Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

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?

GreenIce,

I would need to refresh my memory but I do recall some absurd questions about who tinted their hair.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I don't know much about the science in this case, accept the obvious of course, like you use the equipment that was developed that helps you do your job.

In Gerald Uelman's book, he says the expert testified that the blood was left on the inside of the sock. I can't remember the exact wording but if this is the case, how did Nicole's blood get inside the sock and not the outside?

How could blood either from splashes or Nicole' reaching her hand up his pant leg (which I truly can't believe some people believe this--what she wanted to cop a last feel?), how did she get her blood inside the socks?

Also, what else is strange is that the police claim Simpson wore a sweat suit and he planned to murder Nicole, so why was he packing change in his sweat pants? Why would he put his keys in his pockets? Did Simpson make sure he carried his wallet just in case he got stopped for speeding?

GreenIce,

If it does not fit...

[William Anthony]

"MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Deedrick, did you find any human hairs in the paper fold marked Q3A, which was hair removed from the Rockingham glove, that did not exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as either Ron Goldman or Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could I refresh my memory, please?

MS. CLARK: Certainly.

MR. DEEDRICK: Thank you. Yes. There was one short Caucasian head hair about one-inch long, light brown, that was dissimilar to the known hair standards that I received.

MS. CLARK: Was that hair naturally shed or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was a naturally shed hair.

MS. CLARK: Now, were the hair standards that you received that were taken by the Coroner from Ron Goldman, were those naturally shed hairs or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were all forcibly removed.

MS. CLARK: Does that have any impact on your ability to make an effective comparison between questioned hair and known hair standard?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's much easier to compare, again, apples with apples, oranges with oranges. The hairs that are forcibly removed will compare better with hairs that are forcibly removed. The same thing as with naturally shed hairs. As the hair reaches the stage when it's ready to come out, it tends to look a little different. It often gets lighter. It loses a lot of the medullation or the canal that's found in the center of the hair and will look different. That's why I request combings as well as pullings when known samples are collected.

MS. CLARK: And did you have any such combings in the standard submitted to you from the Coroner's office?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: For Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. Did you receive and examine hair samples from police and crime personnel and laboratory personnel that were involved in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And did those samples include Detectives Phillips, Fuhrman, Vannatter and Lange?

MR. DEEDRICK: It did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you compare their known hair standards of those detectives to this one-inch light brown hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what was the result?

MR. DEEDRICK: The one questioned hair from the Rockingham glove could not have originated from these individuals.

MS. CLARK: Any of them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Not from the individuals you just mentioned. None of the elimination standards exhibited the same characteristics."

[Its just me]

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?

I've posted I watched the trial every day....I do not base my opinions on anything but what was shown on TV. You have your opinion of what the defense did in the court room and I have mine. I am fully convinced the evidence presented shows OJ is responsible for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole B. Simpson.
You guys can argue every minor detail but the fact remains there has been absolutely nothing to prove OJ is innocent and in my strong opinion he is not.
I did not follow the civil trial at all because it did not have cameras in the court room to my knowledge. I’ve read some on the civil trial and what I’ve read confirms my opinion that OJ’s is guilty of double murder and I believe justice prevailed in the civil trial.

FWIW…If I had been a juror I would have cast my vote for guilt and I am confident that I would have been correct unless a whole lot went on that the jury saw that wasn’t shown of TV.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I would need to refresh my memory but I do recall some absurd questions about who tinted their hair.

William,

What I would love to know is why the DA's did not use the other hats found in Simpson's home and one in the Bronco to compare the hairs.

I also found it odd that if the hat came off because of a struggle, then why didn't they reflect this? It appears to me that any of the hair found inside the cap came off from normal wear.

Also, Simpson is man who prided himself on his clothes and his home. Does he look like the type of man that would share his hat with other people? Even his kids?

I can see kids grabbing hats and not caring who's it is but an adult?

[William Anthony]

I've posted I watched the trial every day....I do not base my opinions on anything but what was shown on TV. You have your opinion of what the defense did in the court room and I have mine. I am fully convinced the evidence presented shows OJ is responsible for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole B. Simpson.
You guys can argue every minor detail but the fact remains there has been absolutely nothing to prove OJ is innocent and in my strong opinion he is not.
I did not follow the civil trial at all because it did not have cameras in the court room to my knowledge. I’ve read some on the civil trial and what I’ve read confirms my opinion that OJ’s is guilty of double murder and I believe justice prevailed in the civil trial.

FWIW…If I had been a juror I would have cast my vote for guilt and I am confident that I would have been correct unless a whole lot went on that the jury saw that wasn’t shown of TV.

I would have hoped that the defense would have had enough discernment to dismiss you as a juror for cause, as you would have expected there would have been but there was not evidence "there has been absolutely nothing to prove OJ is innocent", which means that you would have improperly placed the burden of proof. This is all we have been trying to tell you about innocence and a criminal trial. You may be thoroughly confused by this statement, "I am fully convinced the evidence presented shows OJ is responsible for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole B. Simpson", which the jurors in both trials disagreed with you by their verdicts and they were not asked in the socio political production to find Simpson responsible for the wrongful death of Ms. NBS.

[William Anthony]

William,

What I would love to know is why the DA's did not use the other hats found in Simpson's home and one in the Bronco to compare the hairs.

I also found it odd that if the hat came off because of a struggle, then why didn't they reflect this? It appears to me that any of the hair found inside the cap came off from normal wear.

Also, Simpson is man who prided himself on his clothes and his home. Does he look like the type of man that would share his hat with other people? Even his kids?

I can see kids grabbing hats and not caring who's it is but an adult?

I can see it, if the adults are certain members of LE. :);):cool:

[GreenIce]

"MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Deedrick, did you find any human hairs in the paper fold marked Q3A, which was hair removed from the Rockingham glove, that did not exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as either Ron Goldman or Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could I refresh my memory, please?

MS. CLARK: Certainly.

MR. DEEDRICK: Thank you. Yes. There was one short Caucasian head hair about one-inch long, light brown, that was dissimilar to the known hair standards that I received.

MS. CLARK: Was that hair naturally shed or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was a naturally shed hair.

MS. CLARK: Now, were the hair standards that you received that were taken by the Coroner from Ron Goldman, were those naturally shed hairs or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were all forcibly removed.

MS. CLARK: Does that have any impact on your ability to make an effective comparison between questioned hair and known hair standard?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's much easier to compare, again, apples with apples, oranges with oranges. The hairs that are forcibly removed will compare better with hairs that are forcibly removed. The same thing as with naturally shed hairs. As the hair reaches the stage when it's ready to come out, it tends to look a little different. It often gets lighter. It loses a lot of the medullation or the canal that's found in the center of the hair and will look different. That's why I request combings as well as pullings when known samples are collected.

MS. CLARK: And did you have any such combings in the standard submitted to you from the Coroner's office?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: For Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. Did you receive and examine hair samples from police and crime personnel and laboratory personnel that were involved in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And did those samples include Detectives Phillips, Fuhrman, Vannatter and Lange?

MR. DEEDRICK: It did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you compare their known hair standards of those detectives to this one-inch light brown hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what was the result?

MR. DEEDRICK: The one questioned hair from the Rockingham glove could not have originated from these individuals.

MS. CLARK: Any of them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Not from the individuals you just mentioned. None of the elimination standards exhibited the same characteristics."

William,

In Lange and Vanatter's book, they refused to give samples of their hair and the clothes and shoes they worn. So Deedrick did not get samples of Lange, Vanatter's, Phillips and MF's hair.

At first they refused to do it, then they were going to do it and then they get pissed off and went to their rep who told them not to provide any samples.

Either Deedrick is lying or he received samples that were said to be that of the "Gang of Four". "Gang of Four" does not refer to China's "Gang of Four" just in case anyone remembers that.

[martin II]

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.


Well we know Dr W Spitz refused to testify for the prosecution although he was asked. He only wanted to testify in the civil trial where the level of proof was much lower.

I agree with Gis post on Cotton. She was a waste of time. Cellmark had previously been cited for bad procedures also. At the time of the OJ case almost all the labs were operating by the seat of their pants without any national standards. imo

[William Anthony]

William,

In Lange and Vanatter's book, they refused to give samples of their hair and the clothes and shoes they worn. So Deedrick did not get samples of Lange, Vanatter's, Phillips and MF's hair.

At first they refused to do it, then they were going to do it and then they get pissed off and went to their rep who told them not to provide any samples.

Either Deedrick is lying or he received samples that were said to be that of the "Gang of Four". "Gang of Four" does not refer to China's "Gang of Four" just in case anyone remembers that.

I think that there will be a request for you to support this post from the book and, if you do, then I agree the prosecution had more liars than a rug store.

[Its just me]

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.


I'm not sure I said "many" but I continue to stick to my claim defendants can and have had cases dismissed during trial because there were evidence to prove they were innocent and your so called legal term argument will not change that simple explained fact. One thing you can take to the bank as hard fact truth....it didn't happen in OJ's trial and imo it was because the defense didn't have a leg to stand on for a dismissal motion of any kind to be considered. And imo it was because there was strong evidence to show guilt. And imo the defense team of attorneys managed to get a not guilty verdict because they were smart enough to discredit the witness but not the evidence.

[William Anthony]

William,

What I would love to know is why the DA's did not use the other hats found in Simpson's home and one in the Bronco to compare the hairs.

I also found it odd that if the hat came off because of a struggle, then why didn't they reflect this? It appears to me that any of the hair found inside the cap came off from normal wear.

Also, Simpson is man who prided himself on his clothes and his home. Does he look like the type of man that would share his hat with other people? Even his kids?

I can see kids grabbing hats and not caring who's it is but an adult?

GreenIce,

in an effort to fend off the onslaught that may happen, I post the following;

"MS. CLARK: Sir, did you examine--in your examination of the hairs collected from the evidence in this case, did you find any hairs that were not of Caucasian origin?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And of what origin were they?

MR. DEEDRICK: From a black individual.

MS. CLARK: Were they head hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. And limb hairs.

MS. CLARK: And by limb hairs, you mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Arm or leg.

MS. CLARK: And where did you find those head and limb hairs? From which items of evidence were they collected?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the head hairs were identified as coming from a cap, from a Bronco, a knit hat that was recovered from the crime scene, Ronald Goldman's shirt, and those were the items.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And where was it that you found limb hairs, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been the Rockingham glove and Ronald Goldman's shirt.

