Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

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

I am not fond of works of fiction.

[martin II]

:read:

I did but still don't get it.

[martin II]

IJM

Cochran did a lot of good work for those that had been abused by le and i know he represented Mr Denny.

When Darden was fired and decided to open his law office as a defense lawyer it was cochran that got him started by giving him clients to defend and other resources.
Darden said he appreciated it greatly. He also stated on tv that in his opinion
Furhman was worse than OJ as Furhman blindsided the DAS office by not speaking out about his racial history before he testified.
Yet some have so much hatred for him because he defended Oj that they refer to him here as cockroach. in addition to other noinsense.

I have great respect for defense lawyers.

[martin II]

:read:

If you are talking about civil and criminal lawyers. That has been my experience. They are classified differently and usually don't do both.

[martin II]

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

Anyone that read that chapter had to know it was written by oj and the ghost writer as a hook to sell books as none of it made one ounce of sense.

[Its just me]

IJM

Cochran did a lot of good work for those that had been abused by le and i know he represented Mr Denny.

When Darden was fired and decided to open his law office as a defense lawyer it was cochran that got him started by giving him clients to defend and other resources.
Darden said he appreciated it greatly. He also stated on tv that in his opinion
Furhman was worse than OJ as Furhman blindsided the DAS office by not speaking out about his racial history before he testified.
Yet some have so much hatred for him because he defended Oj that they refer to him here as cockroach. in addition to other noinsense.

I have great respect for defense lawyers.

Lawyers are like all other professionals and just people in general...some great people but some lawyers are A** holes in my area. If you don't believe they won't lie and deceive a client...Hire one. They will sell your arse out in a heart beat and smile all the way to the bank. fact. From personal experience as we continue to deal with our son's estate since his death in 2005.


Without a shred of doubt I totally disagree that Furhman is/was worse than OJ. If Darden said that no wonder the DA did so bad in the criminal trial. IMHOO Darden making that remark he is just as bad as those you say called Cochran a cockroach etc. It's all an ugly opinion just like my opinion of some lawyers being a**holes...and I believe mine with all my heart. Darden and the cockroach folks may also. :shrug:

ETA: One of the things I admired about Cochran is he was willing to help people if they had money or not. Also IIRC he stopped practicing law and became a prosecutor for a while....with a drastic decrease in salary. A sure sign he was not a money man.

[Its just me]

Anyone that read that chapter had to know it was written by oj and the ghost writer as a hook to sell books as none of it made one ounce of sense.

This is what the the guy who wrote the article said. I tend to agree.

Mark Miller
Newsweek

As a correspondent for this magazine, I covered the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman through the criminal trial and acquittal of O. J. Simpson in 1995. What is striking about the chapter I read, "The Night in Question," is how closely it tracks with the evidence in the case—and how clearly Simpson invokes the classic language of a wife abuser. In his crude, expletive-laced account, Simpson suggests Nicole all but drove him to kill her. He describes her as the "enemy." She is taunting him with her sexual dalliances, he says, and carrying on inappropriately in front of their two children.

[Its just me]

It's been so long I have forgotten so much but something rings a bell that OJ said something to somebody about Nicole's dress she was wearing the night of the murder being too tight. ??? Do anyone remember this.
LOL I'm pretty sure I haven't dreamed it up but I sure don't have a link. :eek:

[martin II]

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.

When did i tell you Cochran did not do civil casses. Thats all he did when he moved to new york after oj.
i doubt i have looked floolish on any thing i have posted to you.Please.

[martin II]

It's been so long I have forgotten so much but something rings a bell that OJ said something to somebody about Nicole's dress she was wearing the night of the murder being too tight. ??? Do anyone remember this.
LOL I'm pretty sure I haven't dreamed it up but I sure don't have a link. :eek:

OJ and kato were talking after the recital.The prosecution attempted to get kato to say oj was angry in describing micoles and the other ladies dresses but kato testified he was not angry and that he spoke in a kidding manner as in will they still be wearing those short dresses when they are grandmamas.

[tv]

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.

The others that avoided service by hiding were Craig Baumgarten, Joe Stellini, Ron Fischman and Mike Melchiorre. Except for Melchiorre they all reacted with screaming and profanity when they were finally served. The hardest fish to catch was Ron Fischman. The judge had to issue a bench warrant to get him to show up for his deposition. I forgot Kardashian; he avoided his deposition also. I think he was the other person that was tracked in real time.

I don't understand why these people were so reluctant to show up and help out good old OJ by telling the truth. If they had nothing to say that would hurt Simpson's case why were they avoiding being deposed? I would think they'd be eager to help him prevail. :shrug:

[rovaan]

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.

You are correct: The state did not take the depositions. Petrocelli issued the subpena for Arnelle. Paula Barbeiri testified and her deposition was released. I guess I am asking why Petrocelli did not release Arnelle's (if he would be the one to release it)? Did the deposition make the front door/back door issue much clearer?

[Its just me]

If you are talking about civil and criminal lawyers. That has been my experience. They are classified differently and usually don't do both.

I'm talking about civil and criminal lawyers....And I posted that Cochran also did civil cases so he didn't represent OJ in the civil trial because he only did criminal cases. I don't know why OJ got a different attorney for his civil trial but it wasn't because Cochran didn't do civil cases.... because Cochran did handle civil cases.

[Its just me]

OJ and kato were talking after the recital.The prosecution attempted to get kato to say oj was angry in describing micoles and the other ladies dresses but kato testified he was not angry and that he spoke in a kidding manner as in will they still be wearing those short dresses when they are grandmamas.

Thanks....It being Kato is sounding right....I just remember the remark that OJ said the dress was too tight and remember thinking he was showing a sign of being jealous. Seems like something was said similar to Nicole giving him the cold shoulder.

Do you know if that part of Kato's testimony has ever been posted. I'll search for it if you remember it being on the board.

[martin II]

I'm talking about civil and criminal lawyers....And I posted that Cochran also did civil cases so he didn't represent OJ in the civil trial because he only did criminal cases. I don't know why OJ got a different attorney for his civil trial but it wasn't because Cochran didn't do civil cases.... because Cochran did handle civil cases.

OK
You are correct.
I think Cochran decided that for his personal reasons he did not want the oj civil trial. Nothing unusual about that. He did give legal resources to Baker. I heard him speak at two seperate dinner events in his honor in New York and his basic message about the oj criminal trial was " The timeline proved oj was not guilty "

i believe it was around the time when he had the TV show with NG that he decided to only do civil trials. He had done Snoop,Diddy and then AL. I think he also was involved in the Dialblo Sp case.(shot 40 times by le)

I know he negoiated MJ settlement on the first case and that was not a trial. but don't remember the date of that but i am pretty sure after Diddy he stated he would only do civil. But he did follow through to get GP free. Not sure of that date either.

[tv]

Thanks....It being Kato is sounding right....I just remember the remark that OJ said the dress was too tight and remember thinking he was showing a sign of being jealous. Seems like something was said similar to Nicole giving him the cold shoulder.

Do you know if that part of Kato's testimony has ever been posted. I'll search for it if you remember it being on the board.

IJM, this is Kato's criminal trial testimony --

Q: OKAY. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT NICOLE HERSELF AT THE RECITAL?

A: ABOUT HER -- HER OUTFIT THAT SHE HAD ON.

Q: WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT THAT?

A: THAT THEY WERE WEARING -- WHO SHE WAS WITH, THAT THEY WERE WEARING TIGHT OUTFITS AND WONDERED IF THEY COULD BE GRANDMAS AND WEAR THOSE OUTFITS OUT.

Q: DID HE REMARK THAT SHE WAS WEARING A TIGHT DRESS THAT NIGHT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT REMARK DID HE MAKE -- WHAT, IF ANY, REMARK DID HE MAKE ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS WEARING THAT NIGHT?

A: THAT IT WAS A TIGHT OUTFIT.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS THAT WE REFERRED TO ABOUT NICOLE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE HIS BODY LANGUAGE?

A: THERE'S -- THERE'S DIFFERENT TIMES. ONE WAS SITTING AT A CHAIR.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, SIR.

A: OKAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE VAGUENESS OF THAT QUESTION.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'RE GOING ON TO SOMETHING -- THERE WAS A NONRESPONSIVE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. SO WE'LL IGNORE IT AT THIS POINT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN HE MADE THE REMARK TO YOU AFTER THE RECITAL ABOUT NICOLE AND HER TIGHT DRESSES, DID HE CLENCH HIS TEETH?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO BE VAGUE.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL DEMEANOR, HIS PHYSICAL BODY MOVEMENTS WHEN HE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT NICOLE WEARING TIGHT DRESSES?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. COMPOUND, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: OH, THAT HE WAS UPSET, HE MADE A POINT TO SAY THE TIGHT DRESSES THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE HIM CLENCH HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH?

A: I DIDN'T SEE -- I DIDN'T SEE LIKE THAT, CLENCHING HIS -- HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH. HE WAS UPSET AND IT WAS LIKE, "OH, THOSE -- WEARING THOSE TIGHT OUTFITS WHEN I MENTIONED -- WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WHEN THEY'RE GRANDMAS

[Its just me]

OK
You are correct.
I think Cochran decided that for his personal reasons he did not want the oj civil trial. Nothing unusual about that. He did give legal resources to Baker. I heard him speak at two seperate dinner events in his honor in New York and his basic message about the oj criminal trial was " The timeline proved oj was not guilty "

i believe it was around the time when he had the TV show with NG that he decided to only do civil trials. He had done Snoop,Diddy and AL. I think he also was involved in the Dialblo Sp case.(shot 40 times by le)

Like I said I don't know why Cochran didn't defend OJ in the civil trial. Your thinking is as good as mine but I've often thought it was because he knew OJ was guilty.

I've been reading a few things about Mr. Cochran and found this in relation to OJ.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochranedit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnnie_Cochran&action=edit&section=8)] O.J. Simpson

Main article: O.J. Simpson murder case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson_murder_case)
During closing arguments in the Simpson trial, Cochran uttered the now famous phrase, "[I]f it doesn't fit, you must acquit." He used the phrase as a way to try to persuade the jury that O.J. Simpson could not have murdered Nicole Brown Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brown_Simpson) and Ronald Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Goldman), because the murderer's gloves did not fit him. Cochran did not represent Simpson in a civil trial for the same murders in which Simpson was found liable.
Johnnie Cochran was criticized by some for bringing up the issue of race. Cochran told the mainly black Simpson jury that police officers were trying to frame O.J. Simpson because of his race.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-VOA-3) Robert Shapiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro), co-counsel on the Simpson defense team, accused Cochran of dealing the "race card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card)" "from the bottom of the deck."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-UMKC-7) In response, Cochran replied it was "not a case about race, it is a case about reasonable doubt...", noting "there are a lot of white people who are willing to accept this verdict."[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-15) Cochran's effective representation of a man many believed to be guilty generated hostility toward the attorney. At Cochran's funeral, O.J. Simpson expressed his belief that, without Cochran, he would not have been free.

[martin II]

Thanks....It being Kato is sounding right....I just remember the remark that OJ said the dress was too tight and remember thinking he was showing a sign of being jealous. Seems like something was said similar to Nicole giving him the cold shoulder.

Do you know if that part of Kato's testimony has ever been posted. I'll search for it if you remember it being on the board.

I think oj said something about nicole giving him a hard time about seeing the kids.
I read no hostility from Kato describing ojs demeanor but will look for the cross of him after the prosecution questions if you need me to. Kato testifies didderently depending on who is asking the questions.

[fgump2]

This is what the the guy who wrote the article said. I tend to agree.

Mark Miller
Newsweek

As a correspondent for this magazine, I covered the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman through the criminal trial and acquittal of O. J. Simpson in 1995. What is striking about the chapter I read, "The Night in Question," is how closely it tracks with the evidence in the case—and how clearly Simpson invokes the classic language of a wife abuser. In his crude, expletive-laced account, Simpson suggests Nicole all but drove him to kill her. He describes her as the "enemy." She is taunting him with her sexual dalliances, he says, and carrying on inappropriately in front of their two children.

That book isn’t the only place he showed hostility toward Nicole after her death. There was an interview with him in Esquire in which he said "Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would have been because I loved her very much, right?” I think the interview was in the Feb, 1998 issue.
The interviewer, Celia Farber, also wrote this: There was one comment that didn't make it into the piece. I asked him about bitterness and anger, and if he was feeling that. He said, "Strangely enough, if I am angry at anybody, I am angry at Nicole. In the last few months of her life, she was not the woman that I knew for 17 years." I said, "You mean, you think she got in with the wrong people and got herself killed. Is that why you are angry at her?" He didn't really say yes or no, he just kept saying over and over that she had changed, that she wasn't the same person he had known. He didn't even say, "Nicole, you got yourself killed and I had to take the rap." There is this unsettling vagueness about the way he talks about some of this stuff, that makes one become suspicious, not because of what he says, but because of what he doesn't say clearly enough.
I guess this means that Fred and Kim Goldman weren’t at the top of his hate list.
Some people also said that they saw Mr. Simpson cursing and yelling at her grave after the acquittal. I think he may have acknowledged that. John Douglas, the FBI expert, wrote that it was unfortunate that nobody recorded his graveside tirades.
The way Simpson expressed contradictory views of Nicole is somewhat like his farewell note. In that he denies that he and Nicole had a bad relationship: Nicole and I had a good life together. All this press talk about a rocky relationship was no more than what every long-term relationship experiences.
On the next paragraph he wrote: At times I felt like a battered husband or boy friend. There were just 19 words between these two quotes. Why would he feel battered if they had a good life together?
It is normal for divorced people to express completely different opinions of their ex on different days, but there is usually a fair amount of time between the different opinions. This is further evidence of his rather loose grip on reality.
The link for this information is:
http://www.salon.com/media/1998/02/03media2.html

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Like I said I don't know why Cochran didn't defend OJ in the civil trial. Your thinking is as good as mine but I've often thought it was because he knew OJ was guilty.



I'm thinking Cochran realized he got lucky once & didn't think it would happen a second time. JMO

[martin II]

Like I said I don't know why Cochran didn't defend OJ in the civil trial. Your thinking is as good as mine but I've often thought it was because he knew OJ was guilty.

I've been reading a few things about Mr. Cochran and found this in relation to OJ.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochranedit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnnie_Cochran&action=edit&section=8)] O.J. Simpson

Main article: O.J. Simpson murder case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson_murder_case)
During closing arguments in the Simpson trial, Cochran uttered the now famous phrase, "[I]f it doesn't fit, you must acquit." He used the phrase as a way to try to persuade the jury that O.J. Simpson could not have murdered Nicole Brown Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brown_Simpson) and Ronald Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Goldman), because the murderer's gloves did not fit him. Cochran did not represent Simpson in a civil trial for the same murders in which Simpson was found liable.
Johnnie Cochran was criticized by some for bringing up the issue of race. Cochran told the mainly black Simpson jury that police officers were trying to frame O.J. Simpson because of his race.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-VOA-3) Robert Shapiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro), co-counsel on the Simpson defense team, accused Cochran of dealing the "race card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card)" "from the bottom of the deck."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-UMKC-7) In response, Cochran replied it was "not a case about race, it is a case about reasonable doubt...", noting "there are a lot of white people who are willing to accept this verdict."[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-15) Cochran's effective representation of a man many believed to be guilty generated hostility toward the attorney. At Cochran's funeral, O.J. Simpson expressed his belief that, without Cochran, he would not have been free.


I think a year is enough for most lawyers with the same defendant.
In response to your first sentance i have posted what cochran stated in public about oj not being guilty. He was absolutely correct when he said the case was about reasonable doubt. Many people missed that fact.imo
The glove not fitting helped also.

[Its just me]

IJM, this is Kato's criminal trial testimony --

Q: OKAY. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT NICOLE HERSELF AT THE RECITAL?

A: ABOUT HER -- HER OUTFIT THAT SHE HAD ON.

Q: WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT THAT?

A: THAT THEY WERE WEARING -- WHO SHE WAS WITH, THAT THEY WERE WEARING TIGHT OUTFITS AND WONDERED IF THEY COULD BE GRANDMAS AND WEAR THOSE OUTFITS OUT.

Q: DID HE REMARK THAT SHE WAS WEARING A TIGHT DRESS THAT NIGHT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT REMARK DID HE MAKE -- WHAT, IF ANY, REMARK DID HE MAKE ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS WEARING THAT NIGHT?

A: THAT IT WAS A TIGHT OUTFIT.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS THAT WE REFERRED TO ABOUT NICOLE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE HIS BODY LANGUAGE?

A: THERE'S -- THERE'S DIFFERENT TIMES. ONE WAS SITTING AT A CHAIR.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, SIR.

A: OKAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE VAGUENESS OF THAT QUESTION.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'RE GOING ON TO SOMETHING -- THERE WAS A NONRESPONSIVE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. SO WE'LL IGNORE IT AT THIS POINT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN HE MADE THE REMARK TO YOU AFTER THE RECITAL ABOUT NICOLE AND HER TIGHT DRESSES, DID HE CLENCH HIS TEETH?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO BE VAGUE.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL DEMEANOR, HIS PHYSICAL BODY MOVEMENTS WHEN HE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT NICOLE WEARING TIGHT DRESSES?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. COMPOUND, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: OH, THAT HE WAS UPSET, HE MADE A POINT TO SAY THE TIGHT DRESSES THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE HIM CLENCH HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH?

A: I DIDN'T SEE -- I DIDN'T SEE LIKE THAT, CLENCHING HIS -- HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH. HE WAS UPSET AND IT WAS LIKE, "OH, THOSE -- WEARING THOSE TIGHT OUTFITS WHEN I MENTIONED -- WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WHEN THEY'RE GRANDMAS

:beer: Your the best. LOL The ole gal's memory may not be as bad as I thought. I thought it was about Nicole's dress being too tight. And Kato did say he was upset. LOL and it was like pulling teeth to get past the defense's objections to get it out of him.

[Its just me]

That book isn’t the only place he showed hostility toward Nicole after her death. There was an interview with him in Esquire in which he said "Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would have been because I loved her very much, right?” I think the interview was in the Feb, 1998 issue.
The interviewer, Celia Farber, also wrote this: There was one comment that didn't make it into the piece. I asked him about bitterness and anger, and if he was feeling that. He said, "Strangely enough, if I am angry at anybody, I am angry at Nicole. In the last few months of her life, she was not the woman that I knew for 17 years." I said, "You mean, you think she got in with the wrong people and got herself killed. Is that why you are angry at her?" He didn't really say yes or no, he just kept saying over and over that she had changed, that she wasn't the same person he had known. He didn't even say, "Nicole, you got yourself killed and I had to take the rap." There is this unsettling vagueness about the way he talks about some of this stuff, that makes one become suspicious, not because of what he says, but because of what he doesn't say clearly enough.
I guess this means that Fred and Kim Goldman weren’t at the top of his hate list.
Some people also said that they saw Mr. Simpson cursing and yelling at her grave after the acquittal. I think he may have acknowledged that. John Douglas, the FBI expert, wrote that it was unfortunate that nobody recorded his graveside tirades.
The way Simpson expressed contradictory views of Nicole is somewhat like his farewell note. In that he denies that he and Nicole had a bad relationship: Nicole and I had a good life together. All this press talk about a rocky relationship was no more than what every long-term relationship experiences.
On the next paragraph he wrote: At times I felt like a battered husband or boy friend. There were just 19 words between these two quotes. Why would he feel battered if they had a good life together?
It is normal for divorced people to express completely different opinions of their ex on different days, but there is usually a fair amount of time between the different opinions. This is further evidence of his rather loose grip on reality.
The link for this information is:
http://www.salon.com/media/1998/02/03media2.html


Thanks, in my opinion there are more things besides what was presented at the trial that points to OJ being guilty....I call it out of the court room circumstantial evidence.

A jury recently convicted Sam Parker for the murder of his missing wife, Theresa. No body has been found and it was mostly circumstantial evidence. Much less physical and circumstantial evidence than what was against OJ. The trial was in Walker County Georgia.

I think Simpson said a mouth full speaking at Cochran’s funeral when he said…If not for Cochran he would not be a free man.

[Hipcheck]

IJM
When Darden was fired and decided to open his law office as a defense lawyer it was cochran that got him started by giving him clients to defend and other resources.


Martin

Get your facts straight. Christopher Darden was not fired from the DA's office. He took a leave of absence and never returned.

[Its just me]

I think a year is enough for most lawyers with the same defendant.
In response to your first sentance i have posted what cochran stated in public about oj not being guilty. He was absolutely correct when he said the case was about reasonable doubt. Many people missed that fact.imo
The glove not fitting helped also.

And co-counsel Robert Shapiro was on the money too when he accused Cochran of dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck. I'll never understand why people get all out of shape when ordinary people say the race card was played when OJ's own attorney said it.

I also agree that the case was about reasonable doubt and not facts of innocence. Cochran didn't prove OJ was innocent he just created enough doubt for the people on the jury. As I've said before Cochran did a great job defending his client Mr. Simpson.

[tv]

:beer: Your the best. LOL The ole gal's memory may not be as bad as I thought. I thought it was about Nicole's dress being too tight. And Kato did say he was upset. LOL and it was like pulling teeth to get past the defense's objections to get it out of him.

My pleasure to provide the testimony.:) Kato had an odd way of expressing himself. Petrocelli called it Katospeak. Poor Marcia Clark had no patience with the way he answered questions and I can see why that would be maddening when you're trying to make a specific point and you know the witness has the information you need but speaks in such a disjointed and rambling manner. I always felt from Kato's testimony that he was trying to say that Simpson appeared to be very annoyed at what Nicole was wearing and was just grumbling about it. I think there may have been some undisplayed anger there though. Just the fact that he would share his feelings with Kato makes me think the emotions were more intense than he was letting on. OJ Simpson was a master at hiding his feelings and putting on the Juice persona.

[Its just me]

OJ and kato were talking after the recital.The prosecution attempted to get kato to say oj was angry in describing micoles and the other ladies dresses but kato testified he was not angry and that he spoke in a kidding manner as in will they still be wearing those short dresses when they are grandmamas.

TVdinner posted the transcript of Kato's testimony....You need to read it.

[tv]

Martin

Get your facts straight. Christopher Darden was not fired from the DA's office. He took a leave of absence and never returned.

Thanks -- Darden being fired was another fun fact that I thought was true. When will I ever learn?

