ and plucking OJ's hair out to do so. Maybe that is something else OJ didn't remember...Pun intended because at the civil trial he couldn't remember lots of things.

snip
DOUGLAS DEEDRICK, special agent for FBI: Hair matching Simpson's found on Goldman's shirt, entwined in knit cap; hair matching both victims found on right glove; limb hair from unidentified black person found on right glove; Ms. Simpson's hair found on Goldman's shirt, on glove and hat found near bodies; carpet fibers matching samples taken from Simpson's 1994 Bronco found inside cap and on glove at Simpson's - such carpet was installed in 72,000 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks made after May 1993; Goldman's shirt had hair fragment that could have been Simpson's and cashmere strands that could have come from glove linings; glove found at Simpson home yielded a hair from Ms. Simpson, hairs from Goldman, limb hair from black person, bloody fibers from Goldman's shirt, carpet fiber and mysterious blue-black cotton strand; other blue-black strands found on Goldman's shirt and on socks from Simpson's bedroom; negroid hairs not belonging to Simpson found in cap.

You see that is the problem with the word "match". I see that this does link does not mention the unidentified Caucasian hair.

"MR. BAILEY: There is no way that you can tell, either at the time of your examination or today, how long that hair had been on that dress, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: There is no way to know that, no.

MR. BAILEY: There is no way that you can tell how long the K7 similar hairs inside and outside the Bundy cap had been there?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Prior to June 12th?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there is no way.

MR. BAILEY: There is no way to tell how the non-K7, that is, unlike hairs and hair fragments of African American origin found inside and outside the Bundy cap, some of which were treated, no way to tell how long they had been there, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And there is no way to tell, Mr. Deedrick, which came first, is there?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there is no way to know.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you."

[William Anthony]

Yes, there were many things during Simpson's testimony that he didn't remember or was very vague about. Petrocelli asked him for specifics of the planting/framing theory and he couldn't give them. Just throwing it out there didn't work in the civil trial.

There is a huge amount of hair and fiber evidence -- that's before you add the blood evidence, the Bronco chase and the suicide note...etc., etc.

Quite unlawful for the judge to have sided with the plaintiff's on this issue, IMHO. Has anyone noticed that those, who seemed to have obviously lied or made what appear to be blatantly biased rulings, before the Nevada case, all have last names that begin with F, DF, MF and judge F?

[William Anthony]

I just read a negative post about defense lawyers defending murders. IMO Petro defended a guy that "murdered" and actually stole millions of peoples 401 k retirement money leaving lives destroyed. Many of them the elderly.imo


We were reading posts some time ago equating Simpson and the magnificent one.

[martin II]

To my understanding the Goldman's felt the same when Simpson was found liable for Ron's death in the civil trial.

Here is a opinion on JS crimes.

In a forthcoming article entitled “Of Breaches of the Peace, Home Invasions and Securities Fraud,” corporate law scholar Christine Hurt has expressed skepticism about the appropriateness of a 24-year sentence meted out to Enron’s Jeff Skilling for his conviction on multiple counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, false statements, and insider trading. According to Hurt, Skilling’s sentence “can be compared to the sentence for someone who murdered five people, without passion and without any mitigating circumstances

[William Anthony]

To my understanding the Goldman's felt the same when Simpson was found liable for Ron's death in the civil trial.

I don't think so or they would not have been so upset trying to get the judgment. Ms. Kim Goldman claimed it was not about the money to her and I have no reason not to believe her, since she was not allowed to be a plaintiff and she may have felt the same, even if she had been allowed.

[weezer]

It has zero to do with it but it's one poster's favorite subject. :shrug:

did you ever empy your PM box (in and out)

[William Anthony]

What the Enron guy did to these people is beyond disgusting but it's not murder. Material things can often be replaced with something else ....a life can not be. Ask the Goldman's and Nicole's family.

Who was found guilty of murder?

[weezer]

"I was an improbable lawyer to represent the Goldman family," Petrocelli said. "I had done no work in the criminal area or personal injury field, let alone wrongful death. But I agreed to meet with the family. When I did, I realized that I had to take their case. For me, it was a life-changing experience, personally and as a lawyer."