MS. CLARK: And these limb hairs were also the origin of a black person?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Did you examine hairs collected from a cap found in the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: People's 439, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Now, what kind of hairs did you find collected from this cap, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were two head hairs that appeared to be naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: And what condition were they in?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they appeared--some of them had chew marks present on them. They look like normal head hairs, naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: And what does that mean, "Chew marks"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, hairs that may lay around for a while. In vehicles, it's not uncommon to see hairs that have been chewed on by either a beetle or some other insect. They take awhile to chew through them. So when we got to them, it just looks like a bite mark's been taken out of them.

MS. CLARK: And that's not uncommon to find?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it just--it indicates that the hair may have been laying around for a period of time as opposed to recently shed.

MS. CLARK: And did you compare the hairs recovered from this Bronco cap to the known exemplars taken from the head of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what results did you obtain?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, these hairs exhibited the same microscopic characteristics, and accordingly could have originated from the Defendant.

MS. CLARK: So you found hairs consistent with those of the Defendant in a cap found in his car. Was that a big surprise?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if that's his hat, it's not a surprise to me.

MR. BAILEY: Object to what--

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained."

[GreenIce]

Well we know Dr W Spitz refused to testify for the prosecution although he was asked. He only wanted to testify in the civil trial where the level of proof was much lower.

I agree with Gis post on Cotton. She was a waste of time. Cellmark had previously been cited for bad procedures also. At the time of the OJ case almost all the labs were operating by the seat of their pants without any national standards. imo

Martin,

I find it telling that the LAPD sent the samples to Cellmark without telling the DA's. Again, perhahps the LAPD is very familiar with companies who will play their style of ball?

Clark said she searched high and low for an expert to match Dr. Baden and she said none would help. However, I doubt this story because she knew that any outside expert would have given the same testimony that Dr. Baden or Wolf would have given.

IMO, she already knew she was bitten in the butt by the FBI when she asked for their expert's opinon---she was not going to take that chance with the autopsy.

The DA's wanted to destroy their own witnesses credibility and the only one who could have done this was Dr. Golden's boss, Dr. L. And after 8 days on direct exam, what did he tell us, that Ron and Nicole were dead.

[martin II]

I'm not sure I said "many" but I continue to stick to my claim defendants can and have had cases dismissed during trial because there were evidence to prove they were innocent and your so called legal term argument will not change that simple explained fact. One thing you can take to the bank as hard fact truth....it didn't happen in OJ's trial and imo it was because the defense didn't have a leg to stand on for a dismissal motion of any kind to be considered. And imo it was because there was strong evidence to show quilt. And imo the defense team of attorneys managed to get a not guilty verdict because they were smart enough to discredit the witness but not the evidence.

Does this mean that you now accept the judges words for the directed verdict and that it was not for what you though?

The witness presented and testified to the evidence so if the testimony was discredited the evidence was faulty and could not be believed. imo

[GreenIce]

I think that there will be a request for you to support this post from the book and, if you do, then I agree the prosecution had more liars than a rug store.

William,

I gave the source. That is good enough for me. If they don't have the book, then I am sure they have the knowledge on how to find a copy of it.

I went through this with VB's book and even when I provided the page numbers, it did no good. In fact one poster said that if they had read about an "Uncle Tom" file in VB's book, they would never, ever, never ever forgotten about it. Well the person did forget about it--or so they claim.

Besides, when have they produced any testimony regarding the contents of the washing machine and by that I mean a state's witness who testified they handled the sweats and they were in fact a man's sweat suit and they were wet.

[martin II]

Martin,

I find it telling that the LAPD sent the samples to Cellmark without telling the DA's. Again, perhahps the LAPD is very familiar with companies who will play their style of ball?

Clark said she searched high and low for an expert to match Dr. Baden and she said none would help. However, I doubt this story because she knew that any outside expert would have given the same testimony that Dr. Baden or Wolf would have given.

IMO, she already knew she was bitten in the butt by the FBI when she asked for their expert's opinon---she was not going to take that chance with the autopsy.

The DA's wanted to destroy their own witnesses credibility and the only one who could have done this was Dr. Golden's boss, Dr. L. And after 8 days on direct exam, what did he tell us, that Ron and Nicole were dead.


Dr L who didn't do the autopy took Goldens place, said Golden had made some 30 mistakes and was wrong when he said two knifes could have been used in the attack. The prosecution always used experts that were willing to play their game of ball.Martz Rubin are two good examples.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure I said "many" but I continue to stick to my claim defendants can and have had cases dismissed during trial because there were evidence to prove they were innocent and your so called legal term argument will not change that simple explained fact. One thing you can take to the bank as hard fact truth....it didn't happen in OJ's trial and imo it was because the defense didn't have a leg to stand on for a dismissal motion of any kind to be considered. And imo it was because there was strong evidence to show guilt. And imo the defense team of attorneys managed to get a not guilty verdict because they were smart enough to discredit the witness but not the evidence.

Allow me if you will to explain that the motion for aquittal or directed verdict, as GreenIce correctly pointed out, is S.O.P and S.O.P. is to routinely deny them. Additionally, I provided a link, showing the reasons for dismissal of the charges in California and none were for innocence. I see you also fail to realize that it is not the witnesses that were discredited but the witnesses' testimonies. Witness testimony is evidence. :);):cool:

[GreenIce]

Dr L who didn't do the autopy took Goldens place, said Golden had made some 30 mistakes and was wrong when he said two knifes could have been used in the attack. The prosecution always used experts that were willing to play their game of ball.Martz Rubin are two good examples.

Martin,

Here is where the DA's unbalanced stradegy failed them. They wanted to say that Dr. Golden's job performance in the Simpson case was no different then his past performances--in other words, this is another expert who should have choosen a different career field and should have been fired long ago.

However, Dr. L, could not disprove any of Dr. Golden's inital findings, such as two knives being used. Dr. L. could not testify to any degree with medical certainty about anything other then both victims were in fact dead.

But if they were willing to do this for Dr. Golden, why not make the same case for the nurse and Dennis Fung? Use their past to discredit them?

IMO, there was only one real reason why Dr. Golden never took the stand and that was the time of the murders and they did not want Claudine Ratcliff to take the stand. They did not want the time of the murders to be examined closely. Dr. Golden had the murders happening closer to or a little after 11:00 p.m.

Another reason, just not as important is they did want him to testify about Vanatter bringing him knives to see if they could have been the murder weapon. Robert Shapiro made a fool of Dr. Golden regarding the knive measurements and Dr. Golden, IMO, did take the hit on this for the detectives, IMO.

Another interesting fact. Hank Goldberg's book is really a gold mine of contradictions. He feels that Larry Ragle was destroyed by him because it had been years and years since he was at an actual crime scene. Okay, but shouldn't he apply that to Dr. L? Hasn't been years since he did an actual autopsy? Wasn't he more focused on the adminstrative side of the career field? Which I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, many people love the adminstrative side of their career field as well as puts them in a better position to move up the ranks. However, you have to be consistent on this--you can't say it was okay for one expert to not have been in the field for years but try discredit another one for the very same reason, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I gave the source. That is good enough for me. If they don't have the book, then I am sure they have the knowledge on how to find a copy of it.

I went through this with VB's book and even when I provided the page numbers, it did no good. In fact one poster said that if they had read about an "Uncle Tom" file in VB's book, they would never, ever, never ever forgotten about it. Well the person did forget about it--or so they claim.

Besides, when have they produced any testimony regarding the contents of the washing machine and by that I mean a state's witness who testified they handled the sweats and they were in fact a man's sweat suit and they were wet.

GreenIce,

I understand. They have never produced anything about a wet sweatsuit but some have wholeheartedly bought the idea that there was one sight unseen, and one had the audacity to question me about my belief in God, but he believes in a wet sweat suit when there is no evidence of its existence.

[martin II]

GI

I agree with a post you made some time ago on the issue of the importance of cross examination.

From post i see some posters read the prosecutions direct examination of their witnesses that support their claims. And just call it a day. Believe every word as proof. They ignore the defense cross examination of these witnesses
and then claim they know what the evidence showed. After the witness testimony has been shown to be unbleivable.

People swear that the sock was not planted and the blood on the gate was not planted and ignore that the prosecution after asking Martz to support
their claims didn't have the b8888 to call him as their witness. The defense did and the net result of his testimony left doubt that those items were not planted.

[martin II]

Allow me if you will to explain that the motion for aquittal or directed verdict, as GreenIce correctly pointed out, is S.O.P and S.O.P. is to routinely deny them. Additionally, I provided a link, showing the reasons for dismissal of the charges in California and none were for innocence. I see you also fail to realize that it is not the witnesses that were discredited but the witnesses' testimonies. Witness testimony is evidence. :);):cool:


William
is this the ultimate of confusion or what?


"And imo the defense team of attorneys managed to get a not guilty verdict because they were smart enough to discredit the witness but not the evidence."

[GreenIce]

GI

I agree with a post you made some time ago on the issue of the importance of cross examination.

From post i see some posters read the prosecutions direct examination of their witnesses that support their claims. And just call it a day. Believe every word as proof. They ignore the defense cross examination of these witnesses
and then claim they know what the evidence showed. After the witness testimony has been shown to be unbleivable.

People swear that the sock was not planted and the blood on the gate was not planted and ignore that the prosecution after asking Martz to support
their claims didn't have the b8888 to call him as their witness. The defense did and the net result of his testimony left doubt that those items were not planted.

Martin,

Maybe William will agree with me on this but did you notice the DA's adopted the style and manner of questions of a defense lawyer? They way the jumped from one question to another about a totally different subject and then jump right back to the other subject and just add in their own words?

Normally, the defense lawyers are the only one's who do this because the DA's don't usually have to do this. Look what Clark and Petrocelli did with the witnesses regarding door entry. Several times Arnelle told them they could not have entered the door the detectives said they entered because they could not be opened from the outside yet they insisted in questioning her about these very same doors--over and over again.

IMO, it was impossible not to notice that the DA's were always, even in the prelim hearing, were on the defensive and the defense was always on the offensive.

I am not pleased with some of Shapiro's comments after the trial but I do believe he is a brilliant lawyer and I do believe he set the course from the very beginning. The DA's were always, always on the defensive and to be honest with you, I think they did a pretty good job of hiding it and used the media to do this. They were very wise to use the racial issues and the media to their full advantage, IMO.

[martin II]

I'm not sure I said "many" but I continue to stick to my claim defendants can and have had cases dismissed during trial because there were evidence to prove they were innocent and your so called legal term argument will not change that simple explained fact. One thing you can take to the bank as hard fact truth....it didn't happen in OJ's trial and imo it was because the defense didn't have a leg to stand on for a dismissal motion of any kind to be considered. And imo it was because there was strong evidence to show guilt. And imo the defense team of attorneys managed to get a not guilty verdict because they were smart enough to discredit the witness but not the evidence.