[Its just me]

My pleasure to provide the testimony.:) Kato had an odd way of expressing himself. Petrocelli called it Katospeak. Poor Marcia Clark had no patience with the way he answered questions and I can see why that would be maddening when you're trying to make a specific point and you know the witness has the information you need but speaks in such a disjointed and rambling manner. I always felt from Kato's testimony that he was trying to say that Simpson appeared to be very annoyed at what Nicole was wearing and was just grumbling about it. I think there may have been some undisplayed anger there though. Just the fact that he would share his feelings with Kato makes me think the emotions were more intense than he was letting on. OJ Simpson was a master at hiding his feelings and putting on the Juice persona.

LOL I remember Kato's demeanor. I thought what in the world has this guy fried his brains with drugs. I wanted to fly out to Calif. to comb his hair because I really kinda liked him. :)

There is no doubt that the way Nicole was dressed was on OJ's mind....Just a fact.... what is on one's mind will come flying out of their mouth.

[Its just me]

Thanks -- Darden being fired was another fun fact that I thought was true. When will I ever learn?

Hahahaha....I bought the lie about Darden too but I didn't buy Martin's story that Kato testifid OJ was just joking when he was talking about Nicole's dress.

To Martin: if you are not going to post the truth don't post.

Are there any rules about telling lies as facts on the board.

[tv]

LOL I remember Kato's demeanor. I thought what in the world has this guy fried his brains with drugs. I wanted to fly out to Calif. to comb his hair because I really kinda liked him. :)

There is no doubt that the way Nicole was dressed was on OJ's mind....Just a fact.... what is on one's mind will come flying out of their mouth.

I kinda liked him too. At least one of the jurors thought he was on drugs but it's come out that he was acutally somewhat of a health nut. I think he just had a valley boy type personality and odd way of expressing himself. When he teared up on the stand it stuck me as genuine emotion at Nicole's death and Simpson being accused and probably guilty. The last time I saw him on tv his hair looked a lot better, lol.

[tv]

Hahahaha....I bought the lie about Darden too but I didn't buy Martin's story that Kato testifid OJ was just joking when he was talking about Nicole's dress.

To Martin: if you are not going to post the truth don't post.

Are there any rules about telling lies as facts on the board.

I'm not sure if there are any rules about telling lies on this board but that's something you have to watch around here. Falsehoods are seeded in with truth many times and are easy to take as fact. I've fallen for it many times. I had to put one person on ignore because I was spending all my time chasing down his/her claims...too exhausting...better that I just not see the posts, lol.

Ha, ha -- I'm glad I'm not the only one that bought the story about Darden!

[Its just me]

I'm not sure if there are any rules about telling lies on this board but that's something you have to watch around here. Falsehoods are seeded in with truth many times and are easy to take as fact. I've fallen for it many times. I had to put one person on ignore because I was spending all my time chasing down his/her claims...too exhausting...better that I just not see the posts, lol.

Ha, ha -- I'm glad I'm not the only one that bought the story about Darden!

Thanks, Actually I was being sarcastic about the rules to get Martin's attention and I apologize for not saying so. Someone would have to really get on my bad side for me to get into rules and post reporting. I've posted since the beginning of 2006 on another board and I doubt I've reported a half dozen post and they needed reporting.

I'm off to bed. :eek: I've just looked at my clock. Have a good night.

[tv]

Thanks, Actually I was being sarcastic about the rules to get Martin's attention and I apologize for not saying so. Someone would have to really get on my bad side for me to get into rules and post reporting. I've posted since the beginning of 2006 on another board and I doubt I've reported a half dozen post and they needed reporting.

I'm off to bed. :eek: I've just looked at my clock. Have a good night.

That's okay. I've often thought we could use a rule like that but it would be impossible to enforce and turn us into a bunch of obsessed tattletales. :) I haven't had much trouble with martin making false claims -- I think he genuinely believes everything he posts.

Have a good night...I think I'm off to bed myself. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

ETA: One of the things I admired about Cochran is he was willing to help people if they had money or not. Also IIRC he stopped practicing law and became a prosecutor for a while....with a drastic decrease in salary. A sure sign he was not a money man.

I guess you understand the difference between a prosecutor and a lawyer.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

This is what the the guy who wrote the article said. I tend to agree.

Mark Miller
Newsweek

As a correspondent for this magazine, I covered the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman through the criminal trial and acquittal of O. J. Simpson in 1995. What is striking about the chapter I read, "The Night in Question," is how closely it tracks with the evidence in the case—and how clearly Simpson invokes the classic language of a wife abuser. In his crude, expletive-laced account, Simpson suggests Nicole all but drove him to kill her. He describes her as the "enemy." She is taunting him with her sexual dalliances, he says, and carrying on inappropriately in front of their two children.

I am not denying that Simpson engaged in spousal abuse.

[William Anthony]

The others that avoided service by hiding were Craig Baumgarten, Joe Stellini, Ron Fischman and Mike Melchiorre. Except for Melchiorre they all reacted with screaming and profanity when they were finally served. The hardest fish to catch was Ron Fischman. The judge had to issue a bench warrant to get him to show up for his deposition. I forgot Kardashian; he avoided his deposition also. I think he was the other person that was tracked in real time.

I don't understand why these people were so reluctant to show up and help out good old OJ by telling the truth. If they had nothing to say that would hurt Simpson's case why were they avoiding being deposed? I would think they'd be eager to help him prevail. :shrug:

Not everyone was eager to be a part of the socio political production.

[William Anthony]

You are correct: The state did not take the depositions. Petrocelli issued the subpena for Arnelle. Paula Barbeiri testified and her deposition was released. I guess I am asking why Petrocelli did not release Arnelle's (if he would be the one to release it)? Did the deposition make the front door/back door issue much clearer?

The video and the detectives testimonies did.

[William Anthony]

IJM, this is Kato's criminal trial testimony --

Q: OKAY. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT NICOLE HERSELF AT THE RECITAL?

A: ABOUT HER -- HER OUTFIT THAT SHE HAD ON.

Q: WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT THAT?

A: THAT THEY WERE WEARING -- WHO SHE WAS WITH, THAT THEY WERE WEARING TIGHT OUTFITS AND WONDERED IF THEY COULD BE GRANDMAS AND WEAR THOSE OUTFITS OUT.

Q: DID HE REMARK THAT SHE WAS WEARING A TIGHT DRESS THAT NIGHT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT REMARK DID HE MAKE -- WHAT, IF ANY, REMARK DID HE MAKE ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS WEARING THAT NIGHT?

A: THAT IT WAS A TIGHT OUTFIT.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS THAT WE REFERRED TO ABOUT NICOLE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE HIS BODY LANGUAGE?

A: THERE'S -- THERE'S DIFFERENT TIMES. ONE WAS SITTING AT A CHAIR.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, SIR.

A: OKAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE VAGUENESS OF THAT QUESTION.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'RE GOING ON TO SOMETHING -- THERE WAS A NONRESPONSIVE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. SO WE'LL IGNORE IT AT THIS POINT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN HE MADE THE REMARK TO YOU AFTER THE RECITAL ABOUT NICOLE AND HER TIGHT DRESSES, DID HE CLENCH HIS TEETH?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO BE VAGUE.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL DEMEANOR, HIS PHYSICAL BODY MOVEMENTS WHEN HE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT NICOLE WEARING TIGHT DRESSES?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. COMPOUND, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: OH, THAT HE WAS UPSET, HE MADE A POINT TO SAY THE TIGHT DRESSES THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE HIM CLENCH HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH?

A: I DIDN'T SEE -- I DIDN'T SEE LIKE THAT, CLENCHING HIS -- HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH. HE WAS UPSET AND IT WAS LIKE, "OH, THOSE -- WEARING THOSE TIGHT OUTFITS WHEN I MENTIONED -- WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WHEN THEY'RE GRANDMAS

Simpson questioned the appropriateness of the attire worn by some to his daughter's dance recital and that means he murdered two people, correct?

[William Anthony]

Like I said I don't know why Cochran didn't defend OJ in the civil trial. Your thinking is as good as mine but I've often thought it was because he knew OJ was guilty.

I've been reading a few things about Mr. Cochran and found this in relation to OJ.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochranedit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnnie_Cochran&action=edit&section=8)] O.J. Simpson

Main article: O.J. Simpson murder case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson_murder_case)
During closing arguments in the Simpson trial, Cochran uttered the now famous phrase, "[I]f it doesn't fit, you must acquit." He used the phrase as a way to try to persuade the jury that O.J. Simpson could not have murdered Nicole Brown Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brown_Simpson) and Ronald Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Goldman), because the murderer's gloves did not fit him. Cochran did not represent Simpson in a civil trial for the same murders in which Simpson was found liable.
Johnnie Cochran was criticized by some for bringing up the issue of race. Cochran told the mainly black Simpson jury that police officers were trying to frame O.J. Simpson because of his race.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-VOA-3) Robert Shapiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro), co-counsel on the Simpson defense team, accused Cochran of dealing the "race card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card)" "from the bottom of the deck."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-UMKC-7) In response, Cochran replied it was "not a case about race, it is a case about reasonable doubt...", noting "there are a lot of white people who are willing to accept this verdict."[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-15) Cochran's effective representation of a man many believed to be guilty generated hostility toward the attorney. At Cochran's funeral, O.J. Simpson expressed his belief that, without Cochran, he would not have been free.

Perhaps, this is why. "Cochran did not represent Simpson in a civil trial for the same murders in which Simpson was found liable." The magnificent one knew the civil trial was a socio political production, which was tantamount to double jeopardy to some.

[William Anthony]

Thanks, in my opinion there are more things besides what was presented at the trial that points to OJ being guilty....I call it out of the court room circumstantial evidence.

A jury recently convicted Sam Parker for the murder of his missing wife, Theresa. No body has been found and it was mostly circumstantial evidence. Much less physical and circumstantial evidence than what was against OJ. The trial was in Walker County Georgia.

I think Simpson said a mouth full speaking at Cochran’s funeral when he said…If not for Cochran he would not be a free man.

Yes, the magnificent one magnificently showed that there was reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

And co-counsel Robert Shapiro was on the money too when he accused Cochran of dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck. I'll never understand why people get all out of shape when ordinary people say the race card was played when OJ's own attorney said it.

I also agree that the case was about reasonable doubt and not facts of innocence. Cochran didn't prove OJ was innocent he just created enough doubt for the people on the jury. As I've said before Cochran did a great job defending his client Mr. Simpson.

No jury ever rendered a verdict of innocent.

[William Anthony]

That's okay. I've often thought we could use a rule like that but it would be impossible to enforce and turn us into a bunch of obsessed tattletales. :) I haven't had much trouble with martin making false claims -- I think he genuinely believes everything he posts.

Have a good night...I think I'm off to bed myself. :seeya:

That may not be a hard turn for some.

[Its just me]

I guess you understand the difference between a prosecutor and a lawyer.:);):cool:

Yep and more so than you do guilt and innocent.

You having a bad night or something. Somebody pull the wrong chain or something. Go to bed you ain't helping your reputation.

[Its just me]

Perhaps, this is why. "Cochran did not represent Simpson in a civil trial for the same murders in which Simpson was found liable." The magnificent one knew the civil trial was a socio political production, which was tantamount to double jeopardy to some.

Maybe you can start a campaign to change the law of the land. The civil trial was not double jeopardy. Simpson was found liable for the death of Ron Goldman and he has to pay up in money instead or prison time..but he's getting that now for other wrong doings he thought he could get
away with Don't that just grip you arse. :);):cool:

BTW....I can't sleep either and you pulled my wrong chain in the middle of the night.

[Its just me]

That can't be true as you and others are trying to prove Simpson guilty and I am not trying to prove him innocent, as the verdict said not guilty.

Didn't see your addition but I am not a dog or a person into S &M or a slave.


Excuse me but who in the h*** said you were a dog or a person into S and M or a slave....Boy you do have a problem tonight. get over it

[William Anthony]

Excuse me but who in the h*** said you were a dog or a person into S and M or a slave....Boy you do have a problem tonight. get over it

Then, why the remark about someone pulling my chain? We do better when we post about the case. You posted the remark about prosecutors and those that practice law to which I commented. I can understand if your comment about the chain was made in jest but that does not mean it was made with good taste.

[Its just me]

That can't be true as you and others are trying to prove Simpson guilty and I am not trying to prove him innocent, as the verdict said not guilty.

Didn't see your addition but I am not a dog or a person into S &M or a slave.

William I'm not here trying to prove anything. I'm here on a message board sharing my opinion about OJ Simpson. What "you" or I think actually is a worthless as that sty on a pigs eye I mentioned before.

[William Anthony]

Maybe you can start a campaign to change the law of the land. The civil trial was not double jeopardy. Simpson was found liable for the death of Ron Goldman and he has to pay up in money instead or prison time..but he's getting that now for other wrong doings he thought he could get
away with Don't that just grip you arse. :);):cool:

BTW....I can't sleep either and you pulled my wrong chain in the middle of the night.

This is your statement "Cochran did not represent Simpson in a civil trial for the same murders in which Simpson was found liable." A person cannot be made to stand trial for the same crime twice, if he was acquitted in the first trial.

I did not pull your chain as I was unaware you had one to pull.

[William Anthony]

William I'm not here trying to prove anything. I'm here on a message board sharing my opinion about OJ Simpson. What "you" or I think actually is a worthless as that sty on a pigs eye I mentioned before.

Then I do apologize if you are not one out to prove what the prosecution failed to prove or one that blamed the jury for the verdict.

[Its just me]

Then, why the remark about someone pulling my chain? We do better when we post about the case. You posted the remark about prosecutors and those that practice law to which I commented. I can understand if your comment about the chain was made in jest but that does not mean it was made with good taste.

What!!!!! You relate pulling your chain to being a dog or a person into S and M or a slave....I'm sorry but I'm cussing mad. Every dang body knows
what pulling your chain means. Butting in a conversation with a smart remark FWIW. I'd say a lot more but I know I'd get tossed by hotwater. You do need to go to bed....and pray. Lord help you.

[William Anthony]

What!!!!! You relate pulling your chain to being a dog or a person into S and M or a slave....I'm sorry but I'm cussing mad. Every dang body knows
what pulling your chain means. Butting in a conversation with a smart remark FWIW. I'd say a lot more but I know I'd get tossed by hotwater. You do need to go to bed....and pray. Lord help you.

Just wanted to alert you to the fact that there are better ways of saying things without being abrasive. If you knew the circumstances about a recent vacation I was on you would possibly better understand. Thanks, for asking God's help for me. Good night. May you have only sweet dreams and a thoroughly comforting sleep.

[Its just me]

Like I said I don't know why Cochran didn't defend OJ in the civil trial. Your thinking is as good as mine but I've often thought it was because he knew OJ was guilty.

I've been reading a few things about Mr. Cochran and found this in relation to OJ.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochranedit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnnie_Cochran&action=edit&section=8)] O.J. Simpson

Main article: O.J. Simpson murder case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson_murder_case)
During closing arguments in the Simpson trial, Cochran uttered the now famous phrase, "[i]f it doesn't fit, you must acquit." He used the phrase as a way to try to persuade the jury that O.J. Simpson could not have murdered Nicole Brown Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brown_Simpson) and Ronald Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Goldman), because the murderer's gloves did not fit him. Cochran did not represent Simpson in a civil trial for the same murders in which Simpson was found liable.
Johnnie Cochran was criticized by some for bringing up the issue of race. Cochran told the mainly black Simpson jury that police officers were trying to frame O.J. Simpson because of his race.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-VOA-3) Robert Shapiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro), co-counsel on the Simpson defense team, accused Cochran of dealing the "race card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card)" "from the bottom of the deck."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-UMKC-7) In response, Cochran replied it was "not a case about race, it is a case about reasonable doubt...", noting "there are a lot of white people who are willing to accept this verdict."[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran#cite_note-15) Cochran's effective representation of a man many believed to be guilty generated hostility toward the attorney. At Cochran's funeral, O.J. Simpson expressed his belief that, without Cochran, he would not have been free.

This is your statement "Cochran did not represent Simpson in a civil trial for the same murders in which Simpson was found liable." A person cannot be made to stand trial for the same crime twice, if he was acquitted in the first trial.

I did not pull your chain as I was unaware you had one to pull.

You really don't want to know what I'm thinking or my opinion right now but you need to learn to read. If you will you can plainly see Me Myself or I... DID NOT make that statement but the person who wrote the article.

BTW I don't want or need your apology. Some things are what they are and an apology can't change it.

[Its just me]

Just wanted to alert you to the fact that there are better ways of saying things without being abrasive. If you knew the circumstances about a recent vacation I was on you would possibly better understand. Thanks, for asking God's help for me. Good night. May you have only sweet dreams and a thoroughly comforting sleep.


Let me tell you something William. I'm sorry if you had a problem I really am but you know what..... the whole world is full of people who have problems and probably most are worse than yours. If you got clothes to wear and something to eat be thankful and forget about what color you are. Its just a fact...everybody ain't out to get you. I ain't and I ain't gonna take your ****.

[Its just me]

This is your statement "Cochran did not represent Simpson in a civil trial for the same murders in which Simpson was found liable." A person cannot be made to stand trial for the same crime twice, if he was acquitted in the first trial.

I did not pull your chain as I was unaware you had one to pull.

Well now you are and I'm so mad with you I doubt I go to sleep tonight...but I appreciate you wishing me sweet dreams and a comforting sleep.

[bobaugust]

phillips said she did.

You’re wrong again. Neither Phillips nor the other two detectives ever said Arnelle unlocked the front door. They said Arnelle unlocked and opened the back door and they followed her into the house through that door.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

kATO lied.

What evidence do you know of that proves Kaelin lied when he said he saw Arnelle walk into the house leading the detectives with a key?

[bobaugust]

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

I have also wondered why Arnelle’s deposition was never made available. I believe Petrocelli referred to one of Arnelle’s statements from her deposition in his book when he said, “Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Three detectives testified she unlocked the door.

Three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door, not the front door.

[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:

Arnelle was proved to have lied when she testified that she led two detectives around the house to the front door to let the detectives into the house. Her claim was impeached by five witnesses who testified to following her into the house through the back door, not the front door. Your inference doesn’t make any sense.

Not only did you call the detectives’ liars you called the witness who corroborated their testimony a liar. What evidence do you know of that proves Kaelin lied when he said he saw Arnelle walk into the house leading the detectives with a key?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Let me tell you something William. I'm sorry if you had a problem I really am but you know what..... the whole world is full of people who have problems and probably most are worse than yours. If you got clothes to wear and something to eat be thankful and forget about what color you are. Its just a fact...everybody ain't out to get you. I ain't and I ain't gonna take your ****.

The problem I have is with insensitive people. If this is your way of apologizing for a remark that I found just short of totally offensive, it, like the prosecution, fails miserably. I don't think everyone is out to get me nor do I think I have to accept remarks that border on being offensive, as chains are not part of the attire I put on.

[William Anthony]

I have also wondered why Arnelle’s deposition was never made available. I believe Petrocelli referred to one of Arnelle’s statements from her deposition in his book when he said, “Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night.”

bobaugust

Because it didn't tend to prove anything that would help the plaintiffs, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

Three detectives testified that Arnelle unlocked the back door, not the front door.

The video proved the only door that could be unlocked was the front. Ergo, IMHO, the detectives lied.

[William Anthony]

Arnelle was proved to have lied when she testified that she led two detectives around the house to the front door to let the detectives into the house. Her claim was impeached by five witnesses who testified to following her into the house through the back door, not the front door. Your inference doesn’t make any sense.

Not only did you call the detectives’ liars you called the witness who corroborated their testimony a liar. What evidence do you know of that proves Kaelin lied when he said he saw Arnelle walk into the house leading the detectives with a key?

bobaugust

Post were I called the detective liars and were I called Kato a liar or stop the false accusations. Thanks for your rapid cooperation.

[William Anthony]

You’re the one who should take heed of the moderator’s suggestion since you’re the one who made the remark she was referring to. The fact is that Phillips wasn’t the only one who called the family room the “living room area.” Johnnie Cochran also called it that name.

bobaugust

This is a no, no, no, no, IMHO. Why do you continue to mention that which should be unmentionable?

[martin II]

Martin

Get your facts straight. Christopher Darden was not fired from the DA's office. He took a leave of absence and never returned.

He did take a leave of absence. so you have part of it right.
He said from his mouth on the opra show that he planned to return but was not allowed to do so. 'I WAS BASICALLY FIRED"

Now you can just run to her site and correct your post.

[martin II]

And co-counsel Robert Shapiro was on the money too when he accused Cochran of dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck. I'll never understand why people get all out of shape when ordinary people say the race card was played when OJ's own attorney said it.

I also agree that the case was about reasonable doubt and not facts of innocence. Cochran didn't prove OJ was innocent he just created enough doubt for the people on the jury. As I've said before Cochran did a great job defending his client Mr. Simpson.

Sounds like you may be playing with words.

It is my opinion that THE Law requires the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the defense job is to show the jury that the prosecutions case cannot be believed by disproving and attacking the prosecutions claims. If the jury decides that the prosecution did not prove the charge of muder beyond a reasonable doubt.then by law and the judges instructions they are obligated to render a Not Guilty Verdict.

Cochran and NO OTHER LAWYER could prove innocence in a criminal murder trial as that option is not available to the jury. I understand why some that didn't agree with the verdict and use 'HE WAS NOT JUDGED INNOCENT" as a way to kinda say 'i can ignore the jury verdict"

But people can always say i dissagree with the CJS and don't like the idea that Beyond a reasonabloe doubt was the standard the prosecution had to meet in this case it should have been lower because i think so.
:cool:

[martin II]

Thanks, in my opinion there are more things besides what was presented at the trial that points to OJ being guilty....I call it out of the court room circumstantial evidence.

A jury recently convicted Sam Parker for the murder of his missing wife, Theresa. No body has been found and it was mostly circumstantial evidence. Much less physical and circumstantial evidence than what was against OJ. The trial was in Walker County Georgia.

I think Simpson said a mouth full speaking at Cochran’s funeral when he said…If not for Cochran he would not be a free man.