[tv]

did you ever empy your PM box (in and out)

Yes, sorry about that. :o

[William Anthony]

I've criticized Johnny Cochran and the rest of the defense but my problem with them isn't that they represented OJ Simpson; it's the tactics they used. IMO, they resorted to the only thing they had -- jury bias and unproven allegations of LE misconduct.

The defense did not have to prove anything just provide evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the prosecution's evidence was untrustworthy. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

At least you don't put Cochran in OJ's catagory....Liable for the death of Ron Goldman.

OJ's defense team showed no mercy for any of the innocent people called to the stand....they couldn't destoy what they said so they tried to destroy the person...My thoughts are: the criminal trial didn't get OJ but the civil trial did....some times we just to have to settle for second best.

It was the prosecution that attempted to ruin witnesses, IMHO. When people say that the civil trial did what the criminal trial could not it reinforces my opinion almost to a certainty that the civil trial was a socio political production.

[weezer]

In his decision Thursday, Ito ruled that jurors will hear only the two most innocuous passages in which former LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman uses racial epithets during interviews with an aspiring screenwriter. One segment is on tape, the other appears only in transcript form. Beyond that, Ito said he will allow Fuhrman's interviewer on the tapes--film professor Laura Hart McKinny--to testify to the number of epithets she recorded, 41.

Perhaps more significant, Ito signaled his skepticism concerning defense allegations that Fuhrman may have planted a bloody glove on the grounds of the former football star's Brentwood estate. The defense contention, Ito wrote, "is a theory without factual support."

[William Anthony]

I'm satisfied that the civil trial proved OJ Simpson to be a double-murderer. Imo, the criminal trial did also but I look to the civil trial and OJ Simpson's testimony as the "Triumph of Justice" as Petrocelli called his book.

My interest in Daniel Petrocelli is only his involvement in the civil trial...whatever he did or didn't do to represent Enron doesn't have anything to do with it. I wonder why Petrocelli is the only attorney in the civil trial that seems to bug some people? The other plaintiff's had lawyers of their own.

I will speak for myself and say it's Petrocelli's braggadocios, IMHO, lies. He found an audience that was easy to satisfy, IMHO.

[martin II]

Of course I know the difference...I've just posted to you about it.

I'm just different than you....I have to add OJ's defense team to the same pot....didn't OJ fill their pockets and I don't remember reading about any of them during the civil trial. OHHHHH maybe that is why OJ was found liable. :shrug:

I dissagree

First the level of proof required in a civil trial is much lower that it is in a criminal trial thats why most defendants lose civil trials. The plaintiff does not need a high level of proof that is why the penality is only about money not freedom. I don't remember the legal standard but it is something close to well he may be liable.

OJ paid to level the playing field and thank God for him was able to do so. He got his moneys worth.Caint say that for the ENRON guy.

Most criminal lawyers don't do civil trials and most civil lawyers don't do ciminal trials. You are smart enough to know that. So nothing wrong with Cochran not being ojs civil lawyer.
But i think Cochran did do some back office support for oj in the civil trial.

[weezer]

Judge Ito on LE planting evidence:

"In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

[martin II]

In his decision Thursday, Ito ruled that jurors will hear only the two most innocuous passages in which former LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman uses racial epithets during interviews with an aspiring screenwriter. One segment is on tape, the other appears only in transcript form. Beyond that, Ito said he will allow Fuhrman's interviewer on the tapes--film professor Laura Hart McKinny--to testify to the number of epithets she recorded, 41.

Perhaps more significant, Ito signaled his skepticism concerning defense allegations that Fuhrman may have planted a bloody glove on the grounds of the former football star's Brentwood estate. The defense contention, Ito wrote, "is a theory without factual support."

I guess we can agree that it only too two for the world to know what Furhman did as a lapd detective.

[William Anthony]

"I was an improbable lawyer to represent the Goldman family," Petrocelli said. "I had done no work in the criminal area or personal injury field, let alone wrongful death. But I agreed to meet with the family. When I did, I realized that I had to take their case. For me, it was a life-changing experience, personally and as a lawyer."

This was my chance to become a household name and write a book, win or lose.