The big switch to oj.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I understand. They have never produced anything about a wet sweatsuit but some have wholeheartedly bought the idea that there was one sight unseen, and one had the audacity to question me about my belief in God, but he believes in a wet sweat suit when there is no evidence of its existence.

William,

I always felt that Chris Darden was horrible for using his "baby in the fire" and his "smoke and mirrors" sayings in his closing arguments. The reason I took offense is because he knew that Barry Scheck's little sister was killed in a fire. I thought he used this to try to put Barry off of his game.

However, looking back at his closing and some of his comments, I think he meant nothing by that but he did want the jury to see through the smoke and mirrors--but not of the defense's case, it was the DA's case he was talking about. He knew he could not stand before the jury and ask them to believe what he clearly did not believe. Some of his comments made it clear that they had a hard job in front of them and they had to look at the facts and he was glad he was not in their place. IMO, if he was confident the DA's case he never would have asked them to this and he never would have said their job was going to be hard and he never would have made the comment that he was glad he was not in their place. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The big switch to oj.

Martin,

Since innocence is not a legal verdict in our country, you are either guilty or not guilty, I find it odd that a judge would declare a defendant innocent especially if all the evidence had not been heard.

I believe Judges can and have dismissed cases for insufficient evidence but never innocent. I have heard judges give their own opinons after the jury has rendered their verdict but that is about it. The two cases I am thinking of are the nanny case and one case where a mother killed her abusive husband and one son took the father's side and the other son who took the mother's side and the judge clearly believed that the son that was on his mother side was telling the truth while the other son was lying. He still had to render the sentence and he still had to follow the law but he did give his opinon.

[martin II]

Martin,

Maybe William will agree with me on this but did you notice the DA's adopted the style and manner of questions of a defense lawyer? They way the jumped from one question to another about a totally different subject and then jump right back to the other subject and just add in their own words?

Normally, the defense lawyers are the only one's who do this because the DA's don't usually have to do this. Look what Clark and Petrocelli did with the witnesses regarding door entry. Several times Arnelle told them they could not have entered the door the detectives said they entered because they could not be opened from the outside yet they insisted in questioning her about these very same doors--over and over again.

IMO, it was impossible not to notice that the DA's were always, even in the prelim hearing, were on the defensive and the defense was always on the offensive.

I am not pleased with some of Shapiro's comments after the trial but I do believe he is a brilliant lawyer and I do believe he set the course from the very beginning. The DA's were always, always on the defensive and to be honest with you, I think they did a pretty good job of hiding it and used the media to do this. They were very wise to use the racial issues and the media to their full advantage, IMO.

What i noticed in the civil trial was petro often times testified when asking questions. when the defense objected petro just continued and the judge didn't stop him.

[William Anthony]

William
is this the ultimate of confusion or what?


"And imo the defense team of attorneys managed to get a not guilty verdict because they were smart enough to discredit the witness but not the evidence."

I am confused by it. That's a fact, Jack. :)

[martin II]

Martin,

Since innocence is not a legal verdict in our country, you are either guilty or not guilty, I find it odd that a judge would declare a defendant innocent especially if all the evidence had not been heard.

I believe Judges can and have dismissed cases for insufficient evidence but never innocent. I have heard judges give their own opinons after the jury has rendered their verdict but that is about it. The two cases I am thinking of are the nanny case and one case where a mother killed her abusive husband and one son took the father's side and the other son who took the mother's side and the judge clearly believed that the son that was on his mother side was telling the truth while the other son was lying. He still had to render the sentence and he still had to follow the law but he did give his opinon.

When one has been found WRONG on the law when discussing the law one seems to make the switch and talk about personal opinion or oj.
Now that is comical because we know personal opinions have nothing to do with the law. imo

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Maybe William will agree with me on this but did you notice the DA's adopted the style and manner of questions of a defense lawyer? They way the jumped from one question to another about a totally different subject and then jump right back to the other subject and just add in their own words?

Normally, the defense lawyers are the only one's who do this because the DA's don't usually have to do this. Look what Clark and Petrocelli did with the witnesses regarding door entry. Several times Arnelle told them they could not have entered the door the detectives said they entered because they could not be opened from the outside yet they insisted in questioning her about these very same doors--over and over again.

IMO, it was impossible not to notice that the DA's were always, even in the prelim hearing, were on the defensive and the defense was always on the offensive.

I am not pleased with some of Shapiro's comments after the trial but I do believe he is a brilliant lawyer and I do believe he set the course from the very beginning. The DA's were always, always on the defensive and to be honest with you, I think they did a pretty good job of hiding it and used the media to do this. They were very wise to use the racial issues and the media to their full advantage, IMO.

I agree with everything except Shapiro being brilliant.

[William Anthony]

William,

I always felt that Chris Darden was horrible for using his "baby in the fire" and his "smoke and mirrors" sayings in his closing arguments. The reason I took offense is because he knew that Barry Scheck's little sister was killed in a fire. I thought he used this to try to put Barry off of his game.

However, looking back at his closing and some of his comments, I think he meant nothing by that but he did want the jury to see through the smoke and mirrors--but not of the defense's case, it was the DA's case he was talking about. He knew he could not stand before the jury and ask them to believe what he clearly did not believe. Some of his comments made it clear that they had a hard job in front of them and they had to look at the facts and he was glad he was not in their place. IMO, if he was confident the DA's case he never would have asked them to this and he never would have said their job was going to be hard and he never would have made the comment that he was glad he was not in their place. IMO.

I hadn't considered that his comments were intentionally clever means of treason but that could have been the case.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Since innocence is not a legal verdict in our country, you are either guilty or not guilty, I find it odd that a judge would declare a defendant innocent especially if all the evidence had not been heard.

I believe Judges can and have dismissed cases for insufficient evidence but never innocent. I have heard judges give their own opinons after the jury has rendered their verdict but that is about it. The two cases I am thinking of are the nanny case and one case where a mother killed her abusive husband and one son took the father's side and the other son who took the mother's side and the judge clearly believed that the son that was on his mother side was telling the truth while the other son was lying. He still had to render the sentence and he still had to follow the law but he did give his opinon.

A judge would never declare a defendant innocent and not stand up in the courtroom, saying the defendant is innocent, take of his robe and he and the audience break out into song and dance, as done in a movie.:);):cool:

[GreenIce]

I agree with everything except Shapiro being brilliant.

William,

I don't know what his motives were but the fact is that he did get the grand jury dismissed and he did an excellent job in the prelim hearing, especially with the nurse, Kato and the detectives. Both and he Uelman did a great job.

Also, he was brilliant in hiring the best experts as well as arranging Simpson's body to be photographed. His demanding a speedy trial really worked to the benefit of the defense and not the DA's.

Like I said, I am not questioning his motives or his beliefs but the fact is, he played a key role in the win and he did an excellent job on cross with his witnesses. He also did an excellent job while picking the jury. I have to give credit where credit is due, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I hadn't considered that his comments were intentionally clever means of treason but that could have been the case.:);):cool:

William,

The biggest problem I had with Darden is that he can pout better then a 2 year old. I think it is fair to say that he was very caught up in a game of one up manship with JC and he lost, every time. I think when he stepped back after the trial, he realized he was used and he supported the jury's verdict.

I think he wrote in his book that he had no problem with their verdict, just the amount of time it took them to reach it. It was like he knew what would happen if they came back with a verdict too quickly.

I think he has since been interviewed where he admitted that there were problems of evidence and that MF is way worse then OJ Simpson is. I think that is what I read.

Another point, Darden knows what cops are capable. He never defended the LAPD. Nothing they did really surprised him but he was at a loss on how to hide this from the jury, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I don't know what his motives were but the fact is that he did get the grand jury dismissed and he did an excellent job in the prelim hearing, especially with the nurse, Kato and the detectives. Both and he Uelman did a great job.

Also, he was brilliant in hiring the best experts as well as arranging Simpson's body to be photographed. His demanding a speedy trial really worked to the benefit of the defense and not the DA's.

Like I said, I am not questioning his motives or his beliefs but the fact is, he played a key role in the win and he did an excellent job on cross with his witnesses. He also did an excellent job while picking the jury. I have to give credit where credit is due, IMO.

I think he was best known as a settlement attorney, which means civil attorney. I am not saying he did not do some intelligent things and I meant to say I disagree that he was a brilliant lawyer, one who practices law in the courtroom.

[William Anthony]

William,

The biggest problem I had with Darden is that he can pout better then a 2 year old. I think it is fair to say that he was very caught up in a game of one up manship with JC and he lost, every time. I think when he stepped back after the trial, he realized he was used and he supported the jury's verdict.

I think he wrote in his book that he had no problem with their verdict, just the amount of time it took them to reach it. It was like he knew what would happen if they came back with a verdict too quickly.

I think he has since been interviewed where he admitted that there were problems of evidence and that MF is way worse then OJ Simpson is. I think that is what I read.

Another point, Darden knows what cops are capable. He never defended the LAPD. Nothing they did really surprised him but he was at a loss on how to hide this from the jury, IMO.

GreenIce,

Darden's pouting at discovering he had been used, imho, is what turned me against him, as, if he failed to realize that he could be used.

[martin II]

GreenIce,

Darden's pouting at discovering he had been used, imho, is what turned me against him, as, if he failed to realize that he could be used.

A friend of Dardens stated that she told him not to take that prosecutors job of going up against JC. She explained to him JC is the man. Darden said no i am the man. She said Darden found out who the man was.

[martin II]

William,

I don't know what his motives were but the fact is that he did get the grand jury dismissed and he did an excellent job in the prelim hearing, especially with the nurse, Kato and the detectives. Both and he Uelman did a great job.

Also, he was brilliant in hiring the best experts as well as arranging Simpson's body to be photographed. His demanding a speedy trial really worked to the benefit of the defense and not the DA's.

Like I said, I am not questioning his motives or his beliefs but the fact is, he played a key role in the win and he did an excellent job on cross with his witnesses. He also did an excellent job while picking the jury. I have to give credit where credit is due, IMO.


Going to trial quickly was a good idea as that forced the prosecution into court before they were ready. This is why their case never made sense they had to lie because they didn't have their ducks togeather.

[martin II]

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


you are spinning without the benefit if truth, gees.We are not fools here.

[William Anthony]

A friend of Dardens stated that she told him not to take that prosecutors job of going up against JC. She explained to him JC is the man. Darden said no i am the man. She said Darden found out who the man was.

Darden did not exude nearly the degree of confidence and command that the magnificent one did, IMHO.