Although Shaperio stayed on as a lawyer for Oj i never thought he got over oj demoting him from lead lawyer and giving the position to Cochran. Shaperio had approached the Da about a plea for OJ just before or when the case started without ojs knowledge. When oj found out he was pissed and hired Cochran as lead lawyer. Shaperio also had a running fight with Bailey on some other issues involving a case they had togeather and Cochran played the peace maker during the trial. I have heard no such comment from about race card from any of the other Oj lawyers. Shaperio is entitled to say what ever comes to his mind and for any reason but i have thought it was a statement to deflect some of the anger directed to other oj lawyers by some angry people.

That considered, it was Cochran that helped put togeather the team of lawyers that faught for oj and it was Cochran that led this team. I Don't see ojs satment "if not for Coichran i would not be a free man" as meaning anything but Cochran led the team that proved i was NOT GUILTY.
:cool:

[martin II]

Thanks, Actually I was being sarcastic about the rules to get Martin's attention and I apologize for not saying so. Someone would have to really get on my bad side for me to get into rules and post reporting. I've posted since the beginning of 2006 on another board and I doubt I've reported a half dozen post and they needed reporting.

I'm off to bed. :eek: I've just looked at my clock. Have a good night.

IJM

Why would you believe i would have to lie to you or anyone else about something Darden said on a Oprah tv show? You can prove me wrong by going to her site i think his interview with F Goldman can be found and you can find out if i lied in my post. The interview was last year.

[Its just me]

IJM

Why would you believe i would have to lie to you or anyone else about something Darden said on a Oprah tv show? You can prove me wrong by going to her site i think his interview with F Goldman can be found and you can find out if i lied in my post. The interview was last year.

I believed you were the one posting false information because you had recently shot me this line what Kato testified to about OJ and the dress. TV dinner provided the transcript and in my opinion you didn't tell the truth. If it was on purpose or you just didn't know...:shrug: Information is only as good as the source....I chose to believe the one that I have not caught in a lie and it wasn't you. Sorry. Pretty Simple isn't it.

If you want to mend your crediability you can look up Oprah otherwise I'm sticking with the other poster.

[martin II]

Hahahaha....I bought the lie about Darden too but I didn't buy Martin's story that Kato testifid OJ was just joking when he was talking about Nicole's dress.

To Martin: if you are not going to post the truth don't post.

Are there any rules about telling lies as facts on the board.

IJM

Previously i post about Katos testimony on Nicole dress from memory.
Below is his testimony. You can decide if he said OJ was angry in discussing Nicole and what that means if anything. My position is i did not lie as you and another person seem to claim.:cool:

I am not sure this will alter your remark but here it is.

TELL ME HOW HE WAS BEHAVING.
13 DID HE SEEM AGITATED? UPSET? NERVOUS?
14 A. NO; NONCHALANT.
15 Q. RELAXED?
16 A. YES.
17 Q. DID HE MAKE ANY MENTION TO YOU OF NICOLE AT
18 THAT TIME?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. WHAT WAS THAT?
21 A. IN A GOOD-NATURED SORT OF WAY, HE HAD MENTIONED
22 WHO -- SHE WAS WITH GIRLFRIENDS, I BELIEVE, NO NAMES, I
23 DON'T KNOW WHO; THAT HE WAS WONDERING IF THEY WERE GOING TO
24 AGE GRACEFULLY AND WHAT KIND OF OUTFITS THEY WERE GOING TO
25 BE WEARING.
26 Q. CAN YOU RECALL WHAT HIS WORDS WERE?
27 A. IT WAS ABOUT WEARING TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, IN
28 REFERENCE -- GOOD NATURED, CAN'T YOU WEAR THAT IF THE --

59

1 WHEN SHE'S GOING TO BE OLDER, JOKING, LIKE WEARING
2 TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, GOOD NATUREDLY, LIKE A GRANDMA.
3 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "GOOD NATUREDLY," THAT'S WHAT HE
4 WAS ACTING LIKE?
5 A. YES.
6 Q. WAS HE LAUGHING?
7 A. YEAH; JOKING, LAUGHING.
8 Q. KIND OF WONDERING WERE YOU GOING TO WEAR THESE
9 WHEN YOU GOT OLDER?
10 A. YES.
11 Q. AND HE WAS MAKING REFERENCE TO TIGHT DRESSES OR
12 OUTFITS?
13 A. DRESSES, YEAH.
14 Q. DID HE SEEM ANGRY WHEN HE SAID THAT?
15 A. NO.

[martin II]

I believed you were the one posting false information because you had recently shot me this line what Kato testified to about OJ and the dress. TV dinner provided the transcript and in my opinion you didn't tell the truth. If it was on purpose or you just didn't know...:shrug: Information is only as good as the source....I chose to believe the one that I have not caught in a lie and it wasn't you. Sorry. Pretty Simple isn't it.

If you want to mend your crediability you can look up Oprah otherwise I'm sticking with the other poster.

My previous comments were taken from the Kato testimony i have posted.

[Its just me]

Sounds like you may be playing with words.

It is my opinion that THE Law requires the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the defense job is to show the jury that the prosecutions case cannot be believed by disproving and attacking the prosecutions claims. If the jury decides that the prosecution did not prove the charge of muder beyond a reasonable doubt.then by law and the judges instructions they are obligated to render a Not Guilty Verdict.

Cochran and NO OTHER LAWYER could prove innocence in a criminal murder trial as that option is not available to the jury. I understand why some that didn't agree with the verdict and use 'HE WAS NOT JUDGED INNOCENT" as a way to kinda say 'i can ignore the jury verdict"

But people can always say i dissagree with the CJS and don't like the idea that Beyond a reasonabloe doubt was the standard the prosecution had to meet in this case it should have been lower because i think so.
:cool:

OH now I'm playing with words...Well I got news for you too Martin...I ain't playing with words. Do you think if they could have "proved" OJ was innocent they would have. Cochran said it was a case about reasonable doubt and Robert Shaperio said Cochran played the race card....That is what both SAID. You need to put as much stock in what these two gentlemen said as you do Phillips saying Living Room. Either it is the truth or the LIED.

You think I play with words....I think You talk with a forked tongue when you say Cochran and NO OTHER LAWYER could prove innocence in a criminal murder trial Go back and read what you posted...saying what Cochran said about the time line proved OJ Simpson was innocent. Martin lawyers have proved their clients are innocent right there in the court room before a jury....They asked for the case to be dismissed and if the proof was in the puddin'..the case was dismissed. LOL in a criminal murder trial too.

I took the time to do your home work for you.... here is the post you made.

Even though Cochran said the timeline "proved" OJ was innocent...I don't remember him asking the case be dismissed when he thought that was proved but he may have. The bottom line is it wasn't so it remains the defense did not prove OJ was innocent.....IMHOO they twisted and turned playing the race card like Shaperio "SAID" and got OJ a reasonable doubt verdict which is NOT innocent.
Plain and Simple

[quote=martin II;9220421]OK
You are correct.
I think Cochran decided that for his personal reasons he did not want the oj civil trial. Nothing unusual about that. He did give legal resources to Baker. I heard him speak at two seperate dinner events in his honor in New York and his basic message about the oj criminal trial was " The timeline proved oj was not guilty "

[Its just me]

IJM

Previously i post about Katos testimony on Nicole dress from memory.
Below is his testimony. You can decide if he said OJ was angry in discussing Nicole and what that means if anything. My position is i did not lie as you and another person seem to claim.:cool:

I am not sure this will alter your remark but here it is.

TELL ME HOW HE WAS BEHAVING.
13 DID HE SEEM AGITATED? UPSET? NERVOUS?
14 A. NO; NONCHALANT.
15 Q. RELAXED?
16 A. YES.
17 Q. DID HE MAKE ANY MENTION TO YOU OF NICOLE AT
18 THAT TIME?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. WHAT WAS THAT?
21 A. IN A GOOD-NATURED SORT OF WAY, HE HAD MENTIONED
22 WHO -- SHE WAS WITH GIRLFRIENDS, I BELIEVE, NO NAMES, I
23 DON'T KNOW WHO; THAT HE WAS WONDERING IF THEY WERE GOING TO
24 AGE GRACEFULLY AND WHAT KIND OF OUTFITS THEY WERE GOING TO
25 BE WEARING.
26 Q. CAN YOU RECALL WHAT HIS WORDS WERE?
27 A. IT WAS ABOUT WEARING TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, IN
28 REFERENCE -- GOOD NATURED, CAN'T YOU WEAR THAT IF THE --

59

1 WHEN SHE'S GOING TO BE OLDER, JOKING, LIKE WEARING
2 TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, GOOD NATUREDLY, LIKE A GRANDMA.
3 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "GOOD NATUREDLY," THAT'S WHAT HE
4 WAS ACTING LIKE?
5 A. YES.
6 Q. WAS HE LAUGHING?
7 A. YEAH; JOKING, LAUGHING.
8 Q. KIND OF WONDERING WERE YOU GOING TO WEAR THESE
9 WHEN YOU GOT OLDER?
10 A. YES.
11 Q. AND HE WAS MAKING REFERENCE TO TIGHT DRESSES OR
12 OUTFITS?
13 A. DRESSES, YEAH.
14 Q. DID HE SEEM ANGRY WHEN HE SAID THAT?
15 A. NO.

I apologize for wording my post the way I did. But you still were misleading because you leave out Kato said Simpson was "upset" Is that important....if I was on a jury with something like that....it would be very important. IMHOO misleading is just one step above telling a lie. Maybe 1/2 of a step or the same.

[martin II]

IJM
i took your advice and found Dardens interview on Oprah
The part about Cochrans help and his comments about Furhman being worse than oj was not included. You can disbelieve those two issues if you like it does not matter. I did take issue with you calling me a lie on the issue and boubt the interview will change your opinion.:cool:


http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/oprahshow2_ss_20060209/2

After a Los Angeles jury found O.J. Simspon not guilty, Christopher took a leave of absence from the district attorney's office to teach at a local law school. Before he could return to the D.A.'s office, he says the media reported that he'd been terminated for "abandoning his job."

"Basically, I was fired," Christopher says. "I just think that me, that image, that trial…I think it was political baggage for the D.A. at the time."

Now, Christopher works as a criminal defense attorney. Even though he has switched career paths and started a family, Christopher says the outcome of the O.J. Simpson trial still haunts him.

"I do have a lot of wonderful things in my life, but I think [the trial] changed me," he says. "Maybe I'm just a little stressed about it still even today."

Christopher says he regrets ever becoming involved with the O.J. Simpson case and has regretted it since the very first day of the trial. "I had a great career," he remembers. "I had lots of friends and all of that. Everything was just toppled on its head after that case, and everything changed. I lost friends. I guess I lost my center. I guess I lost my bearing."

One of the most infamous moments of the O.J. Simpson trial involved Mark Fuhrman, a detective with the Los Angeles Police Department at the time.

Fuhrman, who testified that he had found a bloody glove that linked O.J. to the scene of the crime, was a key witness for the prosecution. But, after Fuhrman's testimony, O.J.'s defense team presented taped recordings of Fuhrman using racial epithets into evidence to refute his testimony.

Although Marcia Clark, the lead attorney for the prosecution, and Christopher weren't aware of Fuhrman's racist remarks, Christopher says he had a bad feeling about Fuhrman before this new evidence came to light. He says Johnnie Cochran, a member of O.J.'s defense team, pulled him aside before Fuhrman's testimony and gave him a word of advice…Johnnie told him not to put Fuhrman on the stand.

To this day, Christopher says he's angered by what he believes Fuhrman did to the prosecution's case. "You really can't be a friend of mine and be a friend of Mark Fuhrman's," he says. "People in our case made mistakes. But the thing he did on the witness stand that day was intentional. He had every opportunity to tell me, to tell Marcia Clark, to tell someone about these epithets."

[Its just me]

Although Shaperio stayed on as a lawyer for Oj i never thought he got over oj demoting him from lead lawyer and giving the position to Cochran. Shaperio had approached the Da about a plea for OJ just before or when the case started without ojs knowledge. When oj found out he was pissed and hired Cochran as lead lawyer. Shaperio also had a running fight with Bailey on some other issues involving a case they had togeather and Cochran played the peace maker during the trial. I have heard no such comment from about race card from any of the other Oj lawyers. Shaperio is entitled to say what ever comes to his mind and for any reason but i have thought it was a statement to deflect some of the anger directed to other oj lawyers by some angry people.

That considered, it was Cochran that helped put togeather the team of lawyers that faught for oj and it was Cochran that led this team. I Don't see ojs satment "if not for Coichran i would not be a free man" as meaning anything but Cochran led the team that proved i was NOT GUILTY.
:cool:

Again Martin Cochran did not prove OJ was innocent...if he had he is smart enough to ask for the case to be dismissed and it would have been.

Well I'm going with your mentality that when someone says something like Living Room it is fact.....Shaperio said Cochran played the race card so it's fact. You can't go trying to spin what Shaperio said.

[martin II]

I apologize for wording my post the way I did. But you still were misleading because you leave out Kato said Simpson was "upset" Is that important....if I was on a jury with something like that....it would be very important. IMHOO misleading is just one step above telling a lie. Maybe 1/2 of a step or the same.

You are misleading in your comments
i have posted Katos testimony on the issue as it was recorded by the court.

I believe this was on cross.
I have not left out anything. So to say i left out 'UPSET" IS NOT CORRECT. I did no editing to his testimony. You can check the accuracy of what i have posted BY finding it in his testimony yourself.Thanks.

Maby you should not be so quick to call me a lie.

[martin II]

Again Martin Cochran did not prove OJ was innocent...if he had he is smart enough to ask for the case to be dismissed and it would have been.

Well I'm going with your mentality that when someone says something like Living Room it is fact.....Shaperio said Cochran played the race card so it's fact. You can't go trying to spin what Shaperio said.

Cochran was not required to find OJ innocent.It was not possible in a criminal trial.
I have posted Shaperios relationship with the defense team i did not ask you to believe my opinion. I know what Shaperio said and it was his right to say it i just believe the race card was played by others. Darden seems to believe it was Furhman but i am sure you dissagree.imo

[martin II]

HIPCHECK

In case you missed this in my post above i am posting Dardens words that it was his opinion 'Bacially,I was fired"

my facts were correct.

After a Los Angeles jury found O.J. Simspon not guilty, Christopher took a leave of absence from the district attorney's office to teach at a local law school. Before he could return to the D.A.'s office, he says the media reported that he'd been terminated for "abandoning his job."

"Basically, I was fired," Christopher says. "I just think that me, that image, that trial…I think it was political baggage for the D.A. at the time."

[Its just me]

IJM
i took your advice and found Dardens interview on Oprah
The part about Cochrans help and his comments about Furhman being worse than oj was not included. You can disbelieve those two issues if you like it does not matter. I did take issue with you calling me a lie on the issue and boubt the interview will change your opinion.:cool:


http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/oprahshow2_ss_20060209/2

After a Los Angeles jury found O.J. Simspon not guilty, Christopher took a leave of absence from the district attorney's office to teach at a local law school. Before he could return to the D.A.'s office, he says the media reported that he'd been terminated for "abandoning his job."

"Basically, I was fired," Christopher says. "I just think that me, that image, that trial…I think it was political baggage for the D.A. at the time."

Now, Christopher works as a criminal defense attorney. Even though he has switched career paths and started a family, Christopher says the outcome of the O.J. Simpson trial still haunts him.

"I do have a lot of wonderful things in my life, but I think [the trial] changed me," he says. "Maybe I'm just a little stressed about it still even today."

Christopher says he regrets ever becoming involved with the O.J. Simpson case and has regretted it since the very first day of the trial. "I had a great career," he remembers. "I had lots of friends and all of that. Everything was just toppled on its head after that case, and everything changed. I lost friends. I guess I lost my center. I guess I lost my bearing."

One of the most infamous moments of the O.J. Simpson trial involved Mark Fuhrman, a detective with the Los Angeles Police Department at the time.

Fuhrman, who testified that he had found a bloody glove that linked O.J. to the scene of the crime, was a key witness for the prosecution. But, after Fuhrman's testimony, O.J.'s defense team presented taped recordings of Fuhrman using racial epithets into evidence to refute his testimony.

Although Marcia Clark, the lead attorney for the prosecution, and Christopher weren't aware of Fuhrman's racist remarks, Christopher says he had a bad feeling about Fuhrman before this new evidence came to light. He says Johnnie Cochran, a member of O.J.'s defense team, pulled him aside before Fuhrman's testimony and gave him a word of advice…Johnnie told him not to put Fuhrman on the stand.

To this day, Christopher says he's angered by what he believes Fuhrman did to the prosecution's case. "You really can't be a friend of mine and be a friend of Mark Fuhrman's," he says. "People in our case made mistakes. But the thing he did on the witness stand that day was intentional. He had every opportunity to tell me, to tell Marcia Clark, to tell someone about these epithets."

Martin I appreciate you finding the transcript. I apologize for calling you a liar because Darden did say "Basically, I was fired," which may be the lie. I don't know what went down to give him that opinion....but it's pretty clear it is an opinion.

I don't remember exactly what you posted....if Darden "was" fired or if Darden said "Basically he was fired"...What ever you have my apology and I hope you accept it.

Sounds like Darden went thru a lot because of the OJ trial and it sounds to me like he is mad and blames everyone but himself for not winning the case. Kind of typical but it doesn't make it right. Wonder if the DA's office blamed Dardin for not winning the case and wouldn't let him return to his job. Logically....his job most likely was not guaranteed in the rules and regulations if he took a leave of absense. I can understand that...the DA's business didn't stop with the OJ trial...Darden had to be replaced while he was absent and the replacement person had rights also.

[martin II]

Again Martin Cochran did not prove OJ was innocent...if he had he is smart enough to ask for the case to be dismissed and it would have been.

Well I'm going with your mentality that when someone says something like Living Room it is fact.....Shaperio said Cochran played the race card so it's fact. You can't go trying to spin what Shaperio said.

Exactly how would Cochran prove oj innocent when that was not a option on the jury form and not part of the judges instructions. That makes no sense.imo

When i post Katos direct testimony you claim i LEFT out the word 'UPSET"
I think it is more accurate to say Kato left it out as i did not see it in his testimony that i posted. imo

[martin II]

Martin I appreciate you finding the transcript. I apologize for calling you a liar because Darden did say "Basically, I was fired," which may be the lie. I don't know what went down to give him that opinion....but it's pretty clear it is an opinion.

I don't remember exactly what you posted....if Darden "was" fired or if Darden said "Basically he was fired"...What ever you have my apology and I hope you accept it.

Sounds like Darden went thru a lot because of the OJ trial and it sounds to me like he is mad and blames everyone but himself for not winning the case. Kind of typical but it doesn't make it right. Wonder if the DA's office blamed Dardin for not winning the case and wouldn't let him return to his job. Logically....his job most likely was not guaranteed in the rules and regulations if he took a leave of absense. I can understand that...the DA's business didn't stop with the OJ trial...Darden had to be replaced while he was absent and the replacement person had rights also.

I have no idea as to the rules on the DAS office. Normally when a person takes a leave he is permitted to return. Darden made that claim on national tv show and i believe the DA office knew what he said the same day. Darden would not make such a claim if not true against the DAS office. imo.

I believe that office has maby 50 or more prosecutors and don't believe Darden was the only one that took leave. But Cochran was there to give him assistance in getting his practice started so maby it didn't hurt Darden that much.

in my post i said Darden was fired. If you see a differance in his saying 'I WAS BASICALLY FIRED' fine. I see none.

It is your right to say Darden lied but i think he would dissagree with you.
Clarke and Darden were blamed for the loss. The loosers are always blamed.Both left that office after the trial. Wrote their books and cashed in.

You did note his comments on Furhman.

ps

you suggest Darden may have lied. do you remember what you just posted about what Shaperio said had to be taken as fact? race card.

[Its just me]

Cochran was not required to find OJ innocent.It was not possible in a criminal trial.
I have posted Shaperios relationship with the defense team i did not ask you to believe my opinion. I know what Shaperio said and it was his right to say it i just believe the race card was played by others. Darden seems to believe it was Furhman but i am sure you dissagree.imo

No he wasn't "required" to prove OJ was innocent...only reasonable doubt. He didn't prove OJ was innocent so that leaves reasonable doubt which is not innocent.

Why would Furhman play the race card to help OJ. Remember me posting that I think some of the lawyers in my area are AHoles because of what goes on behind close doors. My case in not even similar to OJ's so I'm not calling any of the attorney's in the OJ case a bad name..... but you are saying Shaperio had a relationsip with the defense team and you said Cochran told Darden not to put MF on the stand. I have to wonder what all did go on behind closed doors...No offense "only" directed toward the lawyers in the OJ case because it happens every day and it includes trial lawyers, DA's and Judges. A district judge in the next district over from mine just plead guilty in Federal court for behind the scene corruption....and sadly he only got a little slap on the hand.

There is a saying in South Georgia that is ugly and as red neck as you can get but I think there is a lot of truth to it.

If you want justice go to the ***** house....if you want to get screwed go to the court house.

[martin II]

No he wasn't "required" to prove OJ was innocent...only reasonable doubt. He didn't prove OJ was innocent so that leaves reasonable doubt which is not innocent.

Why would Furhman play the race card to help OJ. Remember me posting that I think some of the lawyers in my area are AHoles because of what goes on behind close doors. My case in not even similar to OJ's so I'm not calling any of the attorney's in the OJ case a bad name..... but you are saying Shaperio had a relationsip with the defense team and you said Cochran told Darden not to put MF on the stand. I have to wonder what all did go on behind closed doors...No offense "only" directed toward the lawyers in the OJ case because it happens every day and it includes trial lawyers, DA's and Judges. A district judge in the next district over from mine just plead guilty in Federal court for behind the scene corruption....and sadly he only got a little slap on the hand.

There is a saying in South Georgia that is ugly and as red neck as you can get but I think there is a lot of truth to it.

If you want justice go to the ***** house....if you want to get screwed go to the court house.


Wrong
It was darden that said COCHRAN told him not to put furhman on the stand NOT ME.

I think Cochran knew more about Furhman than Darden and was was trying the help Darden from being embrassed on Furhman. It may be that Darden wished that he had taken Cochrans advice after furhman left the stand.imo

[Its just me]

Exactly how would Cochran prove oj innocent when that was not a option on the jury form and not part of the judges instructions. That makes no sense.imo

When i post Katos direct testimony you claim i LEFT out the word 'UPSET"
I think it is more accurate to say Kato left it out as i did not see it in his testimony that i posted. imo

Martin if you can't understand I can't help you. It was an option to prove OJ was innocent before it ever went to the jury.