[William Anthony]

In his decision Thursday, Ito ruled that jurors will hear only the two most innocuous passages in which former LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman uses racial epithets during interviews with an aspiring screenwriter. One segment is on tape, the other appears only in transcript form. Beyond that, Ito said he will allow Fuhrman's interviewer on the tapes--film professor Laura Hart McKinny--to testify to the number of epithets she recorded, 41.

Perhaps more significant, Ito signaled his skepticism concerning defense allegations that Fuhrman may have planted a bloody glove on the grounds of the former football star's Brentwood estate. The defense contention, Ito wrote, "is a theory without factual support."

Until Ito heard the September arguments and reconsidered his position. :);):cool:

[martin II]

"I was an improbable lawyer to represent the Goldman family," Petrocelli said. "I had done no work in the criminal area or personal injury field, let alone wrongful death. But I agreed to meet with the family. When I did, I realized that I had to take their case. For me, it was a life-changing experience, personally and as a lawyer."

Sounds like that was the second case he took that he was not qualified to take. He could have won the civil case with a muzzle on.

[weezer]

I remember reading at some point the NG's claiming that orenthal's civil defense was precluded from offering the planting theory so thought it might be a good time to remind everyone what actually happened:

". . .Boosting the defense effort to argue that O.J. Simpson was framed for murder, a judge ruled Friday that lawyers in the civil trial can present their theory that key pieces of evidence--including a blood-smeared glove and socks--may have been planted.

Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki warned defense attorneys not to get carried away with unsupported "grandiose theories" that could mislead jurors.

But he allowed the defense to argue that blood could have been planted in Simpson's Ford Bronco, on socks and a glove recovered from his estate, and on the back gate at the murder scene on Bundy Drive. . ."

[William Anthony]

I think that when posters place things in quotes they should supply the link so that they statements could be placed in context and the source judge, JMHO.

Plaintiff motion (Brown) to bar reference to Simpson's financial support of the Browns.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "evidence was planted" theory.
Plaintiff declaration (Petrocelli) supporting "evidence was planted" motion.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "glove was planted" theory.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "Rockingham blood was planted" theory.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "Bronco blood was planted" theory.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Fuhrman's racism.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Fuhrman's invocation of the 5th.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Faye Resnick's drug use.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to establish chain of custody of evidence.

http://walraven.org/simpson/

[tv]

In his decision Thursday, Ito ruled that jurors will hear only the two most innocuous passages in which former LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman uses racial epithets during interviews with an aspiring screenwriter. One segment is on tape, the other appears only in transcript form. Beyond that, Ito said he will allow Fuhrman's interviewer on the tapes--film professor Laura Hart McKinny--to testify to the number of epithets she recorded, 41.

Perhaps more significant, Ito signaled his skepticism concerning defense allegations that Fuhrman may have planted a bloody glove on the grounds of the former football star's Brentwood estate. The defense contention, Ito wrote, "is a theory without factual support."

:beer:

[tv]

I remember reading at some point the NG's claiming that orenthal's civil defense was precluded from offering the planting theory so thought it might be a good time to remind everyone what actually happened:

". . .Boosting the defense effort to argue that O.J. Simpson was framed for murder, a judge ruled Friday that lawyers in the civil trial can present their theory that key pieces of evidence--including a blood-smeared glove and socks--may have been planted.

Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki warned defense attorneys not to get carried away with unsupported "grandiose theories" that could mislead jurors.

But he allowed the defense to argue that blood could have been planted in Simpson's Ford Bronco, on socks and a glove recovered from his estate, and on the back gate at the murder scene on Bundy Drive. . ."

The claims that they couldn't present any theories on planting is just not true. IMO, people that believe that are unfamiliar with the civil trial testimony and are just repeating what they've heard from other other people dissatisfied with the verdict. It's just not so.

[William Anthony]

:beer:

Which Ito obviously reconsidered and allowed the confused tongue MF to be called to the stand and asked if he planted evidence in the case on September 6th, if I recall the date correctly.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Ah, how soon they forget. Sometime ago, I found the appeal of Judge F's ruling that the defense in the civil trial was precluded from calling MF to the stand to produce evidence that he planted the glove, which was upheld on appeal on the basis that the defense was calling him simply for the purpose of impeachment.