[Its just me]

Allow me if you will to explain that the motion for aquittal or directed verdict, as GreenIce correctly pointed out, is S.O.P and S.O.P. is to routinely deny them. Additionally, I provided a link, showing the reasons for dismissal of the charges in California and none were for innocence. I see you also fail to realize that it is not the witnesses that were discredited but the witnesses' testimonies. Witness testimony is evidence. :);):cool:

Oh William but you fail to understand....Take you and I for example. What you are saying may all be the truth in legal terms but what I have witnessed from you saps all credibility. You haven't discredited any information you post but imoo you've discredited your self so I take what you post with a grain of salt. It works the same way with a witness on the stand.
So like with evidence showing a defendant is innocent and a motion is filed for dismissal and it's dismissed which do happen..... I’m sticking with OJ's defense discredited the witness not the evidence.

Since it a Saturday stone throwing day…I’ll add my 2 cents. I have a niece who graduated from Harvard on full scholarship with a law degree that I talk with a good bit about different things involving the law when she comes down home for family visits.... and it just amazes me in the difference in discussing things with her compared to you. Lets just put it this way….If I really really want to know something I’ll ask her.

Carry on and have a good day....I'm still a busy woman.

[Its just me]

you are spinning without the benefit if truth, gees.We are not fools here.

Hahahaha....Who says...You. :shrug: ;)

[Its just me]

The big switch to oj.

Well, where did I get confussed....I thought OJ is why the board is here....not me. Come on Martin....bashing gets you no where in life and after all the hollering you've done about keeping the subject about OJ your post actually makes you look kind of foolish. But that's just my opinion. :seeya:

[Its just me]

A friend of Dardens stated that she told him not to take that prosecutors job of going up against JC. She explained to him JC is the man. Darden said no i am the man. She said Darden found out who the man was.

Now ain't that just typical of a man.....who is the biggest and best. Women normally could care less. Again it's just my opinion :seeya:

[martin II]

GreenIce,

in an effort to fend off the onslaught that may happen, I post the following;

"MS. CLARK: Sir, did you examine--in your examination of the hairs collected from the evidence in this case, did you find any hairs that were not of Caucasian origin?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And of what origin were they?

MR. DEEDRICK: From a black individual.

MS. CLARK: Were they head hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. And limb hairs.

MS. CLARK: And by limb hairs, you mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Arm or leg.

MS. CLARK: And where did you find those head and limb hairs? From which items of evidence were they collected?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the head hairs were identified as coming from a cap, from a Bronco, a knit hat that was recovered from the crime scene, Ronald Goldman's shirt, and those were the items.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And where was it that you found limb hairs, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been the Rockingham glove and Ronald Goldman's shirt.

MS. CLARK: And these limb hairs were also the origin of a black person?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Did you examine hairs collected from a cap found in the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: People's 439, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Now, what kind of hairs did you find collected from this cap, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were two head hairs that appeared to be naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: And what condition were they in?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they appeared--some of them had chew marks present on them. They look like normal head hairs, naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: And what does that mean, "Chew marks"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, hairs that may lay around for a while. In vehicles, it's not uncommon to see hairs that have been chewed on by either a beetle or some other insect. They take awhile to chew through them. So when we got to them, it just looks like a bite mark's been taken out of them.

MS. CLARK: And that's not uncommon to find?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it just--it indicates that the hair may have been laying around for a period of time as opposed to recently shed.

MS. CLARK: And did you compare the hairs recovered from this Bronco cap to the known exemplars taken from the head of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what results did you obtain?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, these hairs exhibited the same microscopic characteristics, and accordingly could have originated from the Defendant.

MS. CLARK: So you found hairs consistent with those of the Defendant in a cap found in his car. Was that a big surprise?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if that's his hat, it's not a surprise to me.

MR. BAILEY: Object to what--

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained."

THE CAP WAS IN THE CAR?????
tHE HAIR FROM OJS ARMS HAD CHEW MARKS?

MS. CLARK: So you found hairs consistent with those of the Defendant in a cap found in his car. Was that a big surprise?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if that's his hat, it's not a surprise to me.


Deedrick never visited the crime scene

[William Anthony]

Oh William but you fail to understand....Take you and I for example. What you are saying may all be the truth in legal terms but what I have witnessed from you saps all credibility. You haven't discredited any information you post but imoo you've discredited your self so I take what you post with a grain of salt. It works the same way with a witness on the stand.
So like with evidence showing a defendant is innocent and a motion is filed for dismissal and it's dismissed which do happen..... I’m sticking with OJ's defense discredited the witness not the evidence.

Since it a Saturday stone throwing day…I’ll add my 2 cents. I have a niece who graduated from Harvard on full scholarship with a law degree that I talk with a good bit about different things involving the law when she comes down home for family visits.... and it just amazes me in the difference in discussing things with her compared to you. Lets just put it this way….If I really really want to know something I’ll ask her.

Carry on and have a good day....I'm still a busy woman.


Let me explain it to you this way, although I do not know your niece, I do know that all those that graduate from Harvard may not be as successful or as good in practicing law as others. You seem to be becoming more and more offensive when all I am doing is trying to explain. I posted the link with the reasons for a motion to dismiss in a criminal trial under California law, which supports what I have been trying to respectfully explain to you. I have no clue what this means or why I would, "You haven't discredited any information you post..." Additionally, I find this quizzical, " What you are saying may all be the truth in legal terms...", but then you go on to say, " so I take what you post with a grain of salt." I have said that I found it difficult to follow your logic. Ask your niece on her next visit, is a witness called, inter alia, to give relevant evidence in the form of testimony of direct and circumstantial evidence and/or to lay a foundation for the admissibility of certain other tangible items of evidence. So you see the fact that you think the defense discredited the witness means that the defense showed that the evidence (direct or circumstantial testimony and the foundation for the admissibility or the weight and credibility of said evidence should not be trusted). Perhaps, your niece is used to talking to you and is much like hubby. However, I want all posters to be as knowledgeable as they can be, because, to me, it reflects badly upon me, if I do not help them to be the best they can be.

[martin II]

Now ain't that just typical of a man.....who is the biggest and best. Women normally could care less. Again it's just my opinion :seeya:

You ran off half informed again.
the issue was about court room skills and it was a woman speaking. She cared and gave Darden good advice as a friend.:cool:

[martin II]

Well, where did I get confussed....I thought OJ is why the board is here....not me. Come on Martin....bashing gets you no where in life and after all the hollering you've done about keeping the subject about OJ your post actually makes you look kind of foolish. But that's just my opinion. :seeya:

If you believe the thread is about oj that then stop making personal remarks about william and myself.
The problem here is your idea on directed verdict was proven wrong by the Carroll judges decision yet you deny the judges words did so.I have never heard a judge tell a defendant you are free because you are innocent and i don't think you have either. I doubt the Harvard lawyer told you that either.

You may as well just fess up and admit your error.
Bashing is calling me a clown act. Telling you you are wrong is just a attempt to help you.imo

[martin II]

Let me explain it to you this way, although I do not know your niece, I do know that all those that graduate from Harvard may not be as successful or as good in practicing law as others. You seem to be becoming more and more offensive when all I am doing is trying to explain. I posted the link with the reasons for a motion to dismiss in a criminal trial under California law, which supports what I have been trying to respectfully explain to you. I have no clue what this means or why I would, "You haven't discredited any information you post..." Additionally, I find this quizzical, " What you are saying may all be the truth in legal terms...", but then you go on to say, " so I take what you post with a grain of salt." I have said that I found it difficult to follow your logic. Ask your niece on her next visit, is a witness called, inter alia, to give relevant evidence in the form of testimony of direct and circumstantial evidence and/or to lay a foundation for the admissibility of certain other tangible items of evidence. So you see the fact that you think the defense discredited the witness means that the defense showed that the evidence (direct or circumstantial testimony and the foundation for the admissibility or the weight and credibility of said evidence should not be trusted). Perhaps, your niece is used to talking to you and is much like hubby. However, I want all posters to be as knowledgeable as they can be, because, to me, it reflects badly upon me, if I do not help them to be the best they can be.

Verry well spoken and informative.

[martin II]

Let me explain it to you this way, although I do not know your niece, I do know that all those that graduate from Harvard may not be as successful or as good in practicing law as others. You seem to be becoming more and more offensive when all I am doing is trying to explain. I posted the link with the reasons for a motion to dismiss in a criminal trial under California law, which supports what I have been trying to respectfully explain to you. I have no clue what this means or why I would, "You haven't discredited any information you post..." Additionally, I find this quizzical, " What you are saying may all be the truth in legal terms...", but then you go on to say, " so I take what you post with a grain of salt." I have said that I found it difficult to follow your logic. Ask your niece on her next visit, is a witness called, inter alia, to give relevant evidence in the form of testimony of direct and circumstantial evidence and/or to lay a foundation for the admissibility of certain other tangible items of evidence. So you see the fact that you think the defense discredited the witness means that the defense showed that the evidence (direct or circumstantial testimony and the foundation for the admissibility or the weight and credibility of said evidence should not be trusted). Perhaps, your niece is used to talking to you and is much like hubby. However, I want all posters to be as knowledgeable as they can be, because, to me, it reflects badly upon me, if I do not help them to be the best they can be.


It seems like everyone just love to use Harvard.;);)

[martin II]

If testimony is not evidence, what is it.

Furhman testified he found the glove. If his testimony is not evidence that he did, what is it?

[William Anthony]

Verry well spoken and informative.

Thank you. I do believe knowledge is to be shared but I am mindful of the adage about the horse and the water.:)

[William Anthony]

If testimony is not evidence, what is it.

Furhman testified he found the glove. If his testimony is not evidence that he did, what is it?

With any luck, they can become community organizers, Senator or Senatoress and President or Madame President.

[William Anthony]

If testimony is not evidence, what is it.

Furhman testified he found the glove. If his testimony is not evidence that he did, what is it?

IMHO, a lie, because, IMHO, the evidence supports the reasonable inference that he planted the glove.:);):cool:

[martin II]

Testimony is evidence. :cool::cool::cool: hahaha

The term "evidence" includes the sworn testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in the record.



http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/pdf/Civil%20Court%20Instructions.pdf

[martin II]

IMHO, a lie, because, IMHO, the evidence supports the reasonable inference that he planted the glove.:);):cool:

BAD example but hopefully i made my point.:cool:

[weezer]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]SNIPPED***". . .I have a niece who graduated from Harvard on full scholarship with a law degree . . ."

you don't want lessons on the law from a wannabe posting on a message board? go figure ;)

[weezer]

Thought it might be time for a reality check -- :patriot:

Judge Ito final ruling on planting:

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support."

[martin II]

you don't want lessons on the law from a wannabe posting on a message board? go figure ;)

The court link gave the lesson as it provided the judges words showing directed verdid was not for innosence. William provided the link to the lesson
in a effort to inform. hopefully you were.:cool:

[martin II]

Thought it might be time for a reality check -- :patriot:

Judge Ito final ruling on planting:

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support."

you know ito reversed his above decision and we heard the tapes.