1. Evidence would have been presented that proved OJ was innocent beyond all doubt.

2. Mr. Cochran would have asked the Judge to dismiss the case because there were evidence to prove OJ was "innocent"

3. If the Judge was satisfied that the innocent evidence was there the case would have been dismissed. I don't know what the DA's part would be but it may be only a decision for the judge.

Since none of the above happened OJ was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt....not because he was innocent. When Cochran stated OJ's case was about reasonable doubt...it's because he couldn't and didn't prove he was innocent.

There are two posts showing transcript of Kato's testimony. I don't remember Kato being called to the stand twice.

Is both transcripts from the same trial. If so your transcript leaves out OJ was upset. I'm not picking on you....just saying it's not there.

[martin II]

No he wasn't "required" to prove OJ was innocent...only reasonable doubt. He didn't prove OJ was innocent so that leaves reasonable doubt which is not innocent.

Why would Furhman play the race card to help OJ. Remember me posting that I think some of the lawyers in my area are AHoles because of what goes on behind close doors. My case in not even similar to OJ's so I'm not calling any of the attorney's in the OJ case a bad name..... but you are saying Shaperio had a relationsip with the defense team and you said Cochran told Darden not to put MF on the stand. I have to wonder what all did go on behind closed doors...No offense "only" directed toward the lawyers in the OJ case because it happens every day and it includes trial lawyers, DA's and Judges. A district judge in the next district over from mine just plead guilty in Federal court for behind the scene corruption....and sadly he only got a little slap on the hand.

There is a saying in South Georgia that is ugly and as red neck as you can get but I think there is a lot of truth to it.

If you want justice go to the ***** house....if you want to get screwed go to the court house.


i believe and support the CJS. the system that determined that oj was not guilty of murder. you can do your little dance on words but it does not change the facts it is just noise.imo

Furhmans history of racism helped some on the jury to discard his testimony as instructed by the judge. Furhman was trying to help Furhman when he was caught in the lies. When others testified and he was caught again they may have helped oj but the jury said they didn't consider him which leads me to believe they followed the judges instructions to a tea.imo

[Its just me]

Wrong
It was darden that said COCHRAN told him not to put furhman on the stand NOT ME.

I think Cochran knew more about Furhman than Darden and was was trying the help Darden from being embrassed on Furhman. It may be that Darden wished that he had taken Cochrans advice after furhman left the stand.imo

Wrong :eek:

From my post: "you said" Cochran told Darden not to put MF on the stand.

From your post above:
It was darden that said COCHRAN told him not to put furhman on the stand NOT ME.

LOL are you drinking some bad kool-aide this morning....Martin I only posted what you posted....you posted that Darden said Cochran told him not to pupt MF on the stand. Now I don't remember where you said it came from but you did post what Darden said Cochran told him.

LOL I just don't know...maybe we have a failure communicate properly....or something and it's got my head a spinning so I'm going to do some more work. :seeya:

[Its just me]

i believe and support the CJS. the system that determined that oj was not guilty of murder. you can do your little dance on words but it does not change the facts it is just noise.imo

Furhmans history of racism helped some on the jury to discard his testimony as instructed by the judge. Furhman was trying to help Furhman when he was caught in the lies. When others testified and he was caught again they may have helped oj but the jury said they didn't consider him which leads me to believe they followed the judges instructions to a tea.imo

Hahaha so I'm dancing.....actually I'm being logical. You just have a one track mind and can't see it. IMHOO

[martin II]

Martin if you can't understand I can't help you. It was an option to prove OJ was innocent before it ever went to the jury.

1. Evidence would have been presented that proved OJ was innocent beyond all doubt.

2. Mr. Cochran would have asked the Judge to dismiss the case because there were evidence to prove OJ was "innocent"

3. If the Judge was satisfied that the innocent evidence was there the case would have been dismissed. I don't know what the DA's part would be but it may be only a decision for the judge.

Since none of the above happened OJ was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt....not because he was innocent. When Cochran stated OJ's case was about reasonable doubt...it's because he couldn't and didn't prove he was innocent.

There are two posts showing transcript of Kato's testimony. I don't remember Kato being called to the stand twice.

Is both transcripts from the same trial. If so your transcript leaves out OJ was upset. I'm not picking on you....just saying it's not there.

You need to read my comments.

i believe tv posted Katos direct testimony.
i posted what i believe was his testimony on cross and told you that it was on cross.
The direct is done by the prosecution of THEIR witness. the cross is done by the defense of the prosecutions witness. you should know that.

Kato testified many times sometimes on the same subject. When tv posted katos testimony i informed you that he had a habit of testifying different depending on who was asking the questions.

Again i have not left anything out of katos testimony if you believe i did check the testimony from the testimony web site.

[tv]

Martin if you can't understand I can't help you. It was an option to prove OJ was innocent before it ever went to the jury.

1. Evidence would have been presented that proved OJ was innocent beyond all doubt.

2. Mr. Cochran would have asked the Judge to dismiss the case because there were evidence to prove OJ was "innocent"

3. If the Judge was satisfied that the innocent evidence was there the case would have been dismissed. I don't know what the DA's part would be but it may be only a decision for the judge.

Since none of the above happened OJ was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt....not because he was innocent. When Cochran stated OJ's case was about reasonable doubt...it's because he couldn't and didn't prove he was innocent.

There are two posts showing transcript of Kato's testimony. I don't remember Kato being called to the stand twice.

Is both transcripts from the same trial. If so your transcript leaves out OJ was upset. I'm not picking on you....just saying it's not there.

The testimony that martin posted is from his Grand Jury testimony before the criminal trial.

[Its just me]

The testimony that martin posted is from his Grand Jury testimony before the criminal trial.

Thanks, I wonder how Martin missed Kato's testimony at the trial saying OJ was upset. LOL I really think Martin knows what Kato said....Martin just don't post anything that shows OJ is anything except Grand.

[tv]

Thanks, I wonder how Martin missed Kato's testimony at the trial saying OJ was upset. LOL I really think Martin knows what Kato said....Martin just don't post anything that shows OJ is anything except Grand.

Exactly. :)

[Its just me]

You need to read my comments.

i believe tv posted Katos direct testimony.
i posted what i believe was his testimony on cross and told you that it was on cross.
The direct is done by the prosecution of THEIR witness. the cross is done by the defense of the prosecutions witness. you should know that.

Kato testified many times sometimes on the same subject. When tv posted katos testimony i informed you that he had a habit of testifying different depending on who was asking the questions.

Again i have not left anything out of katos testimony if you believe i did check the testimony from the testimony web site.

I'll read back later hubby waiting for me and is standing on his head because I'm still on this internet....if I am wrong I sure don't mind apologizing. And if/when you determine you are wrong you need to set the record straight.

[martin II]

ps

When a jury hears the same witness terstify to questions and on its face does not use the same words or the testimony seem different in facts, They have to decide which testimony to believe. What we don't know is did oj appear to be upset or was he what kato testified how he was. on cross. i am sure you will believe he was upset and that is your option.

[tv]

I'll read back later hubby waiting for me and is standing on his head because I'm still on this internet....if I am wrong I sure don't mind apologizing. And if/when you determine you are wrong you need to set the record straight.

That was not cross. It was his grand jury testimony.

http://walraven.org/simpson/gj_pt1.html

[martin II]

I'll read back later hubby waiting for me and is standing on his head because I'm still on this internet....if I am wrong I sure don't mind apologizing. And if/when you determine you are wrong you need to set the record straight.

I have posted two post that proves i did not lie on this thread.

[martin II]

That was not cross. It was his grand jury testimony.

http://walraven.org/simpson/gj_pt1.html

Thanks it was not cross if you say so.
It was his testimony. :cool:

[Its just me]

You need to read my comments.

i believe tv posted Katos direct testimony.
i posted what i believe was his testimony on cross and told you that it was on cross.
The direct is done by the prosecution of THEIR witness. the cross is done by the defense of the prosecutions witness. you should know that.

Kato testified many times sometimes on the same subject. When tv posted katos testimony i informed you that he had a habit of testifying different depending on who was asking the questions.

Again i have not left anything out of katos testimony if you believe i did check the testimony from the testimony web site.

Well actually if depends on who called the witness and if the prosecution is presenting their case or the defense is putting on their defense or if was grandjury testimony Just saying in case you don't know.

Martin you may have included all Kato testified to at the that particular time but are you actually telling me you knew absolutely nothing about Kato giving testimony that OJ was "upset".

I asked if anyone knew about OJ saying something about the black dress....You replied to my post but did not include that Kato said OJ was upset. TVdinner posted a transcript showing Kato said OJ was upset....Again "were you aware" of what Kato said when you replied to my post....if so why did you leave it out and why won't you acknowledge what Kato "said" like in Phillip saying living room. A spade can't be a spade, an Ace and Ace and a joker a joker only when it suits you.

:chicken:If I don't show back up call 911...hubby is coming to get me. :D

[martin II]

Thanks, I wonder how Martin missed Kato's testimony at the trial saying OJ was upset. LOL I really think Martin knows what Kato said....Martin just don't post anything that shows OJ is anything except Grand.

You could say the same thing about tvs post especially since kato made a different testimony and she knew it was in the grand jury. she could have posted both so you would have had both to consider. :cool:

[martin II]

IJM

Please note in Katos testimony i posted he was asked if oj seemed UPSET.
His answer was no. So why do you say i left that out?
58

1 A. O.J.
2 Q. HE TOLD YOU HE WAS GOING TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER'S
3 RECITAL AT 5:00 O'CLOCK?
4 A. YES.
5 Q. SO AT 7:00 O'CLOCK YOU ASKED HIM HOW IT WENT?
6 A. YES, I DID.
7 Q. AND DID HE RESPOND TO YOU?
8 A. YES.
9 Q. WHAT DID HE TELL YOU?
10 A. HE SAID, "SHE WAS WONDERFUL, BEAUTIFUL," AND HE
11 WAS PROUD OF HER.
12 Q. TELL ME HOW HE WAS BEHAVING.
13 DID HE SEEM AGITATED? UPSET? NERVOUS?
14 A. NO; NONCHALANT.
15 Q. RELAXED?
16 A. YES.
17 Q. DID HE MAKE ANY MENTION TO YOU OF NICOLE AT
18 THAT TIME?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. WHAT WAS THAT?
21 A. IN A GOOD-NATURED SORT OF WAY, HE HAD MENTIONED
22 WHO -- SHE WAS WITH GIRLFRIENDS, I BELIEVE, NO NAMES, I
23 DON'T KNOW WHO; THAT HE WAS WONDERING IF THEY WERE GOING TO
24 AGE GRACEFULLY AND WHAT KIND OF OUTFITS THEY WERE GOING TO
25 BE WEARING.
26 Q. CAN YOU RECALL WHAT HIS WORDS WERE?
27 A. IT WAS ABOUT WEARING TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, IN
28 REFERENCE -- GOOD NATURED, CAN'T YOU WEAR THAT IF THE --

59

1 WHEN SHE'S GOING TO BE OLDER, JOKING, LIKE WEARING
2 TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, GOOD NATUREDLY, LIKE A GRANDMA.
3 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "GOOD NATUREDLY," THAT'S WHAT HE
4 WAS ACTING LIKE?
5 A. YES.
6 Q. WAS HE LAUGHING?
7 A. YEAH; JOKING, LAUGHING.
8 Q. KIND OF WONDERING WERE YOU GOING TO WEAR THESE
9 WHEN YOU GOT OLDER?
10 A. YES.
11 Q. AND HE WAS MAKING REFERENCE TO TIGHT DRESSES OR
12 OUTFITS?
13 A. DRESSES, YEAH.
14 Q. DID HE SEEM ANGRY WHEN HE SAID THAT?
15 A. NO.
16 Q. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
17 A. I THINK THAT'S THE CONVERSATION WE HAD.

[tv]

Well actually if depends on who called the witness and if the prosecution is presenting their case or the defense is putting on their defense or if was grandjury testimony Just saying in case you don't know.

Martin you may have included all Kato testified to at the that particular time but are you actually telling me you knew absolutely nothing about Kato giving testimony that OJ was "upset".

I asked if anyone knew about OJ saying something about the black dress....You replied to my post but did not include that Kato said OJ was upset. TVdinner posted a transcript showing Kato said OJ was upset....Again "were you aware" of what Kato said when you replied to my post....if so why did you leave it out and why won't you acknowledge what Kato "said" like in Phillip saying living room. A spade can't be a spade, an Ace and Ace and a joker a joker only when it suits you.

:chicken:If I don't show back up call 911...hubby is coming to get me. :D

Sorry, I didn't even think about the grand jury testimony when I posted the trial testimony. I'm not as familiar with the GJ testimony -- when I think of testimony I automatically think of trial testimony.

Hey, I feel your pain about hubby being after you to get off the internet... :eek:

[William Anthony]

No he wasn't "required" to prove OJ was innocent...only reasonable doubt. He didn't prove OJ was innocent so that leaves reasonable doubt which is not innocent.

Why would Furhman play the race card to help OJ. Remember me posting that I think some of the lawyers in my area are AHoles because of what goes on behind close doors. My case in not even similar to OJ's so I'm not calling any of the attorney's in the OJ case a bad name..... but you are saying Shaperio had a relationsip with the defense team and you said Cochran told Darden not to put MF on the stand. I have to wonder what all did go on behind closed doors...No offense "only" directed toward the lawyers in the OJ case because it happens every day and it includes trial lawyers, DA's and Judges. A district judge in the next district over from mine just plead guilty in Federal court for behind the scene corruption....and sadly he only got a little slap on the hand.

There is a saying in South Georgia that is ugly and as red neck as you can get but I think there is a lot of truth to it.

If you want justice go to the ***** house....if you want to get screwed go to the court house.

You have it correct. Reasonable doubt does not equal innocence but it does equal not guilty and not guilty does not equal guilty or liable for the wrongful death or battery and oppression.

[martin II]

Well actually if depends on who called the witness and if the prosecution is presenting their case or the defense is putting on their defense or if was grandjury testimony Just saying in case you don't know.

Martin you may have included all Kato testified to at the that particular time but are you actually telling me you knew absolutely nothing about Kato giving testimony that OJ was "upset".

I asked if anyone knew about OJ saying something about the black dress....You replied to my post but did not include that Kato said OJ was upset. TVdinner posted a transcript showing Kato said OJ was upset....Again "were you aware" of what Kato said when you replied to my post....if so why did you leave it out and why won't you acknowledge what Kato "said" like in Phillip saying living room. A spade can't be a spade, an Ace and Ace and a joker a joker only when it suits you.

:chicken:If I don't show back up call 911...hubby is coming to get me. :D


I first made comments to you from memory. When you made a fuss about it i retrieved katos post from a file i had saved some time ago. I did not notice which time he made the testimony but felt i should post what i had because you called me a lyer.

I did not pay attention to where tv got her post from but assumed both were from the criminal trial. That was a criminal error on my part that i made the assumption to you.

After you continued to blame me for not including the word 'UPSET' i realized that word was in my post to you. Kato just gave different answers to that quastion. In my post he was asked if oj was up set he responded NO. so
again i did not leave that word out. You may not have liked his NO response but it is what it is.I did not testify. Kato did.
Now you have cooked up another claim of wrong doing by me. You are quite good at picking apart any bone for meat even when there is none left. You claimed i lied about Darden being fired. i gave you his words and you say maby Darden lied and then started talking about the rules as you see them about him taking a leave from his job even knowing that the da replaced him and what the rights of his replacement person were.
Although Darden was no favorite person of mine as far as legal kills was concerned i think it is dissrespectful of him for you to suggest he lied on a national tv program about his treatment by the DAS office on this public message board. But it is what it is.:cool:


I just think it is a shame that the DA didn't include you in their team as i believe you would have kicked the living daylights out of the dream team.

[William Anthony]

Martin if you can't understand I can't help you. It was an option to prove OJ was innocent before it ever went to the jury.

1. Evidence would have been presented that proved OJ was innocent beyond all doubt.

2. Mr. Cochran would have asked the Judge to dismiss the case because there were evidence to prove OJ was "innocent"

3. If the Judge was satisfied that the innocent evidence was there the case would have been dismissed. I don't know what the DA's part would be but it may be only a decision for the judge.

Since none of the above happened OJ was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt....not because he was innocent. When Cochran stated OJ's case was about reasonable doubt...it's because he couldn't and didn't prove he was innocent.

There are two posts showing transcript of Kato's testimony. I don't remember Kato being called to the stand twice.

Is both transcripts from the same trial. If so your transcript leaves out OJ was upset. I'm not picking on you....just saying it's not there.

I think this is what you are thinking of as things do not happen in a courtroom as they do on Perry Mason and Matlock.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Directed+Verdict

[William Anthony]

The testimony that martin posted is from his Grand Jury testimony before the criminal trial.

Which came first and when would the events have been fresher in one's mind and would that have been before others had a chance to intimidate and suggest an answer?

[martin II]

And co-counsel Robert Shapiro was on the money too when he accused Cochran of dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck. I'll never understand why people get all out of shape when ordinary people say the race card was played when OJ's own attorney said it.

I also agree that the case was about reasonable doubt and not facts of innocence. Cochran didn't prove OJ was innocent he just created enough doubt for the people on the jury. As I've said before Cochran did a great job defending his client Mr. Simpson.

What Cochran and other defense lawyers did was show the jury that the prosecutions witness testimony could not be believed. They agreed.

Innocence crap means nothing.The bottom line is the judge allowed oj to hear the jury say he was not guilty of the charges.The judge them told the jailer to release him now.

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I didn't even think about the grand jury testimony when I posted the trial testimony. I'm not as familiar with the GJ testimony -- when I think of testimony I automatically think of trial testimony.

Hey, I feel your pain about hubby being after you to get off the internet... :eek:

Testimony-statements made under oath and penalty of perjury. There are some penalties related to unsworn statements to authorities.

[martin II]

Thanks -- Darden being fired was another fun fact that I thought was true. When will I ever learn?

I hope you have learned from the oprah post

[William Anthony]

I just think it is a shame that the DA didn't include you in their team as i believe you would have kicked the living daylights out of the dream team.

IMHO, in her dreams but I do not envy hubby, who probably agrees just so he can have some peace and quiet. :);):cool: I am just joking and it is meant as lighthearted banter.

[weezer]

You are correct: The state did not take the depositions. Petrocelli issued the subpena for Arnelle. Paula Barbeiri testified and her deposition was released. I guess I am asking why Petrocelli did not release Arnelle's (if he would be the one to release it)? Did the deposition make the front door/back door issue much clearer?

I've not seen a link to Paula's deposition -- do you have one?

[William Anthony]

I've not seen a link to Paula's deposition -- do you have one?

http://walraven.org/simpson/p_wits.html

[martin II]

Well actually if depends on who called the witness and if the prosecution is presenting their case or the defense is putting on their defense or if was grandjury testimony Just saying in case you don't know.

Martin you may have included all Kato testified to at the that particular time but are you actually telling me you knew absolutely nothing about Kato giving testimony that OJ was "upset".

I asked if anyone knew about OJ saying something about the black dress....You replied to my post but did not include that Kato said OJ was upset. TVdinner posted a transcript showing Kato said OJ was upset....Again "were you aware" of what Kato said when you replied to my post....if so why did you leave it out and why won't you acknowledge what Kato "said" like in Phillip saying living room. A spade can't be a spade, an Ace and Ace and a joker a joker only when it suits you.

:chicken:If I don't show back up call 911...hubby is coming to get me. :D

Some time it pays to coordinate one brains with ones fingers. I did not attack the accuracy of tvs post. You asked a question and i answered from memory.
you now accuse me of not including everything in tv post in my response to you. I post another testimony by kato and the question on oj being up was actually included along with his answer.you then accuse me of leaving UPSET
out of the testimony i posted.

I mean i do understand that katos response may not have been your cup of tea but to acuse me of not being truthful or correct because you ignored that the word upset was in my post is taking too much liberty. I don't know what to tell you lady. imo

[martin II]

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

You have asked a good question. it seems like the inhouse experts have no answer. i looked and found nothing.

what i think is that if petro talks about it in his book and Arnells deposition was taken her testimony must have damaging to his case. Or the issue of the doors. Other wise he would have been screaming the testimony all over the place.

What i know is imo Arnells testimony and that of the detectives proved that they went into the house at the front door. That the one south door had no outside lock and that phillip entered the house into the living room.And that Kato told a big fat lie about who he entered the house with.

The doors don't really mean anything if one is not trying to attatch them to the FALSE washing machine issue.

if it is not asking too much can you give me a snipit of the contex that petro used in his book about Arnells depo.

[weezer]

I've not seen a link to Paula's deposition -- do you have one?

hmmm -- still nothing on arnelle's deposition and/or Paula's. My guess is orenthal paid someone off for them not to show up.

[martin II]

I think this is what you are thinking of as things do not happen in a courtroom as they do on Perry Mason and Matlock.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Directed+Verdict

At some point the defense did make a motion to dismiss. not sure when.

[martin II]

hmmm -- still nothing on arnelle's deposition and/or Paula's. My guess is orenthal paid someone off for them not to show up.

William just posted the link to PB'S. Maby petro told another one of his big ones in his book.