[martin II]

What the Enron guy did to these people is beyond disgusting but it's not murder. Material things can often be replaced with something else ....a life can not be. Ask the Goldman's and Nicole's family.

I agree to a point but think Enron employees are having a hard time replacing their 401ks. All they had.

[martin II]

I think that when posters place things in quotes they should supply the link so that they statements could be placed in context and the source judge, JMHO.

Plaintiff motion (Brown) to bar reference to Simpson's financial support of the Browns.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "evidence was planted" theory.
Plaintiff declaration (Petrocelli) supporting "evidence was planted" motion.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "glove was planted" theory.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "Rockingham blood was planted" theory.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "Bronco blood was planted" theory.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Fuhrman's racism.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Fuhrman's invocation of the 5th.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Faye Resnick's drug use.
Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to establish chain of custody of evidence.

http://walraven.org/simpson/

Those represented the whole ball of wax. The judge decided the case not the jury when he only decided they could hear what he wanted them to hear.
It is the juries job to decide what is true and what is false. This jury only heard one side of the case the plaintiffs.So it was very easy for them.

[martin II]

I will speak for myself and say it's Petrocelli's braggadocios, IMHO, lies. He found an audience that was easy to satisfy, IMHO.

Wagner gave two examples of Petros GOOFY IDEAS.

[martin II]

I believe there were thousands of victis but not millons. Where did you come with a figure of millions?

Daniel Petrcelli lost his trial representing Jeffrey Skillings just like most defense lawyer do. Defense lawyer loss a lot more cases then they win and that includes Johnnie Cochran.

If you are interested in numbers you may want to count those in India and African countries that were effected by Enrons fall/crimes.Everyone in california was effected by their criminal price fixing there.

[William Anthony]

Wagner gave two examples of Petros GOOFY IDEAS.

Did one of those concern the magically disappearing sweatsuit?

[Hipcheck]

Well since you failed to prove my estimate was wrong i will stick to my number.
If you read my previous post of Cochrans bio you will find that you comment about Cochrans win lost record is not correct.

You stated that millions of people have suffered because of Enron. That figure is something you just made up. You have no facts to prove your right. My research showed that thousads of people were vcims of Enron not millions like you posted.

Cochran's won loss record on jury trials where he was a defense lawyer is not listed in his bio.

[martin II]

Judge Ito on LE planting evidence:

"In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit."

When the tapes were played we all understood that furhman had a history of planting and abuse of citizens and lying.So it was a good thing ito changed his mind and think he was pleased that he did.

[Hipcheck]

If you are interested in numbers you may want to count those in India and African countries that were effected by Enrons fall/crimes.Everyone in california was effected by their criminal price fixing there.

I don't understand how everyone in California was effected by Enron. I don't believe my famly was effected by Enron. Your post doesn't make sense at all. Care to explain.

Why were peope in India and Africa effected by Enron?

[martin II]

You stated that millions of people have suffered because of Enron. That figure is something you just made up. You have no facts to prove your right. My research showed that thousads of people were vcims of Enron not millions like you posted.

Cochran's won loss record on jury trials where he was a defense lawyer is not listed in his bio.

in one of the bios on him i posted it listed the wins he had. it also list the many awards he received from his peers including the LAWYER OF THE YEAR award By a leading lawyers organization. I don't think he lost a case after he moved to new york and he had many.

Look. If you want to think Cochran was not one of the most successful criminal trial lawyers in America help yourself to that idea. Actually i feel a little silly posting to you about his record as i know most know he had a above average win record. I also know that the many legal awards he received is common knowledge. So i think it is best for me to conserve my time on issues that are of interest to me and not waste time offering you information that is in legal history.imo

[Hipcheck]

in one of the bios on him i posted it listed the wins he had. it also list the many awards he received from his peers including the LAWYER OF THE YEAR award By a leading lawyers organization. I don't think he lost a case after he moved to new york and he had many.

Look. If you want to think Cochran was not one of the most successful criminal trial lawyers in America help yourself to that idea. Actually i feel a little silly posting to you about his record as i know most know he had a above average win record. I also know that the many legal awards he received is common knowledge. So i think it is best for me to conserve my time on issues that are of interest to me and not waste time offering you information that is in legal history.imo

It listed some of the high profile cases that Cochran won but it said nothing about the cases he had lost.