[martin II]

Thank you. I do believe knowledge is to be shared but I am mindful of the adage about the horse and the water.:)

i have seen war pictures of soldiers loading back packs on a mule and the mule just refused to move.:cool:

[martin II]

For what it is worth Dr L worked under Dr Baden in New York.

[William Anthony]

BAD example but hopefully i made my point.:cool:

Your point was not lost on me as I tend to listen to all that is said in an effort to learn. :)

[William Anthony]

you don't want lessons on the law from a wannabe posting on a message board? go figure ;)

I could say but will drink on a message board with a never can be, go figure, but I abide by the rules as much as humanly possible, so I won't, so, let's not push.

[weezer]

Thought it might be time for a reality check -- :patriot:

Judge Ito final ruling on planting:

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support."

now we will have folks make ignorant claims that the judge overruled this, but, alas, that is because those folks are quite possibly not as well versed in the law as they would proclaim. Judge Ito allowed the very narrow admission of a couple of the tapes to impeach Fuhrman's statement that he had not used the word in the last ten years. However, some less informed would have us believe that the fact that Ito allowed any of the tapes should be interpreted to mean he overruled himself as to his ruling on planting. This, of course, if nonsense. :patriot:

[William Anthony]

i have seen war pictures of soldiers loading back packs on a mule and the mule just refused to move.:cool:

My dad stressed to me the importance of learning not just getting an education, as he said those with a weak mind better have a strong back. :);):cool:

[tv]

you don't want lessons on the law from a wannabe posting on a message board? go figure ;)

I've always found that learning from someone with actual credentials is the best way to be properly informed about something...:shrug:

[weezer]

I've always found that learning from someone with actual credentials is the best way to be properly informed about something...:shrug:

LOL -- yep.

[William Anthony]

I've always found that learning from someone with actual credentials is the best way to be properly informed about something...:shrug:

Then you would think you were entitled to disagree with the Bible, as I don't know what credentials a baby is born with and there was some disagreement when the lawyer Jack Neil from Jswickard at law, IIRC, agreed with Martin and me, indicating to me that some refuse to learn irrespective of the source. :shrug:

[tv]

now we will have folks make ignorant claims that the judge overruled this, but, alas, that is because those folks are quite possibly not as well versed in the law as they would proclaim. Judge Ito allowed the very narrow admission of a couple of the tapes to impeach Fuhrman's statement that he had not used the word in the last ten years. However, some less informed would have us believe that the fact that Ito allowed any of the tapes should be interpreted to mean he overruled himself as to his ruling on planting. This, of course, if nonsense. :patriot:

Anybody on here ever see Judge Ito stating he was reversing his ruling on Fuhrman? He can't just say 'ok, I changed my mind'. It has to made formally and entered into the record. Good heavens. :eek:

[William Anthony]

now we will have folks make ignorant claims that the judge overruled this, but, alas, that is because those folks are quite possibly not as well versed in the law as they would proclaim. Judge Ito allowed the very narrow admission of a couple of the tapes to impeach Fuhrman's statement that he had not used the word in the last ten years. However, some less informed would have us believe that the fact that Ito allowed any of the tapes should be interpreted to mean he overruled himself as to his ruling on planting. This, of course, if nonsense. :patriot:

Date of the alleged final ruling, August 31, 1995.

September 6, 1995

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

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

[William Anthony]

Anybody on here ever see Judge Ito stating he was reversing his ruling on Fuhrman? He can't just say 'ok, I changed my mind'. It has to made formally and entered into the record. Good heavens. :eek:

September 6, 1995

"MR. UELMEN: I'm in debt to Mr. Neufeld. To the extent that the People are arguing that there's any question about the context of what is said in those tapes, that is whether he is speaking his own mind, whether he is puffing, whether he's trying to impress Miss McKinny, the way to determine that is by questioning and cross-examining him.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Lewis.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, the concern here of course is that Detective Fuhrman is not himself in the same position that he was down at the municipal court below. There is no--there had been no testimony with regard to the "N" word. There had been--that's totally irrelevant to this proceeding, this hearing. But Detective Fuhrman now finds himself in a position because of that and because of the--it's clear there's been an outcry in this city, your Honor, and perhaps appropriately so. But as we stressed over and over again, that is for another forum, another place, another time. To box this court in to calling Detective Fuhrman, making him have to make the difficult decision of whether or not to take the 5th amendment creates additional complexity and adds issues and misleads--well, it doesn't mislead, but it consumes times, takes away from the sequestered jury we have in this case, adds nothing to this court's knowledge with regard to what it needs to know to determine if this evidence would have affected the prior magistrate's ruling. It does not. It is certainly within the court's discretion to deny any such motion and I think, as a matter of law, it's inappropriate to even entertain such a motion by the Defense. And in addition, as Miss Clark points out, even if it were true that that's how he felt back in 1985, there's no proof that that's how he feels now or felt in 1994. You know, this was a man who--well, I don't want to get into the history. The court, you know, heard evidence in context of the pitchess motion. But people change over time. This man became married, had two children. You know, I don't want to get into here a personal Defense of Mark Fuhrman. That's not why I'm here, your Honor, and I don't want to do that. What I do want to do is point out to the court that this is collateral evidence that does not go to directly impeach him and that there are two officers who testified, and for this court to get sidetracked off into a side issue of whether Mark Fuhrman is going to take the fifth amendment is not appropriate, not in this context especially when we're talking about the renewal of their motion to suppress. The court, as it's just explained, has all of the evidence it needs. It has a very complete--there's no such thing as very. The record is complete, and that means one thing. It is complete in terms of what this court needs to assess whether or not it would have affected the ruling of the magistrate below under the circumstances of that case. And this court is not I submit entitled to this Defense argument of the perjury, whether or not perjury was committed here in this case in assessing whether it would have affected the magistrate below. And, your Honor, whether the Defense offers seven excerpts from their new proffer or the 70--60 or 70 that they offer below, the law is the same in this regard. The court has heard all those. The court has read the ones that--all of them, plus the ones that were not available to hear on tape. So the court already is intimately familiar with it. It's time for the court to have to make the difficult decision and to have to struggle with making a ruling on this case. But that's not going to be--that burden is not going to be lightened and would just be dragged out and likely the court's--the complexity of the ruling would be magnified by having additional unknown factor thrown in at this point in time, your Honor.

THE COURT: But if I don't do that, don't I have an incomplete record?

MS. LEWIS: Oh, absolutely not, your Honor. Please, the court can see this is collateral evidence. It does not and never had to allow cross-examination on this evidence at all. The Defense in their new proffer is talking about misconduct things. They recognize it apparently because they left it out. They even leave out the "N" word stuff.

I mean, the court has heard all this stuff. The court has heard the context in which it was played. The court--and in fact, if Detective Fuhrman gets up here and takes the 5th, the court--I think the state of the law would be, the court cannot consider him having taken the 5th in terms of deciding the earlier ruling because the jury is not allowed to hear that somebody took the 5th. And I'm sure the same law would apply, that the court could not consider that fact because you would be impinging on his right against self-incrimination. It gets unduly complicated, your Honor, and it's not necessary. The record is complete. I know you as a very thorough--meticulously thorough Judge, but I'm telling your Honor, as a meticulous and thorough attorney, this record is complete on this issue.

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

MR. MOUNGER: Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: You've been present for our discussion regarding the Defense motion to--based upon newly discovered evidence, to revisit the motion to suppress, and one of the key issues is whether or not the court would allow your client to be recalled as a witness for additional testimony. Do you have any observations regarding that?

MR. MOUNGER: Well, before I answer that question, may I be allowed to speak briefly about the motion?

THE COURT: Well, I think the issue is whether or not your client is available to testify.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Well, at this point, counsel, since--I mean, that offer of proof is not under seal. It's not exactly a mystery as to what it is we're talking about here and we've discussed it here in open court just now.

MR. UELMEN: Yes. Well, I'm sure we can simply duplicate the copy we have available.

THE COURT: All right. Well, in any event, I need to give the court reporter a brief recess. So we'll take a brief recess. Counsel, if you'll provide Mr. Mounger with a copy of that, he can peruse that, and we'll discuss it, continue this discussion in about 15 or 20 minutes.

MR. MOUNGER: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel."

(Recess.)

[weezer]

Anybody on here ever see Judge Ito stating he was reversing his ruling on Fuhrman? He can't just say 'ok, I changed my mind'. It has to made formally and entered into the record. Good heavens. :eek:

hmmm -- nope -- I haven't seen anything like that and I've been carefully reviewing all of the motions and rulings.

[tv]

hmmm -- nope -- I haven't seen anything like that and I've been carefully reviewing all of the motions and rulings.

That's what I thought.

[William Anthony]

That's what I thought.

Take a look at the posts and then consider how the defense was allowed to ask MF if he planted evidence in this case.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

September 6, 1995

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

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

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

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

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

MR. MOUNGER: He will be here shortly, your Honor."

[martin II]

That's what I thought.

Date of the alleged final ruling, August 31, 1995.

September 6, 1995

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

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

[William Anthony]

Date of the alleged final ruling, August 31, 1995.

September 6, 1995

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

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

Does September 6, 1995 come after August 31, 1995?

[martin II]

I'm not sure I said "many" but I continue to stick to my claim defendants can and have had cases dismissed during trial because there were evidence to prove they were innocent and your so called legal term argument will not change that simple explained fact. One thing you can take to the bank as hard fact truth....it didn't happen in OJ's trial and imo it was because the defense didn't have a leg to stand on for a dismissal motion of any kind to be considered. And imo it was because there was strong evidence to show guilt. And imo the defense team of attorneys managed to get a not guilty verdict because they were smart enough to discredit the witness but not the evidence.

Testimony is evidence. hahaha

The term "evidence" includes the sworn testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in the record.



http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/pdf/Civ...structions.pdf

[martin II]

Does September 6, 1995 come after August 31, 1995?

People looked all over the place and didn't see furhman on the stand taking the 5th.

[William Anthony]

People looked all over the place and didn't see furhman on the stand taking the 5th.

I hope they didn't overlook this, because I did not place it in bold previously.

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

Sounds like Mounger isn't sure whether or not the defense can show that MF planted the glove.

[martin II]

Anybody on here ever see Judge Ito stating he was reversing his ruling on Fuhrman? He can't just say 'ok, I changed my mind'. It has to made formally and entered into the record. Good heavens. :eek:

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

[weezer]

That's what I thought.