[martin II]

That book isn’t the only place he showed hostility toward Nicole after her death. There was an interview with him in Esquire in which he said "Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would have been because I loved her very much, right?” I think the interview was in the Feb, 1998 issue.
The interviewer, Celia Farber, also wrote this: There was one comment that didn't make it into the piece. I asked him about bitterness and anger, and if he was feeling that. He said, "Strangely enough, if I am angry at anybody, I am angry at Nicole. In the last few months of her life, she was not the woman that I knew for 17 years." I said, "You mean, you think she got in with the wrong people and got herself killed. Is that why you are angry at her?" He didn't really say yes or no, he just kept saying over and over that she had changed, that she wasn't the same person he had known. He didn't even say, "Nicole, you got yourself killed and I had to take the rap." There is this unsettling vagueness about the way he talks about some of this stuff, that makes one become suspicious, not because of what he says, but because of what he doesn't say clearly enough.
I guess this means that Fred and Kim Goldman weren’t at the top of his hate list.
Some people also said that they saw Mr. Simpson cursing and yelling at her grave after the acquittal. I think he may have acknowledged that. John Douglas, the FBI expert, wrote that it was unfortunate that nobody recorded his graveside tirades.
The way Simpson expressed contradictory views of Nicole is somewhat like his farewell note. In that he denies that he and Nicole had a bad relationship: Nicole and I had a good life together. All this press talk about a rocky relationship was no more than what every long-term relationship experiences.
On the next paragraph he wrote: At times I felt like a battered husband or boy friend. There were just 19 words between these two quotes. Why would he feel battered if they had a good life together?
It is normal for divorced people to express completely different opinions of their ex on different days, but there is usually a fair amount of time between the different opinions. This is further evidence of his rather loose grip on reality.
The link for this information is:
http://www.salon.com/media/1998/02/03media2.html


nicoles drinking bar hopping and picking up men caused not only oj to be concerned but some of her friends as well. She and Cora had a small tiff about it when cora kinda pulled her coat on her behavior.

it is very easy for people to take a simple comment by a person and report it as sinister. It all depends on the bias of the reporter. For some if oj said i miss
nicole some would say he was admitting he missed her because he killed her. i find a lot of this kind of twisting of comments in your post when it is about oj. imo

[weezer]

hmmm -- still nothing on arnelle's deposition and/or Paula's. My guess is orenthal paid someone off for them not to show up.

**bump**

[William Anthony]

William just posted the link to PB'S. Maby petro told another one of his big ones in his book.

Who would Simpson have paid off other than Petrocelli or Judge F, which does not speak well for either of them, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

On the next paragraph he wrote: At times I felt like a battered husband or boy friend. There were just 19 words between these two quotes. Why would he feel battered if they had a good life together?

I have had some bad days. I have had some good days. But when I look around all of my good days outweigh my bad days, so I won't complain.

[martin II]

Who would Simpson have paid off other than Petrocelli or Judge F, which does not speak well for either of them, IMHO.

Petro may have paid judge F to tell Baker to kiss off when Baker demanded that it be used.

[Hipcheck]

He did take a leave of absence. so you have part of it right.
He said from his mouth on the opra show that he planned to return but was not allowed to do so. 'I WAS BASICALLY FIRED"

Now you can just run to her site and correct your post.

The simple fact is Christopher Darden was NOT I repeat NOT fired.

Christopher Darden took a leave of abence and was not taken back by the DA's office.

Darden left the DA's office and was no longer an employee for the DA's office.

How do you fire a person who is no longer an employee? The answer is you can't which means Darden wasn't fired.

[William Anthony]

At some point the defense did make a motion to dismiss. not sure when.

Martin,

I am certain that, if the defense did make such a motion to dismiss it was in the socio political production. I did not want to be abrasive so I simply pasted the link to the definition of the directed verdict, in response to the defense not proving Simpson innocent and seeking a motion to dismiss. The problem is that no such animal as a motion to dismiss exists in a criminal trial. The lay person may use the two interchangeably but I don't think that I have ever heard a practitioner use the two interchangeably. The poster was telling you what you should know but it seems that the poster did not know that things do not happen in a courtroom as they do on television.

[tv]

The simple fact is Christopher Darden was NOT I repeat NOT fired.

Christopher Darden took a leave of abence and was not taken back by the DA's office.

Darden left the DA's office and was no longer an employee for the DA's office.

How do you fire a person who is no longer an employee? The answer is you can't which means Darden wasn't fired.

Taking a leave of absense and not being welcomed back is a far cry from being told "you're fired". Like I said before, I never learn.

[weezer]

The simple fact is Christopher Darden was NOT I repeat NOT fired.

Christopher Darden took a leave of abence and was not taken back by the DA's office.

Darden left the DA's office and was no longer an employee for the DA's office.

How do you fire a person who is no longer an employee? The answer is you can't which means Darden wasn't fired.

this is from the Oprah show with Mr. Darden:

On Losing his job:

". . .After a Los Angeles jury found O.J. Simspon not guilty, Christopher took a leave of absence from the district attorney's office to teach at a local law school. Before he could return to the D.A.'s office, he says the media reported that he'd been terminated for "abandoning his job."

"Basically, I was fired," Christopher says. "I just think that me, that image, that trial…I think it was political baggage for the D.A. at the time.". . .

On cochran's advice re Fuhrman:

". . .He says Johnnie Cochran, a member of O.J.'s defense team, pulled him aside before Fuhrman's testimony and gave him a word of advice…Johnnie told him not to put Fuhrman on the stand.

To this day, Christopher says he's angered by what he believes Fuhrman did to the prosecution's case. . ."

and, finally, on a miscellaneous post re cochran the great mentor:
This is from cochran and Darden interview with Larry King -- 2000. I know we have at least one poster who believes that cochran helped Darden by giving him clients -- looks like just the opposite was true. :eek:

"KING: Let's go back a little. Did you two guys -- Johnnie, did you know Chris Darden before all of this?

COCHRAN: I certainly did. I knew Chris. I knew him for some time. And I considered him a friend. And this was always a tough case, when you're trying a case against someone that you have a lot of respect for and a friend. But it's business once you're inside that courtroom, and I respect him even now. As I told you on your show, I have a lot of respect for Chris Darden and I consider him a friend.

DARDEN: Thank you.

KING: Chris, what do you think -- you knew Johnnie, obviously.

DARDEN: Yes, I knew -- I knew Johnnie for a number of years. Tried to get a job in his firm once...

(LAUGHTER)

COCHRAN: He referred cases to us in fact.

DARDEN: As a matter of fact, because, you know, he has really set -- set the bar high in terms of black law firms in this country, and certainly, in Los Angeles. So...

KING: Why didn't you hire him, Johnnie? It would have saved you a lot of grief.

DARDEN: Save me a lot of grief.

COCHRAN: I probably should have. If I'd known everything I know now, I would have hired him.

(LAUGHTER)

Clearly. . ."

[weezer]

Taking a leave of absense and not being welcomed back is a far cry from being told "you're fired". Like I said before, I never learn.

sounds like someone thought they were entitled to something that they weren't -- :eek:

[William Anthony]

sounds like someone thought they were entitled to something that they weren't -- :eek:

Sounds like someone excepting the reality of his plight, knowing the personalities of those with whom he was involved on more than a casual basis, to me.

[William Anthony]

Taking a leave of absense and not being welcomed back is a far cry from being told "you're fired". Like I said before, I never learn.

Either way your employer tells you you don't have a job, fired. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Taking a leave of absense and not being welcomed back is a far cry from being told "you're fired". Like I said before, I never learn.

I once took leave of absence from a city job for a year to study.It was done with the guarantee of job safety. My case was no different than the many others that did the same. I returned on my return date, took a test for a open position passed and was promoted.

I doubt Darden just walked off of his job and believe his leave would have been legal and part of the perks awarded people in his osition. If he gave notice of his plan to return and was told you have no job i would call that being fired. But i have no such information on the details of how that went down.What i know is he did on national tv say "i was basically fired' and i have no reason to think that he used that tv stage to tell a lie.

The lapd DAS office was very political. The loss of the oj case caused a lot of finger pointing on who was to blame.GG was not the most honorable person
and he was taking a lot of heat for moving the case to la in the first place. It would not surprise me if he decided to just screw Darden.
Darden was lucky when Cochran came to his rescue. imo

[martin II]

sounds like someone thought they were entitled to something that they weren't -- :eek:

What does your boss telling you "you are not welcomed back" sound like to you?

[martin II]

this is from the Oprah show with Mr. Darden:

On Losing his job:

". . .After a Los Angeles jury found O.J. Simspon not guilty, Christopher took a leave of absence from the district attorney's office to teach at a local law school. Before he could return to the D.A.'s office, he says the media reported that he'd been terminated for "abandoning his job."

"Basically, I was fired," Christopher says. "I just think that me, that image, that trial…I think it was political baggage for the D.A. at the time.". . .

On cochran's advice re Fuhrman:

". . .He says Johnnie Cochran, a member of O.J.'s defense team, pulled him aside before Fuhrman's testimony and gave him a word of advice…Johnnie told him not to put Fuhrman on the stand.

To this day, Christopher says he's angered by what he believes Fuhrman did to the prosecution's case. . ."

and, finally, on a miscellaneous post re cochran the great mentor:
This is from cochran and Darden interview with Larry King -- 2000. I know we have at least one poster who believes that cochran helped Darden by giving him clients -- looks like just the opposite was true. :eek:

"KING: Let's go back a little. Did you two guys -- Johnnie, did you know Chris Darden before all of this?

COCHRAN: I certainly did. I knew Chris. I knew him for some time. And I considered him a friend. And this was always a tough case, when you're trying a case against someone that you have a lot of respect for and a friend. But it's business once you're inside that courtroom, and I respect him even now. As I told you on your show, I have a lot of respect for Chris Darden and I consider him a friend.

DARDEN: Thank you.

KING: Chris, what do you think -- you knew Johnnie, obviously.

DARDEN: Yes, I knew -- I knew Johnnie for a number of years. Tried to get a job in his firm once...

(LAUGHTER)

COCHRAN: He referred cases to us in fact.

DARDEN: As a matter of fact, because, you know, he has really set -- set the bar high in terms of black law firms in this country, and certainly, in Los Angeles. So...

KING: Why didn't you hire him, Johnnie? It would have saved you a lot of grief.

DARDEN: Save me a lot of grief.

COCHRAN: I probably should have. If I'd known everything I know now, I would have hired him.

(LAUGHTER)

Clearly. . ."

Darden said on oprah that Cochran gave him clients that helped him get his new office started.

[martin II]

The simple fact is Christopher Darden was NOT I repeat NOT fired.

Christopher Darden took a leave of abence and was not taken back by the DA's office.

Darden left the DA's office and was no longer an employee for the DA's office.

How do you fire a person who is no longer an employee? The answer is you can't which means Darden wasn't fired.

Your claims are in direct opposition to what Darden said.

Pretty strong statement about the details of Dardens leave.

you didn't just dream this up and you have not said that was a opinion so would you be able to post the source of your claim so that we all can know your claim is true ?

[martin II]

Martin,

I am certain that, if the defense did make such a motion to dismiss it was in the socio political production. I did not want to be abrasive so I simply pasted the link to the definition of the directed verdict, in response to the defense not proving Simpson innocent and seeking a motion to dismiss. The problem is that no such animal as a motion to dismiss exists in a criminal trial. The lay person may use the two interchangeably but I don't think that I have ever heard a practitioner use the two interchangeably. The poster was telling you what you should know but it seems that the poster did not know that things do not happen in a courtroom as they do on television.

I just read your link and agree with it. It is definately not the same as what some see on tv and believe.

[martin II]

Well actually if depends on who called the witness and if the prosecution is presenting their case or the defense is putting on their defense or if was grandjury testimony Just saying in case you don't know.

Martin you may have included all Kato testified to at the that particular time but are you actually telling me you knew absolutely nothing about Kato giving testimony that OJ was "upset". YES KATO testified i think 4 times i don't remember everry answer he gave to each question DO YOU?

I asked if anyone knew about OJ saying something about the black dress....You replied to my post but did not include that Kato said OJ was upset.i replied to your question based on what remembered when i replied TVdinner posted a transcript showing Kato said OJ was upset....Again "were you aware" of what Kato said when you replied to my post....if so why did you leave it out and why won't you acknowledge what Kato "said" like in Phillip saying living room. when you called me a lie i looked in my files and posted katos testimony that i had saved. The UPSET question was included. A spade can't be a spade, an Ace and Ace and a joker a joker only when it suits you. YOU lost me on whatever that was.

I POSTED Katos testimony where upset was included so i did not leave anything out. Whats up with that

:chicken:If I don't show back up call 911...hubby is coming to get me. :D

You have a nice day.

[weezer]

Taking a leave of absense and not being welcomed back is a far cry from being told "you're fired". Like I said before, I never learn.

wouldn't you think that the last person anyone would 'fire' without just cause would be an attorney? helllllooooo

from what I'm reading, Darden took time off after the trial and didn't return when he was suppose to. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd sure like to know where coming and going from a job -- and it being held open for you --is a 'perk'! ;)

[William Anthony]

wouldn't you think that the last person anyone would 'fire' without just cause would be an attorney? helllllooooo

from what I'm reading, Darden took time off after the trial and didn't return when he was suppose to. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd sure like to know where coming and going from a job -- and it being held open for you --is a 'perk'! ;)

Have you ever heard of employment at will?

[martin II]

Again Martin Cochran did not prove OJ was innocent...if he had he is smart enough to ask for the case to be dismissed and it would have been.

Well I'm going with your mentality that when someone says something like Living Room it is fact.....Shaperio said Cochran played the race card so it's fact. You can't go trying to spin what Shaperio said.

i can check my post but i don't think you have seen one where i said oj was innocent. i agree with the cjs requirements where NOT GUILTY is the issue.

I have said that those that talk about innocent are those that dissagree with the not guilty verdict and are just attempting discuss a issue not revelant to the criminal trial verdict. It is like after loosing the race and saying you may have won the FOOT race but you are not as fast as a race horse. PURE NONSENSE.

[martin II]

wouldn't you think that the last person anyone would 'fire' without just cause would be an attorney? helllllooooo

from what I'm reading, Darden took time off after the trial and didn't return when he was suppose to. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd sure like to know where coming and going from a job -- and it being held open for you --is a 'perk'! ;)

Where did you read that darden took time off and didn't return when he was suppose to?

[William Anthony]

i can check my post but i don't think you have seen one where i said oj was innocent. I agree with the cjs requirements where not guilty is the issue.

I have said that those that talk about innocent are those that dissagree with the not guilty verdict and are just attempting discuss a issue not revelant to the criminal trial verdict. It is like after loosing the race and saying you may have won the foot race but you are not as fast as a race horse. Pure nonsense.

simpson is and will forever remain not guilty and, consequently, the presumption of innocence forever remains with him.

[Hipcheck]

Your claims are in direct opposition to what Darden said.

Pretty strong statement about the details of Dardens leave.

you didn't just dream this up and you have not said that was a opinion so would you be able to post the source of your claim so that we all can know your claim is true ?

Do you or don't you agree with the following?

Chris Darden took a leave of absence.

During this time Chris Daren taught at a college.

Also during this time Chris Darden was no longer an employee of the DA's office.

Chris Darden said he later wanted to return to the DA's office but they refused to take hime back.

My question to you is this.

How do you fire a person who is currently not working for you?

[martin II]

simpson is and will forever remain not guilty and, consequently, the presumption of innocence forever remains with him.

Thats a fact JACK.

[martin II]

Do you or don't you agree with the following?

Chris Darden took a leave of absence.

During this time Chris Daren taught at a college.

Also during this time Chris Darden was no longer an employee of the DA's office.

Chris Darden said he later wanted to return to the DA's office but they refused to take hime back.

My question to you is this.

How do you fire a person who is currently not working for you?


I only know what i know. What i know is that Darden said on National tv that 'I WAS BASICALLY FIRED"

You have made post that indicate that you know the details on the issue and you have posted stuff that is in direct opposition to what Darden said.

You can prove Darden lied by POSTING PROOF of your claims. Post a link to prove what you say.

[William Anthony]

Do you or don't you agree with the following?

Also during this time Chris Darden was no longer an employee of the DA's office.



I am without any information to form a belief as to the truth of your averment. Therefore, strict proof thereof is required.

[William Anthony]

Thats a fact JACK.

In fact, that presumption of innocence can never be rebutted due to the concept of double jeopardy. Ergo, for all intents and purposes Simpson is innocent, just like all others, who were tried for the crime of murder and acquitted.

[martin II]

In fact, that presumption of innocence can never be rebutted due to the concept of double jeopardy. Ergo, for all intents and purposes Simpson is innocent, just like all others, who were tried for the crime of murder and acquitted.

Great point.

[martin II]

wouldn't you think that the last person anyone would 'fire' without just cause would be an attorney? helllllooooo

from what I'm reading, Darden took time off after the trial and didn't return when he was suppose to. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd sure like to know where coming and going from a job -- and it being held open for you --is a 'perk'! ;)

i agree with your first line and would add that the last thing a attorney would do is leave his job without a agreement/understanfing on his return.

[tv]

this is from the Oprah show with Mr. Darden:

On Losing his job:

". . .After a Los Angeles jury found O.J. Simspon not guilty, Christopher took a leave of absence from the district attorney's office to teach at a local law school. Before he could return to the D.A.'s office, he says the media reported that he'd been terminated for "abandoning his job."

"Basically, I was fired," Christopher says. "I just think that me, that image, that trial…I think it was political baggage for the D.A. at the time.". . .

On cochran's advice re Fuhrman:

". . .He says Johnnie Cochran, a member of O.J.'s defense team, pulled him aside before Fuhrman's testimony and gave him a word of advice…Johnnie told him not to put Fuhrman on the stand.

To this day, Christopher says he's angered by what he believes Fuhrman did to the prosecution's case. . ."

and, finally, on a miscellaneous post re cochran the great mentor:
This is from cochran and Darden interview with Larry King -- 2000. I know we have at least one poster who believes that cochran helped Darden by giving him clients -- looks like just the opposite was true. :eek:

"KING: Let's go back a little. Did you two guys -- Johnnie, did you know Chris Darden before all of this?

COCHRAN: I certainly did. I knew Chris. I knew him for some time. And I considered him a friend. And this was always a tough case, when you're trying a case against someone that you have a lot of respect for and a friend. But it's business once you're inside that courtroom, and I respect him even now. As I told you on your show, I have a lot of respect for Chris Darden and I consider him a friend.

DARDEN: Thank you.

KING: Chris, what do you think -- you knew Johnnie, obviously.

DARDEN: Yes, I knew -- I knew Johnnie for a number of years. Tried to get a job in his firm once...

(LAUGHTER)

COCHRAN: He referred cases to us in fact.

DARDEN: As a matter of fact, because, you know, he has really set -- set the bar high in terms of black law firms in this country, and certainly, in Los Angeles. So...

KING: Why didn't you hire him, Johnnie? It would have saved you a lot of grief.

DARDEN: Save me a lot of grief.

COCHRAN: I probably should have. If I'd known everything I know now, I would have hired him.

(LAUGHTER)

Clearly. . ."

Thanks, weezer. :)

[William Anthony]

Thanks, weezer. :)

Wouyld you agree with this statement, "Also during this time Chris Darden was no longer an employee of the DA's office"?

[martin II]

Taking a leave of absense and not being welcomed back is a far cry from being told "you're fired". Like I said before, I never learn.

After all Darden did to help GG win that case and how he allowed himself to be used and take some hits for the team they would toss him out the door
and refuse to give him that ratty a** job back. imo

[martin II]

Do you or don't you agree with the following?

Chris Darden took a leave of absence.

During this time Chris Daren taught at a college.

Also during this time Chris Darden was no longer an employee of the DA's office.

Chris Darden said he later wanted to return to the DA's office but they refused to take hime back.

My question to you is this.

How do you fire a person who is currently not working for you?

You make some firm claims im Direct conflict with Darden.

I ask you for proof of your claims
Then you ask me a set of questions.
PLEASE GIVE PROOF.

[Hipcheck]

I only know what i know. What i know is that Darden said on National tv that 'I WAS BASICALLY FIRED"

You have made post that indicate that you know the details on the issue and you have posted stuff that is in direct opposition to what Darden said.

You can prove Darden lied by POSTING PROOF of your claims. Post a link to prove what you say.

I NEVER said Chris Darden lied.

Chris Darden said he was basicly fired. He doesn't say he was fired.

He must feel that since he wasn't taken back he was basicly fired.

The fact is he wasn't taken back so he was not fired.

[Hipcheck]

You make some firm claims im Direct conflict with Darden.

I ask you for proof of your claims
Then you ask me a set of questions.
PLEASE GIVE PROOF.

Martin

Why don't you use some common sense for once in your life.

[fgump2]

simpson is and will forever remain not guilty and, consequently, the presumption of innocence forever remains with him.

A lot of lawyers have commented on this issue, and as far as I know, they say that people are free to call Mr. Simpson a murderer if they think he is. Legal innocence and moral innocence are not the same issue.

[martin II]

I've not seen a link to Paula's deposition -- do you have one?

I am sure you have participated in many discussion on PB. Is there something new that you are interested in?

William posted the link to her depo.

[bobaugust]

Because it didn't tend to prove anything that would help the plaintiffs, IMHO.

No I don’t believe that was the reason since all of the witnesses depositions taken before the civil trial were made public except for Arnelle Simpson’s deposition.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The video proved the only door that could be unlocked was the front. Ergo, IMHO, the detectives lied.

The video does not prove the three detectives lied, it proves they were mistaken. There was no reason for them to lie about this: it didn’t help the case against Simpson to say Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it. It didn’t help the case against Simpson to say they all entered the back door of the house. I believe the three detectives only assumed or thought all the doors to the house were locked. They had asked Arnelle if she had a key to the house and Arnelle had gotten a key and led them to the back door carrying the key and then opened the door, so they assumed or thought she had first unlocked it.

We know that Arnelle and three detectives entered the back door because Kato Kaelin testified he saw them do that and then he and Fuhrman followed them in.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Post were I called the detective liars and were I called Kato a liar or stop the false accusations. Thanks for your rapid cooperation.

You did not outright say the detectives and Kaelin lied, martin did that. You avoided saying those exact words but in essence you did call the detectives and Kaelin liars by falsely claiming the evidence supports your illogical inference that Arnelle told the truth and all the others lied.

The evidence is that Arnelle lied because five witnesses impeached her testimony that she led two detectives around the house and opened the front door to let them into the house when all five testified they entered he house through the back door.

bobaugust

[Its just me]

IMHO, in her dreams but I do not envy hubby, who probably agrees just so he can have some peace and quiet. :);):cool: I am just joking and it is meant as lighthearted banter.

Hahaha...it really is funny William and Martin humor is always good...always. Laughter is good for the soul and a good argument is not bad either. :cool:

Hubby and I are just dirt farmers...Made our living off the land until we retired. Hubby is a wonderful man and I admit William has things pegged about right....but it's never serious except about this internet. He is forever telling me I'm gonna land up in the pokey.

See I can be nice.

[martin II]

Martin

Why don't you use some common sense for once in your life.

Its common sense to ask you for proof of your very strong claims against Darden that you posted to the thread.imo

[Its just me]

The problem I have is with insensitive people. If this is your way of apologizing for a remark that I found just short of totally offensive, it, like the prosecution, fails miserably. I don't think everyone is out to get me nor do I think I have to accept remarks that border on being offensive, as chains are not part of the attire I put on.