Still waiting for your response as to how everyone in California was effeced by Enron.

[martin II]

I don't understand how everyone in California was effected by Enron. I don't believe my famly was effected by Enron. Your post doesn't make sense at all. Care to explain.

Why were peope in India and Africa effected by Enron?

If they used energy they were effected.

Enron had large LPG and other energy construction operations in India and African countries, They went bust when Enron went bust.

I suggest you read Enrons complete history world wide. Not many places they were not involved.

I have more interesting subjects to read on.

[martin II]

Did one of those concern the magically disappearing sweatsuit?

No it was when oj would have had to be a helicopter to fly up to the top of the salingers garage and fly over the very tall trees/bushes to land in the walkway. But he did his goofy sweats ideas also.

[martin II]

I don't understand how everyone in California was effected by Enron. I don't believe my famly was effected by Enron. Your post doesn't make sense at all. Care to explain.

Why were peope in India and Africa effected by Enron?

If you know Cochran lost more cases than he won why not just list the cases he lost.We are getting no place with this.

Do some work and you won't have to ask me questions about stuff you may not know.:seeya:

[martin II]

You stated that millions of people have suffered because of Enron. That figure is something you just made up. You have no facts to prove your right. My research showed that thousads of people were vcims of Enron not millions like you posted.

Cochran's won loss record on jury trials where he was a defense lawyer is not listed in his bio.

There are many bios on Cochran keep looking if it is of interest to you. i cannot do research for you.

[martin II]

The claims that they couldn't present any theories on planting is just not true. IMO, people that believe that are unfamiliar with the civil trial testimony and are just repeating what they've heard from other other people dissatisfied with the verdict. It's just not so.


" you cannot argue that furhman planted because i will not accept your argument that he did"

[bobaugust]

The only door that could be unlocked with a key was the front door, the one Ms. Arnelle testified she unlocked.:);):cool:

And no one saw her do it.

[bobaugust]

The evidence is that they all entered through the front door, which is the only door that could be unlocked with a key. Therefore, the evidence supports an inference that all others lied and Ms. Arnelle told the truth.

Wrong, the evidence is that four detectives and Kato Kaelin all testified they entered the back door of the house. Three of those detectives thought Arnelle unlocked that back door, not the front door. Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle lead the detectives with a key in her hand and saw her enter the house and then he and Fuhrman followed Arnelle and the other detectives through the back door.

Your accusation that the detectives and Kaelin lied about this is a false accusation and nothing more than LE and witness bashing by you.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This is what you said.



Asked and answered. The video/picture was shown during Ms. Arnelle's testimony, IIRC.

The fact is that the four detectives and Kato Kaelin testified that Arnelle let them in the back door of the house before Arnelle Simpson testified and they were not in the court when Arnelle told her lies. It wasn’t until the civil trial that Petrocelli figured out why Arnelle lied.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I shall because I have respect. It was Phillips that mentioned the unmentionable not Ms. Arnelle.:);):cool:

I have no idea what you mean when you say it was Phillips that mentioned the unmentionable.

[martin II]

and no one saw her do it.

phillips said she did.

[tv]

"I was an improbable lawyer to represent the Goldman family," Petrocelli said. "I had done no work in the criminal area or personal injury field, let alone wrongful death. But I agreed to meet with the family. When I did, I realized that I had to take their case. For me, it was a life-changing experience, personally and as a lawyer."

Petrocelli did an exceptional job with the civil case especially considering it wasn't his area of expertise. He was able to impeach OJ Simpson with his own lying testimony. It was a beautiful thing. :)

[martin II]

Wrong, the evidence is that four detectives and Kato Kaelin all testified they entered the back door of the house. Three of those detectives thought Arnelle unlocked that back door, not the front door. Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle lead the detectives with a key in her hand and saw her enter the house and then he and Fuhrman followed Arnelle and the other detectives through the back door.

Your accusation that the detectives and Kaelin lied about this is a false accusation and nothing more than LE and witness bashing by you.

bobaugust

kATO lied.