I'm going to guess that the uninformed will continue to NOT understand the purpose of the motion was to 'impeach' Fuhrman's statement that he had not used a racial epithet in the last ten years and NOT about Fuhrman/LE planting evidence of which Judge Ito had already ruled:

". . .The defense proffers include 41 examples of Fuhrman using the particular racial epithet in question and 18 examples of misconduct argued to be relevant on the issue of Fuhrman's credibility and willingness to fabricate. The defense also offers 2 comments made by Fuhrman in late July of 1994 which are argued to be relevant to Fuhrman's attitude towards testifying as a witness. See Evidence Code Section 780 (j). Interestingly, the proffers do not address what evidence supports the allegation that the Rockingham glove was moved. . .
1. Reaction to being called names: objection is sustained.
2. Tearing up a driver's license as a pretext to arrest: objection is sustained.
3. Hype arrest: objection is sustained.
4. Use of deadly force in making arrests: objection is sustained.
5. Use of deadly force in making arrests: objection is sustained.
6. Revenge for killing policemen: objection is sustained.
7. Manufacturing probable cause for arrest: objection is sustained.
8. Field interrogation techniques: objection is sustained.
9. Cover up of unlawful use of force: objection is sustained.
10. Necessity for the police officers to be willing to lie: objection is sustained.
11. Revenge against those who oppose the choke hold: objection is sustained.
12. Destruction of a suspect's property: objection is sustained.
13. Tearing up of driver's licenses: objection is sustained.
14. Beating of suspects: The proffer is rejected for the same reason stated as to Incident 9.
15. Testimony for events not witnesses: objection is sustained.
16. Coercing statements from suspects: objection is sustained.
17. Baton use in different parts of the City: objection is sustained.
18. Automobile stops: objection is sustained.

[GreenIce]

THE CAP WAS IN THE CAR?????
tHE HAIR FROM OJS ARMS HAD CHEW MARKS?

MS. CLARK: So you found hairs consistent with those of the Defendant in a cap found in his car. Was that a big surprise?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if that's his hat, it's not a surprise to me.


Deedrick never visited the crime scene

Martin,

Deedrick's testimony makes no sense. Wasn't he trying to tell the jury that the hat found at Bundy was OJ's but not the hat found in his car? Isn't he trying to make ownership a key factor?

[William Anthony]

I'm going to guess that the uninformed will continue to NOT understand the purpose of the motion was to 'impeach' Fuhrman's statement that he had not used a racial epithet in the last ten years and NOT about Fuhrman/LE planting evidence of which Judge Ito had already ruled:

". . .The defense proffers include 41 examples of Fuhrman using the particular racial epithet in question and 18 examples of misconduct argued to be relevant on the issue of Fuhrman's credibility and willingness to fabricate. The defense also offers 2 comments made by Fuhrman in late July of 1994 which are argued to be relevant to Fuhrman's attitude towards testifying as a witness. See Evidence Code Section 780 (j). Interestingly, the proffers do not address what evidence supports the allegation that the Rockingham glove was moved. . .
1. Reaction to being called names: objection is sustained.
2. Tearing up a driver's license as a pretext to arrest: objection is sustained.
3. Hype arrest: objection is sustained.
4. Use of deadly force in making arrests: objection is sustained.
5. Use of deadly force in making arrests: objection is sustained.
6. Revenge for killing policemen: objection is sustained.
7. Manufacturing probable cause for arrest: objection is sustained.
8. Field interrogation techniques: objection is sustained.
9. Cover up of unlawful use of force: objection is sustained.
10. Necessity for the police officers to be willing to lie: objection is sustained.
11. Revenge against those who oppose the choke hold: objection is sustained.
12. Destruction of a suspect's property: objection is sustained.
13. Tearing up of driver's licenses: objection is sustained.
14. Beating of suspects: The proffer is rejected for the same reason stated as to Incident 9.
15. Testimony for events not witnesses: objection is sustained.
16. Coercing statements from suspects: objection is sustained.
17. Baton use in different parts of the City: objection is sustained.
18. Automobile stops: objection is sustained.

The above quote was made on 8/31/95.

I am going to say that the uninformed, rude, uncivil, and disrespectful do not understand or don't want to understand that judge Ito reconsidered that portion of his ruling in regard to the planting of evidence by MF, due to a motion based on newly discovered evidence in a renewed motion to suppress, as MF's credibility was called into question in regard to his testimony at the suppression hearing as the court was considering that MF committed perjury. However, in the vein of looking for understanding and hoping that all are not opposed to learning, just because they do not agree with the person from whom the knowledge, training and experience comes.

September 6, 1995

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

"Where additional evidence is presented, the findings of the magistrate to the extent they are affected by the additional evidence are not binding on the superior court. This allows the superior court to exercise its independent judgment on issues on which additional evidence is introduced." The additional evidence that we wish to introduce relates directly to the credibility of Detective Mark Fuhrman. And our position quite simply is that your Honor, in considering this evidence, is not bound by whatever findings were made with respect to Detective Fuhrman's credibility in the municipal court, but that you are to exercise your independent judgment on the issue of his credibility. Now, the Prosecution has contended that what we are offering with this additional proffer is simply evidence going to his general credibility. And I want to point out to the court the very clear relationship between the portions of the McKinny transcripts and tapes that we are proffering as new evidence on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman and the testimony that he presented on the motion to suppress."

[martin II]

Martin,

Deedrick's testimony makes no sense. Wasn't he trying to tell the jury that the hat found at Bundy was OJ's but not the hat found in his car? Isn't he trying to make ownership a key factor?

who knows, there were other examples of his slanting his testimony with twisted talk,
Many people believe FBI experts because they are FBI. Without looking at what they do to help the prosecution.

[GreenIce]

The above quote was made on 8/31/95.

I am going to say that the uninformed, rude, uncivil, and disrespectful do not understand or don't want to understand that judge Ito reconsidered that portion of his ruling in regard to the planting of evidence by MF, due to a motion based on newly discovered evidence in a renewed motion to suppress, as MF's credibility was called into question in regard to his testimony at the suppression hearing as the court was considering that MF committed perjury. However, in the vein of looking for understanding and hoping that all are not opposed to learning, just because they do not agree with the person from whom the knowledge, training and experience comes.

September 6, 1995

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

"Where additional evidence is presented, the findings of the magistrate to the extent they are affected by the additional evidence are not binding on the superior court. This allows the superior court to exercise its independent judgment on issues on which additional evidence is introduced." The additional evidence that we wish to introduce relates directly to the credibility of Detective Mark Fuhrman. And our position quite simply is that your Honor, in considering this evidence, is not bound by whatever findings were made with respect to Detective Fuhrman's credibility in the municipal court, but that you are to exercise your independent judgment on the issue of his credibility. Now, the Prosecution has contended that what we are offering with this additional proffer is simply evidence going to his general credibility. And I want to point out to the court the very clear relationship between the portions of the McKinny transcripts and tapes that we are proffering as new evidence on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman and the testimony that he presented on the motion to suppress."

William,

I don't understand how the judge kept out the comments MF made about finding the glove and that he was the star witness in the trial of the century.

People also forget that higher ups in the LAPD covered for MF and forced Capt York to lie about MF, there was no way Judge Ito was going to mess with that. It still amazes me how many people quaked when faced the truth about MF. IMO.

[weezer]

Ito refuses to toss out evidence

Defense challenged items found by Fuhrman
September 7, 1995

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Judge Lance Ito says prosecutors can continue to use evidence seized from O.J. Simpson's home the morning after the killing of his ex-wife. In a two-page ruling Thursday, Ito denied a defense motion to suppress the evidence. During the hearing on that motion, former detective Mark Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer defense questions.

The evidence found by Fuhrman included the notorious bloody glove, bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom, blood leading up the driveway and in the foyer, and blood in the Bronco. The defense claimed that in light of Fuhrman's racist views and claims of evidence-tampering on the "Fuhrman tapes," the evidence should be thrown out. The prosecution contended the facts in the case had not changed.

In his ruling, Ito pointed out that two other Los Angeles Police Department detectives, Tom Lange and Phillip Vannatter, were the lead investigators at the scene and it was their decision, not Fuhrman's, to go over the wall surrounding Simpson's home, where most of the evidence was found.

Ito also said that the blood speck found by Fuhrman on the white Bronco, which was parked on the street, was supported by photographs and the testimony of other officers.

"The entry onto the Rockingham grounds was justified," Ito said, "by the need to notify the defendant of the death of (Simpson's) former wife, the need to arrange for care of the two young children, the concern raised by the finding of apparent blood on a vehicle parked at the south driveway of the residence, the inability to gain a response from any of the occupants ... and the possibility that other victims might be present and in need of assistance."

Ito also found that Fuhrman's inspection of the walkway, where the glove was discovered, was based upon information he received from Kato Kaelin, Simpson's house guest.

Ito wrote that the testimony of Fuhrman "is corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. The motion is therefore denied."

"I'm not surprised," defense attorney Johnnie Cochran said about the ruling. The defense team has indicated it may rest its case Thursday.

[weezer]

Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Simpson Case
By JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITERS and ANDREA FORD, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
September 20, 1994

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito on Monday rejected an attempt to have the murder case against O.J. Simpson dismissed, ruling instead that enough evidence exists to force the football hero to stand trial in the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend.

Ito also echoed a ruling by a Municipal Court judge who found that a warrantless search of Simpson's estate hours after the killings was legal because officers said they were concerned that other victims might be inside and need help.

[GreenIce]

Darden did not exude nearly the degree of confidence and command that the magnificent one did, IMHO.

William,

In all fairness to Darden, he could not have the confidence that JC had because he had the short end of the evidence stick, IMO. I do believe that Darden always knew he was being used and allowed it. However, I do not believe he knew all the problems of evidence.

[GreenIce]

Mr. August,

I just thought of something. If Arnelle was in on it and washed the sweat suit, doesn't that blow up the detectives testimony regarding to her "asking" them wasn't her father inside the house?

And doesn't it only make sense that one detective would be checking the grounds for any more signs of a crime?

Also, if the detectives entered the back door and it was open, then doesn't it only make sense that Simpson would have entered the house through the back door and not use his front door?

[fgump2]

Does September 6, 1995 come after August 31, 1995?
The fifth ammendment is something tha non lawyers like me have a hard time understanding. The usual thing is that once a lawyer tells a client to plead 5th on something, that they should keep pleading 5th regardless. I don't understand why that is, but If you (WA) are as familiar with law as you claim to be, I thought you would know this.

I give two examples that I have heard about.
Ex. 1. A man was asked if he ever met his father. The man pleaded 5th ammendment rights. It was a known fact that the man grew up in the same house as his father, and saw his father on most days, so a non lawyer like me has trouble understanding why the prosecution asked this, and why the defendent refused to answer this.