No it was not an apology...I did absolutely nothing wrong. If you think I'm insensitive put me on ignore. I sure don't care.
And for what it's worth...I already said I ain't taking your ****. If you want to be a poor me baby find you somebody that will care.
I learned a long long time ago the world don't evolve around "ME". May be something you could consider.

[Its just me]

Some time it pays to coordinate one brains with ones fingers. I did not attack the accuracy of tvs post. You asked a question and i answered from memory.
you now accuse me of not including everything in tv post in my response to you. I post another testimony by kato and the question on oj being up was actually included along with his answer.you then accuse me of leaving UPSET
out of the testimony i posted.

I mean i do understand that katos response may not have been your cup of tea but to acuse me of not being truthful or correct because you ignored that the word upset was in my post is taking too much liberty. I don't know what to tell you lady. imo

Well the Lady still wants to know did you know Kato said OJ was upset when you replied to my post..leaving it out.

LOL You've told me alot....but it don't mean "alot" imhoo.

[martin II]

No I don’t believe that was the reason since all of the witnesses depositions taken before the civil trial were made public except for Arnelle Simpson’s deposition.

bobaugust

So what is the reason?

[Its just me]

At some point the defense did make a motion to dismiss. not sure when.

Well if they did we all know it was denied by the Judge.

[GreenIce]

I only know what i know. What i know is that Darden said on National tv that 'I WAS BASICALLY FIRED"

You have made post that indicate that you know the details on the issue and you have posted stuff that is in direct opposition to what Darden said.

You can prove Darden lied by POSTING PROOF of your claims. Post a link to prove what you say.

Martin,

IMO, both Clark and Darden knew they would never be able to try another case for the DA's office after the Simpson trial. Both their reputations were shot. A lot of people turned them into heros until the books started coming out and the professional snipping started.

Whatever case they tried would be forever compared to the Simpson trial and lets be honest, they both knew two witnesses were going to commit perjury and they did nothing. MF ruined Clark and Darden was ruined by his courtroom behavior, his pout and the glove demonstration. IMO, it was the glove demonstration that it finally dawned on me that Darden was nothing more the another scapegoat for the defeat. There is no way that man should have been blamed for the results of it. IMO.

[martin II]

Well the Lady still wants to know did you know Kato said OJ was upset when you replied to my post..leaving it out.

LOL You've told me alot....but it don't mean "alot" imhoo.

I have posted my response to your question and explained the circumstances under which i responded to your original question.

I also commented that you could also ask the other poster that so quickly informed us that my post of Katos testimony was from the grand jury as it included Kato saying NO when asked if oj seemed up set. She could have posted both testimonies so you could have had the benefit of both of Kato's responses including where he said NO when asked if oj was upset. But you didn't. you just made a broadside attack on me.imo

I did not mean to tell you "alot" but i did feel it necessary to respond to your many post attacking me for no reason and calling me a lie on this thread.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, both Clark and Darden knew they would never be able to try another case for the DA's office after the Simpson trial. Both their reputations were shot. A lot of people turned them into heros until the books started coming out and the professional snipping started.

Whatever case they tried would be forever compared to the Simpson trial and lets be honest, they both knew two witnesses were going to commit perjury and they did nothing. MF ruined Clark and Darden was ruined by his courtroom behavior, his pout and the glove demonstration. IMO, it was the glove demonstration that it finally dawned on me that Darden was nothing more the another scapegoat for the defeat. There is no way that man should have been blamed for the results of it. IMO.


You are correct. GG attended the daily after court review sessions. He had his hand in all the decisions.

[martin II]

Well if they did we all know it was denied by the Judge.

So you think a directed verdict could have been requested by the defense in the criminal trial
before evidence?

[martin II]

A lot of lawyers have commented on this issue, and as far as I know, they say that people are free to call Mr. Simpson a murderer if they think he is. Legal innocence and moral innocence are not the same issue.

A trial in a court and a public poll is not the same.

[GreenIce]

The video does not prove the three detectives lied, it proves they were mistaken. There was no reason for them to lie about this: it didn’t help the case against Simpson to say Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it. It didn’t help the case against Simpson to say they all entered the back door of the house. I believe the three detectives only assumed or thought all the doors to the house were locked. They had asked Arnelle if she had a key to the house and Arnelle had gotten a key and led them to the back door carrying the key and then opened the door, so they assumed or thought she had first unlocked it.

We know that Arnelle and three detectives entered the back door because Kato Kaelin testified he saw them do that and then he and Fuhrman followed them in.

bobaugust

Mr. Augusts,

The detectives had more reasons to lie then Arnelle. MF testimony does not support what Kato testified. Kato was mistaken on a key points. As I post before, Kato told VA about the thumps while they were outside. VA's testimony is in direct conflict of Kato's and MF's.

It also important to remember, Arnelle testified about this for the first time in the prelim hearing. VA and the other detectives did not testify about this in the Grand Jury hearing nor did they testify about this in the prelim hearing.

In reading Petrocelli's cross of Arnelle, it is clear he keeps switching to different doors to try to trip her up and when he can't, he then asks her how tired and upset she was that morning.

I think it was Dan Leonard who point blanked asked Arnelle if she was aware that all three detectives testified to entering a different door and she said yes. Petrocelli objected, stating Leonard (I think it was Leonard) was mistating their testimony. So doesn't this mean that Petrocelli was saying there was no door conflict?

[martin II]

I NEVER said Chris Darden lied.

Chris Darden said he was basicly fired. He doesn't say he was fired.

He must feel that since he wasn't taken back he was basicly fired.

The fact is he wasn't taken back so he was not fired.

IF you would just post a link to prove your original claims them we can know the truth.

[martin II]

HIPCHECK

Here are your original claimes
please post proof of where you got this information from.
thanks in advance.

The simple fact is Christopher Darden was NOT I repeat NOT fired.

Christopher Darden took a leave of abence and was not taken back by the DA's office.

Darden left the DA's office and was no longer an employee for the DA's office.

How do you fire a person who is no longer an employee? The answer is you can't which means Darden wasn't fired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Hipcheck; Yesterday at 06:27 PM.

[martin II]

Mr. Augusts,

The detectives had more reasons to lie then Arnelle. MF testimony does not support what Kato testified. Kato was mistaken on a key points. As I post before, Kato told VA about the thumps while they were outside. VA's testimony is in direct conflict of Kato's and MF's. All of this is true. I LEARNED TODAY THAT KATO WAS ASKED NO QUESTIONS ABOUT ENTERING THE HOUSE IN THE GJ

It also important to remember, Arnelle testified about this for the first time in the prelim hearing. VA and the other detectives did not testify about this in the Grand Jury hearing nor did they testify about this in the prelim hearing.

In reading Petrocelli's cross of Arnelle, it is clear he keeps switching to different doors to try to trip her up and when he can't, he then asks her how tired and upset she was that morning. Petro did try to confuse Arnell but her testimony was on target and true

I think it was Dan Leonard who point blanked asked Arnelle if she was aware that all three detectives testified to entering a different door and she said yes. Petrocelli objected, stating Leonard (I think it was Leonard) was mistating their testimony. So doesn't this mean that Petrocelli was saying there was no door conflict?YES IT DOES.


The detectives all lied. One of the reasons was they were trying to connect the doors to the washing machine and got confused as to what to say.

[martin II]

GI
One problem was there were 6 doors in quesiton at the house. The detectives knew they were suppose to lie to support the lie that Arnell had been in the house earlier. But because there were so many doors,they got confused and ended up sounding like Mutt and Jeff or some other clowns. Some gave different testimony on the same issue at different times.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, both Clark and Darden knew they would never be able to try another case for the DA's office after the Simpson trial. Both their reputations were shot. A lot of people turned them into heros until the books started coming out and the professional snipping started.

Whatever case they tried would be forever compared to the Simpson trial and lets be honest, they both knew two witnesses were going to commit perjury and they did nothing. MF ruined Clark and Darden was ruined by his courtroom behavior, his pout and the glove demonstration. IMO, it was the glove demonstration that it finally dawned on me that Darden was nothing more the another scapegoat for the defeat. There is no way that man should have been blamed for the results of it. IMO.


I have always believe the glove demo was too risky. Having heard verious sports people speak about ojs large hands the demo was doomed. imo

Some say the decision to do it was clarkes some say it was Dardens but i don't believe it would have happened with GG approval.

If the DAS office thought it was such a good idea why didn't Clarke do it. Why let Darden be the hero if they knew it was going to prove something.

It failed as expected with the full attention of the media and Darden was left
looking confused and angry.All of the blame fell on him.
That may be what cost him his job.

[Its just me]

So you think a directed verdict could have been requested by the defense in the criminal trial
before evidence?

I stand by what I posted. If there were evidence to prove OJ was innocent his attorney would have made a motion for the case to be dismissed. If there were such evidence the case would have been dismissed. That didn't happen so the Not Quilty was based on reasonable doubt testimony.

Do know of any evidence that even points to OJ's innocence.

You are all screwed up....a direct verdict before evidence where did that come from. Don't play me for a fool....I'm not one.

[Its just me]

I have always believe the glove demo was too risky. Having heard verious sports people speak about ojs large hands the demo was doomed. imo

Some say the decision to do it was clarkes some say it was Dardens but i don't believe it would have happened with GG approval.

If the DAS office thought it was such a good idea why didn't Clarke do it. Why let Darden be the hero if they knew it was going to prove something.

It failed as expected with the full attention of the media and Darden was left
looking confused and angry.All of the blame fell on him.
That may be what cost him his job.

Stop blaming all of Darden's problems on someone else. That is a lot of what is wrong in this world today....It is always some other person's fault blah blah blah.

[weezer]

I stand by what I posted. If there were evidence to prove OJ was innocent his attorney would have made a motion for the case to be dismissed. If there were such evidence the case would have been dismissed. That didn't happen so the Not Quilty was based on reasonable doubt testimony.

Do know of any evidence that even points to OJ's innocence.

You are all screwed up....a direct verdict before evidence where did that come from. Don't play me for a fool....I'm not one.

I've always wondered -- sometimes outloud on this board -- why the defense never released/used any of their test results during the criminal and/or civil trials. You would think that they would have used the results to back up their claims. . .:confused:

[martin II]

Stop blaming all of Darden's problems on someone else. That is a lot of what is wrong in this world today....It is always some other person's fault blah blah blah.

On the OJ forum i have for some time been a very vocal critic of C. DARDEN
So i think once again you may be jumping the gun by instructing me to stop blaming all of Dardens problems on someone else. IMO

The glove demo failure was not all Dardens fault regardless of what you may think.imo

[martin II]

I've always wondered -- sometimes outloud on this board -- why the defense never released/used any of their test results during the criminal and/or civil trials. You would think that they would have used the results to back up their claims. . .:confused:

When the defense has been successful in creating reasonable doubt of a prosecution witness testimony, that it cannot be believed there is no reason to do anything else. Some do forget that the defense is not required or expected to prove anything in a criminal trial. Proving stuff is the responsibility of the prosecution.imo

[fgump2]

Mr. Augusts,

The detectives had more reasons to lie then Arnelle. MF testimony does not support what Kato testified. Kato was mistaken on a key points. As I post before, Kato told VA about the thumps while they were outside. VA's testimony is in direct conflict of Kato's and MF's.

It also important to remember, Arnelle testified about this for the first time in the prelim hearing. VA and the other detectives did not testify about this in the Grand Jury hearing nor did they testify about this in the prelim hearing.

In reading Petrocelli's cross of Arnelle, it is clear he keeps switching to different doors to try to trip her up and when he can't, he then asks her how tired and upset she was that morning.

I think it was Dan Leonard who point blanked asked Arnelle if she was aware that all three detectives testified to entering a different door and she said yes. Petrocelli objected, stating Leonard (I think it was Leonard) was mistating their testimony. So doesn't this mean that Petrocelli was saying there was no door conflict?

I don't think the detectives had a motive to lie because I don't think the 1995 prosecution made an issue of which door Arnelle led the detectives through.

I don't think that the cops would have tried to talk Kato into testifying to something. Most people thought Kato was erratic and it some cops thought he might be on drugs.

Kato is probably one of several people who may have committed perjury in the trial because I think he wrote a book that contradicted some of what he testified to.

Another point. It has been posted here that a point for the 1995 defense was that there was no blood found under the Rockingham glove. In Bugliosi's book he wrote that there were no tests done for blood in that area, not just under the glove.

I don't any links of courtroom testimony to back me up on this posting, but I think that the only testing for blood in that general area was by Henry Lee, he found some blood; but there wasn't enough blood to test for either DNA or blood type. I can't remember where the blood was. Maybe it was on the air conditioner or some wire in that area.

[William Anthony]

A lot of lawyers have commented on this issue, and as far as I know, they say that people are free to call Mr. Simpson a murderer if they think he is. Legal innocence and moral innocence are not the same issue.

Could you give me the names of those lawyers, so I won't hire them? Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, which is not the same as saying they can call someone something and not state it as an opinion. Defamation is actionable.

[martin II]

I don't think the detectives had a motive to lie because I don't think the 1995 prosecution made an issue of which door Arnelle led the detectives through.The prosecution had the problem of proving that Arnell had used the washing machine the morning of 6/13 by trying to prove she was in the house. I believe that was the motive for the lies about how they entered the house. Their problem was they didn't check those doors. If they had they would have known the only door they could have used to enter the house was the front door. Why they gave different testimony i am not sure.

I don't think that the cops would have tried to talk Kato into testifying to something. Most people thought Kato was erratic and it some cops thought he might be on drugs.

Kato is probably one of several people who may have committed perjury in the trial because I think he wrote a book that contradicted some of what he testified to.

Another point. It has been posted here that a point for the 1995 defense was that there was no blood found under the Rockingham glove. In Bugliosi's book he wrote that there were no tests done for blood in that area, not just under the glove.

I don't any links of courtroom testimony to back me up on this posting, but I think that the only testing for blood in that general area was by Henry Lee, he found some blood; but there wasn't enough blood to test for either DNA or blood type. I can't remember where the blood was. Maybe it was on the air conditioner or some wire in that area.


In his grand jury testimony Kato testified that he had never used drugs in his life.

The only blood found in the walkway was on the right glove. imo

[William Anthony]

No I don’t believe that was the reason since all of the witnesses depositions taken before the civil trial were made public except for Arnelle Simpson’s deposition.

bobaugust

You have your beliefs. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Could you give me the names of those lawyers, so I won't hire them? Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, which is not the same as saying they can call someone something and not state it as an opinion. Defamation is actionable.

That is what i was thinking when i read that post.

[William Anthony]

The video does not prove the three detectives lied, it proves they were mistaken. There was no reason for them to lie about this: it didn’t help the case against Simpson to say Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it. It didn’t help the case against Simpson to say they all entered the back door of the house. I believe the three detectives only assumed or thought all the doors to the house were locked. They had asked Arnelle if she had a key to the house and Arnelle had gotten a key and led them to the back door carrying the key and then opened the door, so they assumed or thought she had first unlocked it.

We know that Arnelle and three detectives entered the back door because Kato Kaelin testified he saw them do that and then he and Fuhrman followed them in.

bobaugust

Due to your use of the word we, I must ask you if you have mice in your pocket.:) Again you believe. However, you state as fact that the detectives were mistaken but Ms. Arnelle lied when she testified to the same thing the detectives did. Why is that bobaugust? No need to answer, because I BELIEVE WE KNOW.

[William Anthony]

You did not outright say the detectives and Kaelin lied, martin did that. You avoided saying those exact words but in essence you did call the detectives and Kaelin liars by falsely claiming the evidence supports your illogical inference that Arnelle told the truth and all the others lied.

The evidence is that Arnelle lied because five witnesses impeached her testimony that she led two detectives around the house and opened the front door to let them into the house when all five testified they entered he house through the back door.

bobaugust

My post,

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
Post were I called the detective liars and were I called Kato a liar or stop the false accusations. Thanks for your rapid cooperation.

So you accused me for something you claim another poster did but now you say this, " You avoided saying those exact words but in essence you did call the detectives and Kaelin liars by falsely claiming the evidence supports your illogical inference..." I have never published anything in Essence, so stop with the false accusations. :);):cool:

[martin II]

I stand by what I posted. If there were evidence to prove OJ was innocent his attorney would have made a motion for the case to be dismissed. If there were such evidence the case would have been dismissed. That didn't happen so the Not Quilty was based on reasonable doubt testimony.

Do know of any evidence that even points to OJ's innocence.

You are all screwed up....a direct verdict before evidence where did that come from. Don't play me for a fool....I'm not one.

Establishing reasonable doubt was the defense task and they did a very good job of that. The talk about he was not found innocent is just noise made by those that were dissapointed that their ideas of what happened did not rule the day. imo

[William Anthony]

Hahaha...it really is funny William and Martin humor is always good...always. Laughter is good for the soul and a good argument is not bad either. :cool:

Hubby and I are just dirt farmers...Made our living off the land until we retired. Hubby is a wonderful man and I admit William has things pegged about right....but it's never serious except about this internet. He is forever telling me I'm gonna land up in the pokey.

See I can be nice.

I never doubted that.

[William Anthony]

No it was not an apology...I did absolutely nothing wrong. If you think I'm insensitive put me on ignore. I sure don't care.
And for what it's worth...I already said I ain't taking your ****. If you want to be a poor me baby find you somebody that will care.
I learned a long long time ago the world don't evolve around "ME". May be something you could consider.

I do consider, since I have evolved, that the world doesn't revolve around me, which is why I think before opening my mouth in an attempt not to offend.

[William Anthony]

I stand by what I posted. If there were evidence to prove OJ was innocent his attorney would have made a motion for the case to be dismissed. If there were such evidence the case would have been dismissed. That didn't happen so the Not Quilty was based on reasonable doubt testimony.

Do know of any evidence that even points to OJ's innocence.

You are all screwed up....a direct verdict before evidence where did that come from. Don't play me for a fool....I'm not one.

Tell us in what criminal trial was there a motion to dismiss the case made, because the defendant was innocent. I have given it a second look after considering the idea of a demmure and found that they do allow motion's to dismiss but not on the basis of innocence.

http://www.rooneylawfirm.com/CM/Criminal-Defense/Dismissal-Defenses.asp

[GreenIce]

I don't think the detectives had a motive to lie because I don't think the 1995 prosecution made an issue of which door Arnelle led the detectives through.

I don't think that the cops would have tried to talk Kato into testifying to something. Most people thought Kato was erratic and it some cops thought he might be on drugs.

Kato is probably one of several people who may have committed perjury in the trial because I think he wrote a book that contradicted some of what he testified to.

Another point. It has been posted here that a point for the 1995 defense was that there was no blood found under the Rockingham glove. In Bugliosi's book he wrote that there were no tests done for blood in that area, not just under the glove.

I don't any links of courtroom testimony to back me up on this posting, but I think that the only testing for blood in that general area was by Henry Lee, he found some blood; but there wasn't enough blood to test for either DNA or blood type. I can't remember where the blood was. Maybe it was on the air conditioner or some wire in that area.

fgump2,

Marcia Clark had to focus on reason they entered the property without a search warrant. She conceded in the prelim hearing that Arnelle did lead the two detectives into the house through the front door.

During the criminal trial, she started with the back door, etc., but IMO, it was because she was trying to tell the jury that MF could not have planted the glove because he would have been seen doing it. She had to account for 15 minutes of his time at Rockingham and she could not do it.

Petrocelli started this whole thing Arnelle and IMO, I agree with the media on this issue, he had nothing to back it up and none of the detectives ever said that Arnelle ever acted in any way that caused them to believe that she was involved with the clean up. If I remember correctly, there were detectives and LAPD members who felt that someone tried to clean up the Bronco but they couldn't really go into it because of the timeline and they did not want to give the impression that Simpson had any help at all. Which may have hurt them with the jury, IMO.

What is interesting is that both juries thought that not only was Kato on something but they felt he knew more then what he was saying. One civil trial juror, Orville (can't remember his last name) said that even Kato had more credibility then Simpson---which we know on his scale, Simpson was in negative numbers---It always appeared to me that Kato maybe was a solid 1 to 3 with the civil trial jury--at least one juror any way.

I think Kato did the best he could, I think MC tried to bully Kato and he was smart, he got a lawyer and would not testify without one. From that moment on Clark hated him. I think Kato knew that he was also a suspect and he was smart to lawyer up, IMO.

[martin II]

I don't think the detectives had a motive to lie because I don't think the 1995 prosecution made an issue of which door Arnelle led the detectives through.

I don't think that the cops would have tried to talk Kato into testifying to something. Most people thought Kato was erratic and it some cops thought he might be on drugs.

Kato is probably one of several people who may have committed perjury in the trial because I think he wrote a book that contradicted some of what he testified to.

Another point. It has been posted here that a point for the 1995 defense was that there was no blood found under the Rockingham glove. In Bugliosi's book he wrote that there were no tests done for blood in that area, not just under the glove.

I don't any links of courtroom testimony to back me up on this posting, but I think that the only testing for blood in that general area was by Henry Lee, he found some blood; but there wasn't enough blood to test for either DNA or blood type. I can't remember where the blood was. Maybe it was on the air conditioner or some wire in that area.

Arnell testified 7/95

[William Anthony]

Another point. It has been posted here that a point for the 1995 defense was that there was no blood found under the Rockingham glove. In Bugliosi's book he wrote that there were no tests done for blood in that area, not just under the glove.

MF said he investigated, saw no blood or disturbance of the leaves. Certainly, Bugliosi is not suggesting that someone cleaned off the leaves and a luminol test should have been done.:);):cool:

[GreenIce]

Establishing reasonable doubt was the defense task and they did a very good job of that. The talk about he was not found innocent is just noise made by those that were dissapointed that their ideas of what happened did not rule the day. imo

William,

JC did ask for the case to be dismissed. Isn't it a formality that when the Prosecution rests their case, the defense, even knowing that it will not be dismissed, asks that the case be dismissed because the DA's did not prove their case?

Also, the DA's made it impossible for the defense to rest their case and not put one. Don't forget, the DA's didn't call Roger Martz so they knew EDTA was found in the samples. They also had Dr. Lee and Dr. Gerdes and Dr. Reiders along with Larry Ragle.