[rovaan]

Anyone wonder why Arnelle's deposition was not made available? Jason's was.

[William Anthony]

No it was when oj would have had to be a helicopter to fly up to the top of the salingers garage and fly over the very tall trees/bushes to land in the walkway. But he did his goofy sweats ideas also.

Oh, so he realized the preposterous notion of the magical disappearing sweatsuit being worn on a hot summer night with dress shoes and dress socks, correct?

[Its just me]

I dissagree

First the level of proof required in a civil trial is much lower that it is in a criminal trial thats why most defendants lose civil trials. The plaintiff does not need a high level of proof that is why the penality is only about money not freedom. I don't remember the legal standard but it is something close to well he may be liable.

OJ paid to level the playing field and thank God for him was able to do so. He got his moneys worth.Caint say that for the ENRON guy.

Most criminal lawyers don't do civil trials and most civil lawyers don't do ciminal trials. You are smart enough to know that. So nothing wrong with Cochran not being ojs civil lawyer.
But i think Cochran did do some back office support for oj in the civil trial.

If that is the case Cochran didn't to so hot did he.

Nope the Enron guy got what he deserved on the first go round.

It doesn't make a hill of beans if it was about money or freedom....He was found liable (responsible) for Ron Goldman's death and since Ron and Nicole were both slaughtered at the same time....I say he is also liable for Nicole death.

I don't consider myself very smart but I'm smart enough to know you are wrong. If you will check Cochran's records you will find he was the attorney who represented white truck driver Reginald Denny in a discrimination lawsuit against the LAPD. Denny was the guy who was dragged from his truck and beaten by a black mob during the riots following the verdict in the Rodney King case.

FWIW....I'm not putting down Cochran....He was a good man imoo and did a lot of good things. Defending Simpson just was not one of them and certainly not on the top of the list that makes up the legacy he left.

[William Anthony]

And no one saw her do it.

Three detectives testified she unlocked the door.

[William Anthony]

Wrong, the evidence is that four detectives and Kato Kaelin all testified they entered the back door of the house. Three of those detectives thought Arnelle unlocked that back door, not the front door. Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle lead the detectives with a key in her hand and saw her enter the house and then he and Fuhrman followed Arnelle and the other detectives through the back door.

Your accusation that the detectives and Kaelin lied about this is a false accusation and nothing more than LE and witness bashing by you.

bobaugust

Unlike your statement that "Arnelle lied", which was an accusation and, which, according to my understanding of the rules is bashing, because you never qualified it as your opinion, even though it appears the moderator may have missed your repeated infraction, I said this, "Therefore, the evidence supports an inference that all others lied and Ms. Arnelle told the truth", which is not bashing, according to my understanding as it is an "inference", opinion, not an accusation. :);):cool:

[Hipcheck]

Martin

Johnnie Cochran has handled many civil cases. In fact he gave up doing criminal trials not long after the Simpson case.

You really need to do your home work so you don't look foolish when you post.

[William Anthony]

Petrocelli did an exceptional job with the civil case especially considering it wasn't his area of expertise. He was able to impeach OJ Simpson with his own lying testimony. It was a beautiful thing. :)

I thought, from what I have thus far read, that Petrocelli gave an adequate performance in the socio political production and that he un-meritoriously bragged about his performance, which, IMHO, was quite an ugly thing.

[weezer]

Anyone wonder why Arnelle's deposition was not made available? Jason's was.

I remember Petrocelli asking for the public's help in locating Jason, Arnelle, AC and who else I don't recall after he tried to find them to serve subpoenas and when Baker refused to accept service for them. After he asked for help -- he was getting their movements in real time. LOL I've never seen mention of arnelle's deposition for the civil case.

[William Anthony]

Anyone wonder why Arnelle's deposition was not made available? Jason's was.

Could it be that Ms. Arnelle testified.

[Its just me]

Martin

Johnnie Cochran has handled many civil cases. In fact he gave up doing criminal trials not long after the Simpson case.

You really need to do your home work so you don't look foolish when you post.

You are correct and some were high profile cases....Michael Jackson being one.

LOL it's pretty clear Martin didn't do much homework before posting.

[martin II]

If that is the case Cochran didn't to so hot did he.