Ex. 2. A woman was asked about lesbian behavior that she (someone said) had engaged in. This was decades ago in a less enlightened age when polite people didn't mention the subject. She wanted to answer that she had never done this. Her lawyer pleaded 5th for her, and she felt a strong sense of betrayal and shame.

I don't think either of these cases are unusual.

[GreenIce]

The fifth ammendment is something tha non lawyers like me have a hard time understanding. The usual thing is that once a lawyer tells a client to plead 5th on something, that they should keep pleading 5th regardless. I don't understand why that is, but If you (WA) are as familiar with law as you claim to be, I thought you would know this.

I give two examples that I have heard about.
Ex. 1. A man was asked if he ever met his father. The man pleaded 5th ammendment rights. It was a known fact that the man grew up in the same house as his father, and saw his father on most days, so a non lawyer like me has trouble understanding why the prosecution asked this, and why the defendent refused to answer this.

Ex. 2. A woman was asked about lesbian behavior that she (someone said) had engaged in. This was decades ago in a less enlightened age when polite people didn't mention the subject. She wanted to answer that she had never done this. Her lawyer pleaded 5th for her, and she felt a strong sense of betrayal and shame.

I don't think either of these cases are unusual.

fgump2,

The 5th ammendment is the basic right not to testify or give a statement that would incriminate themselves in a crime. However, most people just assume this means that a person will incriminate themseleves in a crime. I do believe that is not always the case but it is a wise legal move.

How many times have you heard a talking head or a person say that when a person "lawyers" up, they have to be guilty of something? That innocent people don't need to lawyer up.

However, I think any person would be a total idiot if they did not have a lawyer. I think it is just the way that our legal system now operates. I am sure you are aware that Kato refused to testify in the grand jury without a lawyer. Why did he do this? IMO, he was wise enough to either seek out legal advice or some one advised him to seek it out. What is interesting is that Kato did seek out advice but Simpson did give an interivew without his lawyer.

IMO, it also appears that detectives will use a person's request for a lawyer as more of public relations tool, just like the lie detector test.

The problem with MF taking the 5th is that he and the DA's always knew this was going to be an issue with MF and they already knew they had several people who were going to testify against MF on this. He opted to lie about it when he knew that everybody, including the jury knew he was lying on this.

IMO, when MF testified, he was giving the finger to the DA's and the LAPD and not the defense. I did find it interesting his book that he did not slam the defense on several issues they raised. He appeared to me pissed at the DA's and the LAPD. Again, IMO.

[tv]

Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Simpson Case
By JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITERS and ANDREA FORD, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
September 20, 1994

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito on Monday rejected an attempt to have the murder case against O.J. Simpson dismissed, ruling instead that enough evidence exists to force the football hero to stand trial in the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend.

Ito also echoed a ruling by a Municipal Court judge who found that a warrantless search of Simpson's estate hours after the killings was legal because officers said they were concerned that other victims might be inside and need help.

...and it will remain legal forever. :)

[martin II]

Mr. August,

I just thought of something. If Arnelle was in on it and washed the sweat suit, doesn't that blow up the detectives testimony regarding to her "asking" them wasn't her father inside the house? Well you have a point there. she didn't know oj had traveled. she would not have used the washing machine if she thought he was home.

And doesn't it only make sense that one detective would be checking the grounds for any more signs of a crime? no it dosent.

Also, if the detectives entered the back door and it was open, then doesn't it only make sense that Simpson would have entered the house through the back door and not use his front door?
OJ could have entered the house by the laundry roon door in the alley if he was there. Kato testified that the back door was kept locked. that if he wanted to use it to do his laundry he would ask GIGI TO OPEN THE DOOR.

[martin II]

fgump2,

The 5th ammendment is the basic right not to testify or give a statement that would incriminate themselves in a crime. However, most people just assume this means that a person will incriminate themseleves in a crime. I do believe that is not always the case but it is a wise legal move.

How many times have you heard a talking head or a person say that when a person "lawyers" up, they have to be guilty of something? That innocent people don't need to lawyer up.

However, I think any person would be a total idiot if they did not have a lawyer. I think it is just the way that our legal system now operates. I am sure you are aware that Kato refused to testify in the grand jury without a lawyer. Why did he do this? IMO, he was wise enough to either seek out legal advice or some one advised him to seek it out. What is interesting is that Kato did seek out advice but Simpson did give an interivew without his lawyer.

IMO, it also appears that detectives will use a person's request for a lawyer as more of public relations tool, just like the lie detector test.

The problem with MF taking the 5th is that he and the DA's always knew this was going to be an issue with MF and they already knew they had several people who were going to testify against MF on this. He opted to lie about it when he knew that everybody, including the jury knew he was lying on this.

IMO, when MF testified, he was giving the finger to the DA's and the LAPD and not the defense. I did find it interesting his book that he did not slam the defense on several issues they raised. He appeared to me pissed at the DA's and the LAPD. Again, IMO.


There were other case issues and mf history that he for sure did not want to talk about. so he took a blanket 5th to evade those.

[martin II]

Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Simpson Case
By JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITERS and ANDREA FORD, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
September 20, 1994

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito on Monday rejected an attempt to have the murder case against O.J. Simpson dismissed, ruling instead that enough evidence exists to force the football hero to stand trial in the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend.

Ito also echoed a ruling by a Municipal Court judge who found that a warrantless search of Simpson's estate hours after the killings was legal because officers said they were concerned that other victims might be inside and need help.

Sounds like vannatters testimony to the judge was evidence for cause to enter.

Is testimony evidence?

[martin II]

The fifth ammendment is something tha non lawyers like me have a hard time understanding. The usual thing is that once a lawyer tells a client to plead 5th on something, that they should keep pleading 5th regardless. I don't understand why that is, but If you (WA) are as familiar with law as you claim to be, I thought you would know this.

I give two examples that I have heard about.
Ex. 1. A man was asked if he ever met his father. The man pleaded 5th ammendment rights. It was a known fact that the man grew up in the same house as his father, and saw his father on most days, so a non lawyer like me has trouble understanding why the prosecution asked this, and why the defendent refused to answer this.

Ex. 2. A woman was asked about lesbian behavior that she (someone said) had engaged in. This was decades ago in a less enlightened age when polite people didn't mention the subject. She wanted to answer that she had never done this. Her lawyer pleaded 5th for her, and she felt a strong sense of betrayal and shame.

I don't think either of these cases are unusual.


imo
the person taking the 5th has the option to take it on some questions or all.

[martin II]

William,

In all fairness to Darden, he could not have the confidence that JC had because he had the short end of the evidence stick, IMO. I do believe that Darden always knew he was being used and allowed it. However, I do not believe he knew all the problems of evidence.

Darden was not as experienced in the law as Cochran and Dardens role in the casse was dictated by the planners of the prosecutions case. The prosecution did not have all their bases covered to support the charge and was behind. Bill Pavelic the defense investigator had connections inside the prosecutors office and was getting info on what they had. Not everyone in the prosecutors office agreed with that prosecution.
When the trail started B P was at the states attorneys office complaining about mf and how DG had allowed mf to carryout racist activities on the job.

This was before the trial.

[martin II]

...and it will remain legal forever. :)

A good example of how the courts supports le even when the claims make no sense.

[William Anthony]

William,

I don't understand how the judge kept out the comments MF made about finding the glove and that he was the star witness in the trial of the century.

People also forget that higher ups in the LAPD covered for MF and forced Capt York to lie about MF, there was no way Judge Ito was going to mess with that. It still amazes me how many people quaked when faced the truth about MF. IMO.

GreenIce,

The one thing that keeps out a lot of evidence is that the evidence is more prejudicial than probative and its in the judges discretion to decide that.

[William Anthony]

Ito refuses to toss out evidence

Defense challenged items found by Fuhrman
September 7, 1995

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Judge Lance Ito says prosecutors can continue to use evidence seized from O.J. Simpson's home the morning after the killing of his ex-wife. In a two-page ruling Thursday, Ito denied a defense motion to suppress the evidence. During the hearing on that motion, former detective Mark Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer defense questions.

The evidence found by Fuhrman included the notorious bloody glove, bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom, blood leading up the driveway and in the foyer, and blood in the Bronco. The defense claimed that in light of Fuhrman's racist views and claims of evidence-tampering on the "Fuhrman tapes," the evidence should be thrown out. The prosecution contended the facts in the case had not changed.

In his ruling, Ito pointed out that two other Los Angeles Police Department detectives, Tom Lange and Phillip Vannatter, were the lead investigators at the scene and it was their decision, not Fuhrman's, to go over the wall surrounding Simpson's home, where most of the evidence was found.

Ito also said that the blood speck found by Fuhrman on the white Bronco, which was parked on the street, was supported by photographs and the testimony of other officers.

"The entry onto the Rockingham grounds was justified," Ito said, "by the need to notify the defendant of the death of (Simpson's) former wife, the need to arrange for care of the two young children, the concern raised by the finding of apparent blood on a vehicle parked at the south driveway of the residence, the inability to gain a response from any of the occupants ... and the possibility that other victims might be present and in need of assistance."

Ito also found that Fuhrman's inspection of the walkway, where the glove was discovered, was based upon information he received from Kato Kaelin, Simpson's house guest.

Ito wrote that the testimony of Fuhrman "is corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. The motion is therefore denied."

"I'm not surprised," defense attorney Johnnie Cochran said about the ruling. The defense team has indicated it may rest its case Thursday.

None of which changes that the defense was allowed to question MF on planting evidence in the instant case and argue that MF planted evidence in the instant case.

[William Anthony]

Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Simpson Case
By JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITERS and ANDREA FORD, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
September 20, 1994

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito on Monday rejected an attempt to have the murder case against O.J. Simpson dismissed, ruling instead that enough evidence exists to force the football hero to stand trial in the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend.

Ito also echoed a ruling by a Municipal Court judge who found that a warrantless search of Simpson's estate hours after the killings was legal because officers said they were concerned that other victims might be inside and need help.

"...ruling instead that enough evidence exists to force the football hero to stand trial in the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend", which, thereafter standing trial, Simpson was found and will forever remain not guilty.

[William Anthony]

William,

In all fairness to Darden, he could not have the confidence that JC had because he had the short end of the evidence stick, IMO. I do believe that Darden always knew he was being used and allowed it. However, I do not believe he knew all the problems of evidence.

GreenIce,

I agree on the evidence thing but Darden did not have the magnificent one's charisma, imho.

[martin II]

This sounds strange
Deedrick had hairs that were old,had been chewed by insects and he could still identify the source.

clarke never asked if any hairs in the cap were from a white person.




MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it just--it indicates that the hair may have been laying around for a period of time as opposed to recently shed.