I laughed when Clark said this in her book, if the defense thought there was case was so strong, they should have rested and not put a case on. I think the defense did gut the DA's case, but I think they nicely cut it up and seasoned it during their case in chief. IMO.

[William Anthony]

I don't any links of courtroom testimony to back me up on this posting, but I think that the only testing for blood in that general area was by Henry Lee, he found some blood; but there wasn't enough blood to test for either DNA or blood type. I can't remember where the blood was. Maybe it was on the air conditioner or some wire in that area.

Not true.

[William Anthony]

William,

JC did ask for the case to be dismissed. Isn't it a formality that when the Prosecution rests their case, the defense, even knowing that it will not be dismissed, asks that the case be dismissed because the DA's did not prove their case?

Also, the DA's made it impossible for the defense to rest their case and not put one. Don't forget, the DA's didn't call Roger Martz so they knew EDTA was found in the samples. They also had Dr. Lee and Dr. Gerdes and Dr. Reiders along with Larry Ragle.

I laughed when Clark said this in her book, if the defense thought there was case was so strong, they should have rested and not put a case on. I think the defense did gut the DA's case, but I think they nicely cut it up and seasoned it during their case in chief. IMO.

That is called a motion for acquittal in some jurisdictions but it is a motion for a directed verdict.

There was no way, imho, that the defense was not going to put on a case with the evidence they had.

That was just wishful desperate thinking on Ms. Clark's behalf, IMHO.

[GreenIce]

I have always believe the glove demo was too risky. Having heard verious sports people speak about ojs large hands the demo was doomed. imo

Some say the decision to do it was clarkes some say it was Dardens but i don't believe it would have happened with GG approval.

If the DAS office thought it was such a good idea why didn't Clarke do it. Why let Darden be the hero if they knew it was going to prove something.

It failed as expected with the full attention of the media and Darden was left
looking confused and angry.All of the blame fell on him.
That may be what cost him his job.

Martin,

Different books give different versions. Hank Goldberg's book says that Chris had the permission of the whole team to do the demo, VB's book says it was Clark's choice. If you read the sidebar, IMO, it is Clark's call because she made the comment that he would have to try the gloves on with the latex gloves underneath it.

IMO, the DA's were saying the gloves were his, they were bought by Nicole, so they should have planned this demonstration a long time ago. For Clark to now back away from it and the other DA's and blame Darden for it, IMO, is wrong. I have always posted that the only person who was really surprised they didn't fit was Darden.

I think they made it worse, if that was possible, was trying to say that it shrank and they used Rubin rather then an actual expert. Rubin might know gloves and weather conditions but I don't think he knows about blood, the glove being frozen, unfrozen, etc.

Both Darden and Clark were given huge checks and a lot of time off because of the amount time they spent on the case--which really angered some other DA's. IMO, they both deserved a lot of time off and I think even civil servants should be paid for overtime. I think they earned every time for what they went through in the media.

I don't think they would have fired Darden because they knew he was not at fault and he has made some comments since the trial where he has said or given the impression that the jury came back with the only legal verdict they could have.

I do believe Darden was a scapegoat, but then, IMO, so was MF and Fung as well as the jury. MC and GG lined them up, IMO.

[Its just me]

I do consider, since I have evolved, that the world doesn't revolve around me, which is why I think before opening my mouth in an attempt not to offend.

Yeah since when. You also may want to consider taking a good look in a mirror. I said absolutely nothing that should have offended anyone. I told my hubby about the chain pulling business and he just rolled his eyes in disgust. "who have pulled your chain" or some say "who yanked your chain" is a common saying to people. You can continue to make something out of nothing and continue to demean me if you choose....but frankly I don't care William. You just look even more foolish.

I personally think the whole charade is, “you don’t like what I post”. I'll say it again...put me on ignore.

imoo and imoo its disgusting. :rolleyes:

[GreenIce]

That is called a motion for acquittal in some jurisdictions but it is a motion for a directed verdict.

There was no way, imho, that the defense was not going to put on a case with the evidence they had.

That was just wishful desperate thinking on Ms. Clark's behalf, IMHO.

William,

According to Shapiro's book, the defense did not even put on their whole case, they only put about 40 percent of it on. This was done because they were losing jurors fast and because they really didn't need to put on the rest of it.

I agree with you about MC. IMO, she was trying to shift the burdern of proof to the defense and they did not fall for it.

[GreenIce]

Another point. It has been posted here that a point for the 1995 defense was that there was no blood found under the Rockingham glove. In Bugliosi's book he wrote that there were no tests done for blood in that area, not just under the glove.

I don't any links of courtroom testimony to back me up on this posting, but I think that the only testing for blood in that general area was by Henry Lee, he found some blood; but there wasn't enough blood to test for either DNA or blood type. I can't remember where the blood was. Maybe it was on the air conditioner or some wire in that area.

fgump2,

Perhaps you can explain why that area was not searched and searched for trace evidence? For them not to do any testing makes no sense. Just like at least one detective who said he was not looking for any type of evidence once he found the glove.

What concerns me is that this type of testimony makes no sense and when I add in all the evidence was "lost" or not collected, I have to ask that perhaps tests were conducted and other evidence was found but it did not point to OJ Simpson and IMO, there was alot of "loss and toss" evidence.

Dennis Fung I believe found some blood on a wire that was overhanging the walk way. However, it could not even be determined if it was human blood or not. As for the AC unit, I think that the results were inconclusive for blood.

However, think about this, how did Simpson only manage to drip one drop of blood and one drop of blood not only went straight up, but it latched on to a wire like it had claws? And, if it was blood on the AC unit, how did manage again, drip on drop and have the results turn out be inconclusive?

You have always remember what evidence was not collected, was not pictured and what was lost. IMO.

[GreenIce]

A lot of lawyers have commented on this issue, and as far as I know, they say that people are free to call Mr. Simpson a murderer if they think he is. Legal innocence and moral innocence are not the same issue.

fgump2,

IMO, if these same lawyers say that people are free to call Mr. Simpson a murderer, then these same lawyers are saying it is also okay to call the cops and the detectives in this case corrupt and crooked.

It seems to me that many G's--not all of them, have transfered their own morals and sense of justice to the detectives and the DA's in this case. While using these very same morals to judge the defense.

It is very tricky situation when you use own morals to judge the players in this trial---IMO.

[Its just me]

Tell us in what criminal trial was there a motion to dismiss the case made, because the defendant was innocent. I have given it a second look after considering the idea of a demmure and found that they do allow motion's to dismiss but not on the basis of innocence.

http://www.rooneylawfirm.com/CM/Criminal-Defense/Dismissal-Defenses.asp


http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090914/SPORTS05/909140327

Judge denies motion to dismiss Stinson charges

Judge Susan Schultz Gibson had warned the prosecution last month that its experts would have to prove that Stinson's actions led to Max's death if they wanted to survive a directed verdict, the point in the trial where the prosecution has presented its case and the defense asks that charges be dismissed for lack of evidence.

[tv]

A lot of lawyers have commented on this issue, and as far as I know, they say that people are free to call Mr. Simpson a murderer if they think he is. Legal innocence and moral innocence are not the same issue.

The presumption of innocence applies only to the trier of facts, whether it's a juror or a judge -- it is to be presumed that the state is unable to support its case until evidence is presented that proves otherwise. This is a LEGAL term as opposed to a FACTUAL term and it doesn't apply to anyone on this message board or anyone else in the public discussing this case or offering an opinion. It doesn't matter how much the font is enlarged or how rudely the assertion is pushed -- the fact remains that legal non-guilt and factual non-guilt are not the same thing. Imo, OJ Simpson is factually guilty of killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown and always will be.

[Its just me]

Tell us in what criminal trial was there a motion to dismiss the case made, because the defendant was innocent. I have given it a second look after considering the idea of a demmure and found that they do allow motion's to dismiss but not on the basis of innocence.

http://www.rooneylawfirm.com/CM/Criminal-Defense/Dismissal-Defenses.asp


http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1999/12/22/ (http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1999/12/22/)





Judge dismisses case against Larry Carroll


By Tim Grenda
The Press-Enterprise
RANCHO CUCAMONGA


Former television newscaster Larry Carroll was cleared of criminal charges Tuesday when a judge halted a trial and dismissed allegations that Carroll and another man participated in an investment scam targeting a desert businessman.
Carroll, 49, of Chatsworth and Ronald Long, 48, of Scottsdale, Ariz., faced five felony investment fraud counts stemming from charges that they tried last year to defraud Newberry Springs businessman Terry Christensen of $2.3 million.
Carroll and Long were accused of offering Christensen nonexistent securities and promising huge financial rewards if Christensen, an owner of the Lake Delores water park near Barstow, agreed to place his money in high-yield investment programs the two men were involved with. But Superior Court Judge J. Michael Welch, responding to motions by Carroll's attorneys to dismiss the case, ruled Tuesday morning that prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence showing Carroll was involved in the alleged scheme and ended the trial before a jury could deliberate.


Carroll, who was testifying in his own defense when the case was thrown out, said he hoped the judge's decision would send a message to those who put him on trial.
"I hope it will send a resounding message to the prosecutors that you just don't spend millions of dollars to prosecute people who are clearly innocent," Carroll said.
Carroll's attorneys called the judge's ruling an "early Christmas present" for their client. "We never had any doubt of his innocence from the start," said attorney Thomas A. Mesereau said.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Its just me]

The presumption of innocence applies only to the trier of facts, whether it's a juror or a judge -- it is to be presumed that the state is unable to support its case until evidence is presented that proves otherwise. This is a LEGAL term as opposed to a FACTUAL term and it doesn't apply to anyone on this message board or anyone else in the public discussing this case or offering an opinion. It doesn't matter how much the font is enlarged or how rudely the assertion is pushed -- the fact remains that legal non-guilt and factual non-guilt are not the same thing. Imo, OJ Simpson is factually guilty of killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown and always will be.


:beer:

[William Anthony]

Yeah since when. You also may want to consider taking a good look in a mirror. I said absolutely nothing that should have offended anyone. I told my hubby about the chain pulling business and he just rolled his eyes in disgust. "who have pulled your chain" or some say "who yanked your chain" is a common saying to people. You can continue to make something out of nothing and continue to demean me if you choose....but frankly I don't care William. You just look even more foolish.

I personally think the whole charade is, “you don’t like what I post”. I'll say it again...put me on ignore.

imoo and imoo its disgusting. :rolleyes:

Quite untrue and I enjoy a good debate, meaning one in which points are argued respectfully. I don't know if hubby is Black or not or that he feels as I do, so, with all due respect, his rolling of the eyes is irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the issue.

[William Anthony]

William,

According to Shapiro's book, the defense did not even put on their whole case, they only put about 40 percent of it on. This was done because they were losing jurors fast and because they really didn't need to put on the rest of it.

I agree with you about MC. IMO, she was trying to shift the burdern of proof to the defense and they did not fall for it.

GreenIce,

The sophisticated jury saw through the massive holes in the prosecution's case, imho, but still need some points rebutted, which the defense did in their case in chief, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090914/SPORTS05/909140327

Judge denies motion to dismiss Stinson charges

Judge Susan Schultz Gibson had warned the prosecution last month that its experts would have to prove that Stinson's actions led to Max's death if they wanted to survive a directed verdict, the point in the trial where the prosecution has presented its case and the defense asks that charges be dismissed for lack of evidence.

Now, do you understand? "Judge Susan Schultz Gibson had warned the prosecution last month that its experts would have to prove that Stinson's actions led to Max's death if they wanted to survive a directed verdict, the point in the trial where the prosecution has presented its case and the defense asks that charges be dismissed for lack of evidence."

The motion is called a directed verdict in which the charges are asked to be dismissed (the author of the article, apparently not a practitioner in the legal profession called it a motion to dismiss but the judge called it a motion for a directed verdict) not because the defendant was innocent but because of a lack of evidence to prove the defendant's guilt.

[William Anthony]

The presumption of innocence applies only to the trier of facts, whether it's a juror or a judge -- it is to be presumed that the state is unable to support its case until evidence is presented that proves otherwise. This is a LEGAL term as opposed to a FACTUAL term and it doesn't apply to anyone on this message board or anyone else in the public discussing this case or offering an opinion. It doesn't matter how much the font is enlarged or how rudely the assertion is pushed -- the fact remains that legal non-guilt and factual non-guilt are not the same thing. Imo, OJ Simpson is factually guilty of killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown and always will be.

Thank you as many on this board seem to forget they should be expressing opinions and stating things as facts. That is what I said, which is everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is different from saying anyone can call anyone anything, because they thinks someone is something. Factually, Simpson was found not guilty and, consequently, the presumption of innocence forever remains with Simpson and, factually, because of the concept of double jeopardy that presumption can never be rebutted.

[William Anthony]

http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1999/12/22/ (http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1999/12/22/)





Judge dismisses case against Larry Carroll


By Tim Grenda
The Press-Enterprise
RANCHO CUCAMONGA


Former television newscaster Larry Carroll was cleared of criminal charges Tuesday when a judge halted a trial and dismissed allegations that Carroll and another man participated in an investment scam targeting a desert businessman.
Carroll, 49, of Chatsworth and Ronald Long, 48, of Scottsdale, Ariz., faced five felony investment fraud counts stemming from charges that they tried last year to defraud Newberry Springs businessman Terry Christensen of $2.3 million.
Carroll and Long were accused of offering Christensen nonexistent securities and promising huge financial rewards if Christensen, an owner of the Lake Delores water park near Barstow, agreed to place his money in high-yield investment programs the two men were involved with. But Superior Court Judge J. Michael Welch, responding to motions by Carroll's attorneys to dismiss the case, ruled Tuesday morning that prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence showing Carroll was involved in the alleged scheme and ended the trial before a jury could deliberate.


Carroll, who was testifying in his own defense when the case was thrown out, said he hoped the judge's decision would send a message to those who put him on trial.
"I hope it will send a resounding message to the prosecutors that you just don't spend millions of dollars to prosecute people who are clearly innocent," Carroll said.
Carroll's attorneys called the judge's ruling an "early Christmas present" for their client. "We never had any doubt of his innocence from the start," said attorney Thomas A. Mesereau said.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I see why you are confused but look at why the case was thrown out and forget the obliter dicta of those wanting to get their five minutes of fame. The reason the case was thrown out was "But Superior Court Judge J. Michael Welch, responding to motions by Carroll's attorneys to dismiss the case, ruled Tuesday morning that prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence showing Carroll was involved in the alleged scheme and ended the trial before a jury could deliberate." Despite what the lawyer said about his belief in his client's innocence or what the client said, it is not what the judge's ruling meant. Thanks for your assistance.

[William Anthony]

:beer:

I see many do not understand. See post #16710. :);):cool:

[bobaugust]

Mr. Augusts,

The detectives had more reasons to lie then Arnelle. MF testimony does not support what Kato testified. Kato was mistaken on a key points. As I post before, Kato told VA about the thumps while they were outside. VA's testimony is in direct conflict of Kato's and MF's.

It also important to remember, Arnelle testified about this for the first time in the prelim hearing. VA and the other detectives did not testify about this in the Grand Jury hearing nor did they testify about this in the prelim hearing.

In reading Petrocelli's cross of Arnelle, it is clear he keeps switching to different doors to try to trip her up and when he can't, he then asks her how tired and upset she was that morning.

I think it was Dan Leonard who point blanked asked Arnelle if she was aware that all three detectives testified to entering a different door and she said yes. Petrocelli objected, stating Leonard (I think it was Leonard) was mistating their testimony. So doesn't this mean that Petrocelli was saying there was no door conflict?

What part of Fuhrman’s testimony do you think doesn’t support what Kaelin testified to?

Yes you have said that Kaelin told Vannatter about the thumps while they were outside yet you have never supported that claim. Post the testimony where Kaelin said that please. Be sure and include the date.

You are incorrect about the preliminary hearing testimony. Fuhrman, Vannatter, and Kaelin testified they entered the back of the house. Petrocelli objected to Leonard’s question as a mischaracterization of the testimony saying Leonard misstated the details of the detectives’ testimony, and he had. Leonard had said the detectives testified that Arnelle had to open a lock with the keys. The detectives never said that, the judge agreed and the question was stricken.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

YES IT DOES.


The detectives all lied. One of the reasons was they were trying to connect the doors to the washing machine and got confused as to what to say.

Your accusation is false. The detectives didn’t lie; their testimony was corroborated by Kato Kaelin.

[bobaugust]

Due to your use of the word we, I must ask you if you have mice in your pocket.:) Again you believe. However, you state as fact that the detectives were mistaken but Ms. Arnelle lied when she testified to the same thing the detectives did. Why is that bobaugust? No need to answer, because I BELIEVE WE KNOW.

“We” is everyone who understands the fact that Kato Kaelin corroborated the three detective’s testimony that Arnelle led them into Simpson’s house through the back door.

The three detectives did not testify to the same thing Arnelle did. They were talking about the BACK door of the house and Arnelle was talking about the FRONT door of the house. Arnelle lied when she said she took the detectives around the house to the front door to let them into the house. Five witnesses impeached Arnelle’s testimony proving that she lied about that.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

So you accused me for something you claim another poster did but now you say this, " You avoided saying those exact words but in essence you did call the detectives and Kaelin liars by falsely claiming the evidence supports your illogical inference..." I have never published anything in Essence, so stop with the false accusations. :);):cool:

It’s funny how you cut off the relevant portion of what you posted. You’re the one who said “the evidence supports an inference that Arnelle told the truth and all the others lied.”

You claim my accusation is false and I say it is not. We can easily determine who is right if you simply answer yes or no to two simple questions.

Do you think the three detectives lied when they said Arnelle opened the back door of the house and they all entered the house through that back door?

Do you think Kato Kaelin lied when he testified that when he was outside his room he saw Arnelle enter the house leading the three detectives with a key in her hand?

A simple yes or no or no answer from you will make it clear if my accusation is true or false.

bobaugust

[martin II]

fgump2,

Perhaps you can explain why that area was not searched and searched for trace evidence? For them not to do any testing makes no sense. Just like at least one detective who said he was not looking for any type of evidence once he found the glove.

What concerns me is that this type of testimony makes no sense and when I add in all the evidence was "lost" or not collected, I have to ask that perhaps tests were conducted and other evidence was found but it did not point to OJ Simpson and IMO, there was alot of "loss and toss" evidence.

Dennis Fung I believe found some blood on a wire that was overhanging the walk way. However, it could not even be determined if it was human blood or not. As for the AC unit, I think that the results were inconclusive for blood.

However, think about this, how did Simpson only manage to drip one drop of blood and one drop of blood not only went straight up, but it latched on to a wire like it had claws? And, if it was blood on the AC unit, how did manage again, drip on drop and have the results turn out be inconclusive?

You have always remember what evidence was not collected, was not pictured and what was lost. IMO.

There was a Small wire on top of the fense found some time later that was sighly bent. Wagber gave two possible reason for the bent wire.
1. The gardner that trimmed the hedges later had bent it with the trimjming tools used.
2. That the photographer that took the overhead picture of the glove was standing on top of the fense when he took the picture and bent the wire in doing so.

As far as the air conditioner is concerned Clarke said oj jumped the fense bumped into the air conditioner three times and dropped the glove. but the pictures shows the glove further up the walkway than the air conditioner. imo

[William Anthony]

“We” is everyone who understands the fact that Kato Kaelin corroborated the three detective’s testimony that Arnelle led them into Simpson’s house through the back door.

The three detectives did not testify to the same thing Arnelle did. They were talking about the BACK door of the house and Arnelle was talking about the FRONT door of the house. Arnelle lied when she said she took the detectives around the house to the front door to let them into the house. Five witnesses impeached Arnelle’s testimony proving that she lied about that.

bobaugust

So, Am I correct to assume that "we", includes you and your alter egos?

They all testified and collaborated Ms. Arnelle's testimony that she unlocked the door and let them in. The defense showed that the only door that could be unlocked was the font door. If you feel that Ms. Arnelle lied, then so did the detectives. Perhaps, you are not aware that depending on whom one finds most credible the testimony of the few can outweigh the testimony of the many but, I do believe I understand why you say that the detectives were simply mistaken but the beautiful Ms. Arnelle lied.

[William Anthony]

It’s funny how you cut off the relevant portion of what you posted. You’re the one who said “the evidence supports an inference that Arnelle told the truth and all the others lied.”

You claim my accusation is false and I say it is not. We can easily determine who is right if you simply answer yes or no to two simple questions.

Do you think the three detectives lied when they said Arnelle opened the back door of the house and they all entered the house through that back door?

Do you think Kato Kaelin lied when he testified that when he was outside his room he saw Arnelle enter the house leading the three detectives with a key in her hand?

A simple yes or no or no answer from you will make it clear if my accusation is true or false.

bobaugust

What difference does it matter what I cut off, when you said this, "" You avoided saying those exact words..." as you had falsely claimed that I called people liars. There was no need for me to post the rest of what I said as you rudely, uncivilly and disrespectfully said this in regard to my inference, "...by falsely claiming the evidence supports your illogical inference..."

The evidence allows me to draw the reasonable inference that the detectives lied.

I respectfully decline to answer the question on the basis of relevancy, since there is direct undisputed evidence that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door with a key and let the detectives in. However, in order to make my response clear, since the evidence is that the only door that was able to be unlocked with a key was the front door, then the evidence allows me to draw the reasonable inference that Kato lied.

[martin II]

Carroll case

It seems to me that the truth of why Casrrolls case was dismissed rest in the fudges words as to why he dismissed the charges.NOT what his lawyer though.

His reason is below.

"But Superior Court Judge J. Michael Welch, responding to motions by Carroll's attorneys to dismiss the case, ruled Tuesday morning that prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence showing Carroll was involved in the alleged scheme and ended the trial before a jury could deliberate."

Carroll could have been guilty but the prosecution did not present enough evidence for the judge to allow the trial to continue.

The directed verdict was for lack of evidence nothing else.

[Its just me]

I see why you are confused but look at why the case was thrown out and forget the obliter dicta of those wanting to get their five minutes of fame. The reason the case was thrown out was "But Superior Court Judge J. Michael Welch, responding to motions by Carroll's attorneys to dismiss the case, ruled Tuesday morning that prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence showing Carroll was involved in the alleged scheme and ended the trial before a jury could deliberate." Despite what the lawyer said about his belief in his client's innocence or what the client said, it is not what the judge's ruling meant. Thanks for your assistance.