Nope the Enron guy got what he deserved on the first go round.

It doesn't make a hill of beans if it was about money or freedom....He was found liable (responsible) for Ron Goldman's death and since Ron and Nicole were both slaughtered at the same time....I say he is also liable for Nicole death.

I don't consider myself very smart but I'm smart enough to know you are wrong. If you will check Cochran's records you will find he was the attorney who represented white truck driver Reginald Denny in a discrimination lawsuit against the LAPD. Denny was the guy who was dragged from his truck and beaten by a black mob during the riots following the verdict in the Rodney King case.

FWIW....I'm not putting down Cochran....He was a good man imoo and did a lot of good things. Defending Simpson just was not one of them and certainly not on the top of the list that makes up the legacy he left.

What exactly am i wrong about now? i know he defended Denny

[Its just me]

This may be old to you guys but I had not read it. Interesting article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16610772/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/

O.J. Book: Evidence of Guilt?
O. J. Simpson's 'If I Did It' provoked major controversy before the book was canceled. But what did he actually say? An exclusive look at the crucial chapter.
By Mark Miller
Newsweek

[William Anthony]

This may be old to you guys but I had not read it. Interesting article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16610772/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/

O.J. Book: Evidence of Guilt?
O. J. Simpson's 'If I Did It' provoked major controversy before the book was canceled. But what did he actually say? An exclusive look at the crucial chapter.
By Mark Miller
Newsweek

He actually said, "If i did it".

[Its just me]

Of course I know the difference...I've just posted to you about it.

I'm just different than you....I have to add OJ's defense team to the same pot....didn't OJ fill their pockets and I don't remember reading about any of them during the civil trial. OHHHHH maybe that is why OJ was found liable. :shrug:

I dissagree

First the level of proof required in a civil trial is much lower that it is in a criminal trial thats why most defendants lose civil trials. The plaintiff does not need a high level of proof that is why the penality is only about money not freedom. I don't remember the legal standard but it is something close to well he may be liable.

OJ paid to level the playing field and thank God for him was able to do so. He got his moneys worth.Caint say that for the ENRON guy.

Most criminal lawyers don't do civil trials and most civil lawyers don't do ciminal trials. You are smart enough to know that. So nothing wrong with Cochran not being ojs civil lawyer.
But i think Cochran did do some back office support for oj in the civil trial.

What exactly am i wrong about now? i know he defended Denny

:read:

[Its just me]

He actually said, "If i did it".

I'm smart enough to know that. ;):):cool: but it's still an interesting read. Did you read it.

[rovaan]

I remember Petrocelli asking for the public's help in locating Jason, Arnelle, AC and who else I don't recall after he tried to find them to serve subpoenas and when Baker refused to accept service for them. After he asked for help -- he was getting their movements in real time. LOL I've never seen mention of arnelle's deposition for the civil case.

Apparently Petrocelli thought he took Arnelle's deposition as it is mentioned in his book and Leonard thought it Petrocelli was reading from it when Arnelle testified. So why has it never been made public, like Jason's was?

[William Anthony]

I'm smart enough to know that. ;):):cool: but it's still an interesting read. Did you read it.

No I did not.

[rovaan]

Could it be that Ms. Arnelle testified.

Well OJ tesified and his deposition was made public. Same will Kato Kaelin. Is there something in Arnelle's deposition the state does not want the people to know?

[William Anthony]

Apparently Petrocelli thought he took Arnelle's deposition as it is mentioned in his book and Leonard thought it Petrocelli was reading from it when Arnelle testified. So why has it never been made public, like Jason's was?

Could it be that Ms. Arnelle testified and Jason did not? Not having my books handy it is hard for me to call the number of the exact rule. However, when a witness is unavailable to testify any or all of their deposition can be read into the record if there is a reason for it. The deposition were made public, with the exception of Simpson's, who was the defendant, because they did not testify.

[William Anthony]

Well OJ tesified and his deposition was made public. Same will Kato Kaelin. Is there something in Arnelle's deposition the state does not want the people to know?

I have addressed Simpson's and Kato sparked quite a bit of interest. The state did not take any depositions of which I am aware.

[Its just me]

No I did not.

I didn't think so but wanted to make sure.