I'm not confused William. I've have enough sense to know this case is not OJ's and that it was dismissed because the prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence and it would have worked the same if there had been evidence presented to prove innocence....You claim a case can not be dismissed because someone is proven innocent during the trial in a criminal case and it can be and you can spin your law knowledge or lack of any way you want. From what I've seen you could use a few more classes at law school but that's just my opinion.

The fact remains OJ was never proven innocent.... only not guilty by reasonable doubt. The civil trial found him liable (responsible)for Ron Goldmans death and the world keeps turning. Its is what it is. Period

[William Anthony]

Carroll case

It seems to me that the truth of why Casrrolls case was dismissed rest in the fudges words as to why he dismissed the charges.NOT what his lawyer though.

His reason is below.

"But Superior Court Judge J. Michael Welch, responding to motions by Carroll's attorneys to dismiss the case, ruled Tuesday morning that prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence showing Carroll was involved in the alleged scheme and ended the trial before a jury could deliberate."

Carroll could have been guilty but the prosecution did not present enough evidence for the judge to allow the trial to continue.

The directed verdict was for lack of evidence nothing else.

Martin,

Should God allow me to pursue my dream, would you consider attending law school and, we could open a partnership, since you have shown an understanding of the law?

[Its just me]

I've always wondered -- sometimes outloud on this board -- why the defense never released/used any of their test results during the criminal and/or civil trials. You would think that they would have used the results to back up their claims. . .:confused:

Because it didn't back up their claim....The only thing the defense had was to discredit those who presented evidence to prove OJ murdered both Ron and Nicole. OJ's hair in the cap (among other things) is very telling but some will say that was planted too.

The same thing goes on at this board.

[William Anthony]

I'm not confused William. I've have enough sense to know this case is not OJ's and that it was dismissed because the prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence and it would have worked the same if there had been evidence presented to prove innocence....You claim a case can not be dismissed because someone is proven innocent during the trial in a criminal case and it can be and you can spin your law knowledge or lack of any way you want. From what I've seen you could use a few more classes at law school but that's just my opinion.

The fact remains OJ was never proven innocent.... only not guilty by reasonable doubt. The civil trial found him liable (responsible)for Ron Goldmans death and the world keeps turning. Its is what it is. Period

Of course, I could use a few more classes, since lawyers are required, if I am correct, to have continuing education classes. Have you taken any? You say you are not confused, so explain this statement, "...it was dismissed because the prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence and it would have worked the same if there had been evidence presented to prove innocence...", perhaps, then we can have a discussion on what you are thinking and what the law is. However, let me save some time. You want to assign (if this was not a bench trial) to the judge the ability to weigh and give credibility to the evidence, by saying that the judge could have decided innocence by saying the evidence proved innocence, if there was any evidence leaning toward guilt. Here the judge is saying that there was evidence leaning toward guilt but that evidence was insufficient to prove guilt. The judges have usurped the ability to determine the sufficiency of the evidence, imho, but they theoretically have not yet usurped the power to give weight and credibility to the evidence.

It is not my claim that the case against a defendant is never dismissed, because the defendant was found innocent. That it the law. The trial is not about whether the defendant is innocent or not but about whether the state has sufficient, relevant evidence, when given weight and credibility, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged. (Criminal Law, 101)

You are exactly correct and Simpson will forever retain the presumption of innocence and, consequently, because of the concept of double jeopardy that presumption can not be rebutted.

[William Anthony]

Because it didn't back up their claim....The only thing the defense had was to discredit those who presented evidence to prove OJ murdered both Ron and Nicole. OJ's hair in the cap (among other things) is very telling but some will say that was planted too.

The same thing goes on at this board.

Because they were not obligated to so do.

[William Anthony]

Ha....I'd sure like to see the circus you guys would have in a court room.
ETA: Martin would say something that makes no sense and William would speak up with not much more and Martin would act like he knew that all along. snicker. but it's all my not so humble opinion.:);):cool:

You may very well one day have you likes fulfilled.

Martin would speak in the common sense area, which William would relate to the law. What a winning team and I can hear our praises being sung on Broadway, The Appolo, America's Got Talent, American Idol and churches and schools all across America. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Martin,

Different books give different versions. Hank Goldberg's book says that Chris had the permission of the whole team to do the demo, VB's book says it was Clark's choice. If you read the sidebar, IMO, it is Clark's call because she made the comment that he would have to try the gloves on with the latex gloves underneath it. I did read the sidebar and saw Clarks remarks. so you comment is true

IMO, the DA's were saying the gloves were his, they were bought by Nicole, so they should have planned this demonstration a long time ago. For Clark to now back away from it and the other DA's and blame Darden for it, IMO, is wrong. I have always posted that the only person who was really surprised they didn't fit was Darden.I am sure Rubin made a big mistake when he measured ojs hands and he then told Darden the gloves would fit. Darden had bad info from Rubin which gave him false confidence

I think they made it worse, if that was possible, was trying to say that it shrank and they used Rubin rather then an actual expert. Rubin might know gloves and weather conditions but I don't think he knows about blood, the glove being frozen, unfrozen, etc. The glove shrinkage was a after thought to try to explain the failure .Rubin came up with this after the demo.
He had no proof that the gloves had done so. just his word and under cross he contridicted his own testimony on this.

Both Darden and Clark were given huge checks and a lot of time off because of the amount time they spent on the case--which really angered some other DA's. IMO, they both deserved a lot of time off and I think even civil servants should be paid for overtime. I think they earned every time for what they went through in the media.

I don't think they would have fired Darden because they knew he was not at fault and he has made some comments since the trial where he has said or given the impression that the jury came back with the only legal verdict they could have. Making that type comment could get him fired. He would be considerted as geeting off message.

I do believe Darden was a scapegoat, but then, IMO, so was MF and Fung as well as the jury. MC and GG lined them up, IMO.

Rubin was just a salesman. He was not a glove expert.He was used because of his willingness to suppoort what the prosecution claimed ragardless. Obviously The current glove expert at Aris was not willing to testify. The prosecution needed a Leather expert they only had a salesman.

Clarke was also responsible for the demo as she approved the latex and then claimed IT was at fault. Darden was only a junior prosecutor right?
Shaperio tried the gloves on the night before and knew they would not fit.Oj also knew they would not fit.
There was also testimony from witnesses that were surprised at the very large size of ojs hands wonder why Rubin did not see the same.

I blame two issues for the gloves not fitting
1. Rubin faulty calculations
2. OJ never wore those gloves. imo

[martin II]

Martin,

Should God allow me to pursue my dream, would you consider attending law school and, we could open a partnership, since you have shown an understanding of the law?

I would suggest that most with a junior school understanding of english words
words would read the judges decision and know the directed verdict was for lack of evidence nothing else. Arguments to anything else Is what i like to call noise of no value in a discussion of law.imo:cool:

Saying stuff with abrasiveness and rudeness does make the comment any more truthful. That i kinow.

[martin II]

Has anyone found Arnells depo. I don't think the defense would have it as she testified first or early.Who did it?

[tv]

Yeah since when. You also may want to consider taking a good look in a mirror. I said absolutely nothing that should have offended anyone. I told my hubby about the chain pulling business and he just rolled his eyes in disgust. "who have pulled your chain" or some say "who yanked your chain" is a common saying to people. You can continue to make something out of nothing and continue to demean me if you choose....but frankly I don't care William. You just look even more foolish.

I personally think the whole charade is, “you don’t like what I post”. I'll say it again...put me on ignore.

imoo and imoo its disgusting. :rolleyes:

All reasonable people know that's a common saying. Some people are just looking to pick a fight. That entire temper tantrum regarding the 'chain yanking' would have been funny if it weren't so ugly and childish. I think I speak for several posters when I say I'm tired of watching every word and avoiding words and phrases I've innocently used all my life because someone might use them against me or nitpick an argument. You said nothing wrong and everyone here knows it.

My husband did the eyeroll when I told him too. :rolleyes:

[martin II]

Because it didn't back up their claim....The only thing the defense had was to discredit those who presented evidence to prove OJ murdered both Ron and Nicole. OJ's hair in the cap (among other things) is very telling but some will say that was planted too.

The same thing goes on at this board.

The purpose of cross in the CJS is to give the defense a opportunity to test the truthfulness of the prosecutions witnesses in front of the jury. When the defenhse give the jury reasonable doubt of the testimony of a witness there is nothing elose for them to do. Take MARTZ, RUBIN, AM, G Sims, Vanhatter,Furhman, P fujenves sp as examples. These peoiple were impeached in front of the jury. The defense had sense enough to know that they had shown the jury that those testimonies could not be believed.There was no reason to do anything. As has been said the prosecution tried to shift the responsibility of proof from themselves to the defense but Cochran was smart enough and was having none of it and was not getting bogged down in that nonsense. The dream team keep their eye on their objective, create doubt that the prosecution witnesses could not be believed and they did a very good job of confronting those lies and faulty testimony. Good idea if you ask me and this set them apart from the prosecution.imo
The defense had no responsibility to prove anything in the CJS so why ask them to.:cool:

[William Anthony]

I would suggest that most with a junior school understanding of english words
words would read the judges decision and know the directed verdict was for lack of evidence nothing else. Arguments to anything else Is what i like to call noise of no value in a discussion of law.imo:cool:

Saying stuff with abrasiveness and rudeness does make the comment any more truthful. That i kinow.

Often times people's eyesight is altered by the opaque mist of their inability to see what is before their eyes but rely on the romanticized views of others.

[martin II]

All reasonable people know that's a common saying. Some people are just looking to pick a fight. That entire temper tantrum regarding the 'chain yanking' would have been funny if it weren't so ugly and childish. I think I speak for several posters when I say I'm tired of watching every word and avoiding words and phrases I've innoncently used all my life because someone might use them against me or nitpick an argument. You said nothing wrong and everyone here knows it.

My husband did the eyeroll when I told him too. :rolleyes:

tv

Do you believe the judge in the carroll case issued the directed verdict for the reasons he stated or for another reasoin?

[GreenIce]

Because it didn't back up their claim....The only thing the defense had was to discredit those who presented evidence to prove OJ murdered both Ron and Nicole. OJ's hair in the cap (among other things) is very telling but some will say that was planted too.

The same thing goes on at this board.

IJM,

Why would the defense have to conduct their own tests when the testing was already completed and proved what they were saying, key blood evidence contained EDTA? Was their test going to come out any different? The DA's sent the evidence to the FBI asking the agent to refute the defense's claim and when he could not do this, they did not call him as a witness. The defense also called another expert to the stand and confirmed the FBI results. The DA's never called an expert to refute their own expert's results.

Also, there is no proof that the defense was given any samples to test or how much of it they were given to test and how much time was left in the trial. The state is in total control of the evidence and the defense had to file motion upon motion to get the DA's to provide them the "left overs". The DA's fought tooth and nail to deny the defense any samples as well as used up valuable time.

IMO, the bottom line is that defense did not have do their own tests because the DA's already did them and the results were in their favor. IMO, all three FBI witnesses appeared to be advocates for the DA's rather then neutral witnesses, IMO.

Also, Dr. Gerdes already found contamination in the results of Dr. Cotton's test. So overall, the defense hit a grand slam homerun with the blood evidence. And they did not need the bottom of the ninth to do this. It was not a "walk off" grand slam. IMO.

[William Anthony]

The purpose of cross in the CJS is to give the defense a opportunity to test the truthfulness of the prosecutions witnesses in front of the jury. When the defenhse give the jury reasonable doubt of the testimony of a witness there is nothing elose for them to do. Take MARTZ, RUBIN, AM, G Sims, Vanhatter,Furhman, P fujenves sp as examples. These peoiple were impeached in front of the jury. The defense had sense enough to know that they had shown the jury that those testimonies could not be believed.There was no reason to do anything. As has been said the prosecution tried to shift the responsibility of proof from themselves to the defense but Cochran was smart enough and was having none of it and was not getting bogged down in that nonsense. The dream team keep their eye on their objective, create doubt that the prosecution witnesses could not be believed and they did a very good job of confronting those lies and faulty testimony. Good idea if you ask me and this set them apart from the prosecution.imo
The defense had no responsibility to prove anything in the CJS so why ask them to.:cool:

Martin,

Partner, one minor correction, if you will, the defense did not create doubt why the evidence should not be trusted. The defense provided evidence that the prosecution's evidence should not be trusted.

[William Anthony]

IJM,

Why would the defense have to conduct their own tests when the testing was already completed and proved what they were saying, key blood evidence contained EDTA? Was their test going to come out any different? The DA's sent the evidence to the FBI asking the agent to refute the defense's claim and when he could not do this, they did not call him as a witness. The defense also called another expert to the stand and confirmed the FBI results. The DA's never called an expert to refute their own expert's results.

Also, there is no proof that the defense was given any samples to test or how much of it they were given to test and how much time was left in the trial. The state is in total control of the evidence and the defense had to file motion upon motion to get the DA's to provide them the "left overs". The DA's fought tooth and nail to deny the defense any samples as well as used up valuable time.

IMO, the bottom line is that defense did not have do their own tests because the DA's already did them and the results were in their favor. IMO, all three FBI witnesses appeared to be advocates for the DA's rather then neutral witnesses, IMO.

Also, Dr. Gerdes already found contamination in the results of Dr. Cotton's test. So overall, the defense hit a grand slam homerun with the blood evidence. And they did not need the bottom of the ninth to do this. It was not a "walk off" grand slam. IMO.

GreenIce,

You just made me hungry for breakfast!!.:) That grand slam breakfast.

[martin II]

Martin,

Partner, one minor correction, if you will, the defense did not create doubt why the evidence should not be trusted. The defense provided evidence that the prosecution's evidence should not be trusted.

William
Thanks for the correction.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

You just made me hungry for breakfast!!.:) That grand slam breakfast.

William,

I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing---watch the waistline!:)

[William Anthony]

William,

I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing---watch the waistline!:)

Despite the ravages of time, I am determined to stay slim in the waist and cute in the face. :)

[William Anthony]

William
Thanks for the correction.

No problem partner and feel free to do the same for me.

[martin II]

IJM,

Why would the defense have to conduct their own tests when the testing was already completed and proved what they were saying, key blood evidence contained EDTA? Was their test going to come out any different? The DA's sent the evidence to the FBI asking the agent to refute the defense's claim and when he could not do this, they did not call him as a witness. The defense also called another expert to the stand and confirmed the FBI results. The DA's never called an expert to refute their own expert's results.

Also, there is no proof that the defense was given any samples to test or how much of it they were given to test and how much time was left in the trial. The state is in total control of the evidence and the defense had to file motion upon motion to get the DA's to provide them the "left overs". The DA's fought tooth and nail to deny the defense any samples as well as used up valuable time.

IMO, the bottom line is that defense did not have do their own tests because the DA's already did them and the results were in their favor. IMO, all three FBI witnesses appeared to be advocates for the DA's rather then neutral witnesses, IMO.

Also, Dr. Gerdes already found contamination in the results of Dr. Cotton's test. So overall, the defense hit a grand slam homerun with the blood evidence. And they did not need the bottom of the ninth to do this. It was not a "walk off" grand slam. IMO.


Gi
Well said and explained.

I have always felt that that question is one asked by those on the loosing side with nothing much to say for the loss.
It reminds me of Rubin when the glove did not fit. The next day he created
some false shrinkage excuse as to why the glove didn't fit.

When Cotton told the jury that she had no idea how the blood was collected and how it was handeled and the jury knew vannater ran off with ojs blood samples it was time for the jury to take a nap.imo

I guess some felt a need for digging around looking for some excuse to attack the successful defense. imo

[martin II]

William,

I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing---watch the waistline!:)

I am about to chop down on some blueberry pancakes myself.

[GreenIce]

What part of Fuhrman’s testimony do you think doesn’t support what Kaelin testified to?

Yes you have said that Kaelin told Vannatter about the thumps while they were outside yet you have never supported that claim. Post the testimony where Kaelin said that please. Be sure and include the date.

You are incorrect about the preliminary hearing testimony. Fuhrman, Vannatter, and Kaelin testified they entered the back of the house. Petrocelli objected to Leonard’s question as a mischaracterization of the testimony saying Leonard misstated the details of the detectives’ testimony, and he had. Leonard had said the detectives testified that Arnelle had to open a lock with the keys. The detectives never said that, the judge agreed and the question was stricken.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You know MF's testimony, probably by heart. You know for a fact that he testified that he saw an open door and that is how he entered the house and that is why he did not have to ask Kato which door to use. He made it clear had that door not been open, he would have had to ask Kato which door to use.

You also know Kato's testimony. You already know the holes in testimony. You will respond that Kato was either mistaken or this is when he planted himself in the Simpson camp.

Marcia Clark clearly established what door was used in prelim hearing. It was only in the criminal trial she made an issue of this and not because of anything Arnelle did but it was to give the impression that MF was under observation or could be seen at all times and that is why it was impossible for him to have plant the glove.

It is clear the detectives had to tell the same story to protect the search warrant and in doing so, they lost credibility. Do you really think it takes 3 detectives to make a formal notification over the phone?

Also, they claimed that a major reason they went over the fence because of single drop of blood on the bronco. This caused horror and panic in these fine gentleman, surely these men were not telling tales just to justify their warrantless entry?

The bottom line with the door debate is that Arnelle should never have been used a human shield and since she was, this totally destroys the detectives' reasons for entering the main house.

When they knew that Simpson was not at home, they should have left the property. Of course they already knew he was not home so that is why MF started "detecting" after having quit do so a few hours earlier.

[William Anthony]

I am about to chop down on some blueberry pancakes myself.

I fixed some yesterday and could not find the sugar free syrup and did not feel like getting dressed and going to the store, so guess what? I am sure my sugar level spiked. :)

[GreenIce]

Gi
Well said and explained.

I have always felt that that question is one asked by those on the loosing side with nothing much to say for the loss.
It reminds me of Rubin when the glove did not fit. The next day he created
some false shrinkage excuse as to why the glove didn't fit.

When Cotton told the jury that she had no idea how the blood was collected and how it was handeled and the jury knew vannater ran off with ojs blood samples it was time for the jury to take a nap.imo

I guess some felt a need for digging around looking for some excuse to attack the successful defense. imo

Martin,

Come to think of it, shouldn't Dr. Cotton have noticed that the reference samples of Ron and Nicole were in fact contaminated when she received them? I think I read it right, the contamination had to have happened either at Cellmark or at the crime lab in LA. If this had to be pointed out to her by the defense, Dr. Cotton's testimony even lost more of it's "punch".

I think she was a total waste of a witness, no ever expected her results to say anything different then what she did say. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Because it didn't back up their claim....The only thing the defense had was to discredit those who presented evidence to prove OJ murdered both Ron and Nicole. OJ's hair in the cap (among other things) is very telling but some will say that was planted too.

The same thing goes on at this board.

IJM,

IMO, any witness who was discredited by the defense for whatever reason, handed over a list of items for the defense to use against them. It is unfair to say that the defense discredited them only when they pointed out the obvious.

IMO, the defense just asked very senseable and logical questions and pointed out the obvious. A great example is the socks. How could 4 or 5 state experts, who's job it is find blood where it can't been seen by the naked eye not use the proper equipment? The socks were the most important piece of evidence in this case and yet no one thought to use the right equipment? Would you believe that if you were a juror?

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Come to think of it, shouldn't Dr. Cotton have noticed that the reference samples of Ron and Nicole were in fact contaminated when she received them? I think I read it right, the contamination had to have happened either at Cellmark or at the crime lab in LA. If this had to be pointed out to her by the defense, Dr. Cotton's testimony even lost more of it's "punch".

I think she was a total waste of a witness, no ever expected her results to say anything different then what she did say. IMO.

GreenIce,

When I went to review Dr. Cotton's testimony, Iu found this,

"MR. COCHRAN: May we inquire who will be called after Mr. Douroux?

MR. DARDEN: Dr. Cotton.

THE COURT: Robin Cotton.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may I address the Court on another matter?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I have arranged with Mr. Hodgman to have Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Barbara Wolf here today. They are presently--actually Dr. Baden is testifying next door for the Prosecution in another case."

I think I would have tried to make as much headway as possible in regard to Dr. Baden, if I was on the defense team.

[William Anthony]

IJM,

IMO, any witness who was discredited by the defense for whatever reason, handed over a list of items for the defense to use against them. It is unfair to say that the defense discredited them only when they pointed out the obvious.

IMO, the defense just asked very senseable and logical questions and pointed out the obvious. A great example is the socks. How could 4 or 5 state experts, who's job it is find blood where it can't been seen by the naked eye not use the proper equipment? The socks were the most important piece of evidence in this case and yet no one thought to use the right equipment? Would you believe that if you were a juror?

GreenIce,

I think that posters should read the actual testimony in regard to the hairs and not rely on some romanticized version of what the testimony was.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I think that posters should read the actual testimony in regard to the hairs and not rely on some romanticized version of what the testimony was.

William,

IMO, it would not make a difference if they did read the actual testimony. Their minds are made up and they will not let the truth and the facts get in the way.

In regards to the hat, don't you find it odd the DA's did nothing to find out who the other contributors of the hair could have been? Wouldn't the link be stronger if the DA's could suggest the other hairs could have come from Simpson's children?

Also, what about the length of the hairs they claimed to be Simpson's? Did the length match?

[Its just me]

You may very well one day have you likes fulfilled.

Martin would speak in the common sense area, which William would relate to the law. What a winning team and I can hear our praises being sung on Broadway, The Appolo, America's Got Talent, American Idol and churches and schools all across America. :);):cool:


Dream on....I told you I am a dirt farmer so that should answer your question if I've taken any law classes.....LOL but being a dirt farmer doesn't deprive me of the abiltiy to know that you spin the law to suit your opinion....and most times you are dead wrong. :);):rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Dream on....I told you I am a dirt farmer so that should answer your question if I've taken any law classes.....LOL but being a dirt farmer doesn't deprive me of the abiltiy to know that you spin the law to suit your opinion....and most times you are dead wrong. :);):rolleyes:

The only one who has been proven wrong and I would like to thank you for posting links to show your wrongness, which most posters here do not do and in that vein you are a cut above the rest, imho, in regard to you claim that many defendants have been found innocent pursuant to motion to dismiss. Smile.