MS. CLARK: And did you compare the hairs recovered from this Bronco cap to the known exemplars taken from the head of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what results did you obtain?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, these hairs exhibited the same microscopic characteristics, and accordingly could have originated from the Defendant.

MS. CLARK: So you found hairs consistent with those of the Defendant in a cap found in his car. Was that a big surprise?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if that's his hat, it's not a surprise to me.

[William Anthony]

The fifth ammendment is something tha non lawyers like me have a hard time understanding. The usual thing is that once a lawyer tells a client to plead 5th on something, that they should keep pleading 5th regardless. I don't understand why that is, but If you (WA) are as familiar with law as you claim to be, I thought you would know this.

I give two examples that I have heard about.
Ex. 1. A man was asked if he ever met his father. The man pleaded 5th ammendment rights. It was a known fact that the man grew up in the same house as his father, and saw his father on most days, so a non lawyer like me has trouble understanding why the prosecution asked this, and why the defendent refused to answer this.

Ex. 2. A woman was asked about lesbian behavior that she (someone said) had engaged in. This was decades ago in a less enlightened age when polite people didn't mention the subject. She wanted to answer that she had never done this. Her lawyer pleaded 5th for her, and she felt a strong sense of betrayal and shame.

I don't think either of these cases are unusual.

I know that the law has stated that there is no such thing as a partial pleading/waiver of the fifth, meaning once a witness invokes the privilege, it pertains to all other questions. Without doing some research and finding the case and reviewing the court's reasoning in which it was ruled that the privilege was not partial, I cannot answer why. I can only offer a guess at this point, which is that since the privilege belongs to the witness against self-incrimination, that caution is exercised after the invocation and the witness is prohibited to pleading the fifth to all subsequent questions.

1. Without knowing more about the case I cannot say why it would be self-incriminating to no one's father. However, I can think of a scenario thanks to MF, where the witness had denied under oath that he knew his father and that denial was relevant to the issue in the trial.

2. As for your second example, since the privilege belongs to the witness and not the lawyer, I have no answer.

[bobaugust]

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

Wagner’s speculation that the photographer stood on top of the fence when he took a photo of the glove has no basis in fact and is contradicted by the actual photo that was taken. Wagner’s speculation doesn’t change the fact that after the hanging foliage that covered the top of the fence was cut back some bent wires were exposed. Wires that were bent inwards, towards the wall, consistent with someone standing on the other side of the fence and putting their foot on top of the fence to scale it to enter Simpson’s property. The exposed bent wires were directly over where the glove was found on the south path and opposite the place on Kaelin’s wall where Kaelin said he heard the thumps.

bobaugust

[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.

I would say “we” includes the majority of the posters on this discussion group.

No one corroborated Arnelle’s testimony. Just because you can’t seem to tell the difference between the back door and the front door doesn’t change that fact.

And I understand why you believe Arnelle told the truth when in fact her story was impeached by five witnesses. Arnelle lied despite the fact that you are so obviously infatuated with her.

bobaugust

[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.

I really didn’t expect you to answer my two questions, you never do.

There is no evidence to support your so called inference, only your inability to tell the difference between the back door of the house and front door of the house. The fact that the inference you made is yours and yours alone clearly shows that my accusation is true that you are calling the four detectives and Kato Kaelin liars because they impeached Arnelle Simpson’s fabricated story.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

...and it will remain legal forever. :)


It will remain forever that the evidence seized in the Simpson murder case was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty of murder.

[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.

You are entitled to you opinions but when you base those opinions on what you think the evidence is and not what it actually is then your opinions have little credibility.

Fuhrman’s testimony that the back door was open does not contradict anything Kaelin said.

It only took one detective to notify Simpson over the phone. The blood on the Bronco was only one of other concerns that created probable cause for the detectives to enter Simpson’s estate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I just thought of something. If Arnelle was in on it and washed the sweat suit, doesn't that blow up the detectives testimony regarding to her "asking" them wasn't her father inside the house?

And doesn't it only make sense that one detective would be checking the grounds for any more signs of a crime?

Also, if the detectives entered the back door and it was open, then doesn't it only make sense that Simpson would have entered the house through the back door and not use his front door?

If Arnelle did indeed wash her father’s sweat suit then she was an accomplice to the murders by destroying blood evidence, so she played dumb when the police asked her questions.

If Arnelle did indeed wash her father’s sweat suit then she was an accomplice to the murders by destroying blood evidence, so she played dumb when the police asked her questions.

The detectives didn’t have a valid reason to suspect Simpson of the murders until the glove was found. After all the detectives were shown the glove Vannatter asked Fuhrman to return to Bundy to make sure the glove at Rockingham matched the one at Bundy. It was starting to get light outside and that’s when Vannatter started to look around and first saw blood drops on the driveway which he followed out to the Bronco. He saw more blood drops on the cement near the Bronco and then when he looked through the side window he saw blood smears on the center console.

No, it doesn’t make any sense that Simpson would have used the back door just past Kaelin’s room since Simpson entered his estate on the other side of the house behind Kaelin’s room. Besides the fact that back door at that time was probably locked just as all the outside doors to Simpson’s house, except his front door, were probably locked because he was leaving town.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Darden was not as experienced in the law as Cochran and Dardens role in the casse was dictated by the planners of the prosecutions case. The prosecution did not have all their bases covered to support the charge and was behind. Bill Pavelic the defense investigator had connections inside the prosecutors office and was getting info on what they had. Not everyone in the prosecutors office agreed with that prosecution.
When the trail started B P was at the states attorneys office complaining about mf and how DG had allowed mf to carryout racist activities on the job.

This was before the trial.

Thanks for the information and who is DG.

[William Anthony]

I really didn’t expect you to answer my two questions, you never do.

There is no evidence to support your so called inference, only your inability to tell the difference between the back door of the house and front door of the house. The fact that the inference you made is yours and yours alone clearly shows that my accusation is true that you are calling the four detectives and Kato Kaelin liars because they impeached Arnelle Simpson’s fabricated story.

bobaugust

These were your two 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

Here are my answers.

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.

You see I did answer your questions and explained my answers and didn't allow you to demand a yes or no answer of me.

I don't know whether the inference is mine alone but it should be that of all those with unbiased eyes, who saw the video or read the transcript.

[William Anthony]

If Arnelle did indeed wash her father’s sweat suit then she was an accomplice to the murders by destroying blood evidence, so she played dumb when the police asked her questions.

If Arnelle did indeed wash her father’s sweat suit then she was an accomplice to the murders by destroying blood evidence, so she played dumb when the police asked her questions.

The detectives didn’t have a valid reason to suspect Simpson of the murders until the glove was found. After all the detectives were shown the glove Vannatter asked Fuhrman to return to Bundy to make sure the glove at Rockingham matched the one at Bundy. It was starting to get light outside and that’s when Vannatter started to look around and first saw blood drops on the driveway which he followed out to the Bronco. He saw more blood drops on the cement near the Bronco and then when he looked through the side window he saw blood smears on the center console.

No, it doesn’t make any sense that Simpson would have used the back door just past Kaelin’s room since Simpson entered his estate on the other side of the house behind Kaelin’s room. Besides the fact that back door at that time was probably locked just as all the outside doors to Simpson’s house, except his front door, were probably locked because he was leaving town.

bobaugust

A couple of minor corrections, if you will. If, which is not supported by anything, Ms. Arnelle did the things you claim when you say if, then she would be an accessory after the fact and not an accomplice to the murders.

[William Anthony]

fgump2,

The 5th ammendment is the basic right not to testify or give a statement that would incriminate themselves in a crime. However, most people just assume this means that a person will incriminate themseleves in a crime. I do believe that is not always the case but it is a wise legal move.

How many times have you heard a talking head or a person say that when a person "lawyers" up, they have to be guilty of something? That innocent people don't need to lawyer up.

However, I think any person would be a total idiot if they did not have a lawyer. I think it is just the way that our legal system now operates. I am sure you are aware that Kato refused to testify in the grand jury without a lawyer. Why did he do this? IMO, he was wise enough to either seek out legal advice or some one advised him to seek it out. What is interesting is that Kato did seek out advice but Simpson did give an interivew without his lawyer.

IMO, it also appears that detectives will use a person's request for a lawyer as more of public relations tool, just like the lie detector test.

The problem with MF taking the 5th is that he and the DA's always knew this was going to be an issue with MF and they already knew they had several people who were going to testify against MF on this. He opted to lie about it when he knew that everybody, including the jury knew he was lying on this.

IMO, when MF testified, he was giving the finger to the DA's and the LAPD and not the defense. I did find it interesting his book that he did not slam the defense on several issues they raised. He appeared to me pissed at the DA's and the LAPD. Again, IMO.

Not on point but some interesting reading on the 5th and a Harvard student or faculty member or alumni, not sure which.

http://www.rcarterpittman.org/essays/Bill_of_Rights/Subversion_of_Fifth_Amendment.html

[William Anthony]

fgump2,

The 5th ammendment is the basic right not to testify or give a statement that would incriminate themselves in a crime. However, most people just assume this means that a person will incriminate themseleves in a crime. I do believe that is not always the case but it is a wise legal move.

How many times have you heard a talking head or a person say that when a person "lawyers" up, they have to be guilty of something? That innocent people don't need to lawyer up.

However, I think any person would be a total idiot if they did not have a lawyer. I think it is just the way that our legal system now operates. I am sure you are aware that Kato refused to testify in the grand jury without a lawyer. Why did he do this? IMO, he was wise enough to either seek out legal advice or some one advised him to seek it out. What is interesting is that Kato did seek out advice but Simpson did give an interivew without his lawyer.

IMO, it also appears that detectives will use a person's request for a lawyer as more of public relations tool, just like the lie detector test.

The problem with MF taking the 5th is that he and the DA's always knew this was going to be an issue with MF and they already knew they had several people who were going to testify against MF on this. He opted to lie about it when he knew that everybody, including the jury knew he was lying on this.

IMO, when MF testified, he was giving the finger to the DA's and the LAPD and not the defense. I did find it interesting his book that he did not slam the defense on several issues they raised. He appeared to me pissed at the DA's and the LAPD. Again, IMO.

Here is how it is handled in federal court and it may be the same or different in the state courts and judging that Ito allowed further questioning of MF after he invoked, there is not a blanket exception in California.

http://juryinstruction.com/members/content/national/federal_manuals/manuals/benchbook/5_3.htm

7. The witness may not assert a blanket claim of the privilege as to all questions. For each question, the witness must assert or not assert the privilege. Out of the jury’s presence, the court must rule as to each question whether the witness’s claim of privilege is sustained or overruled. The court may sustain a blanket assertion of the privilege only if it concludes, after inquiry, that the witness could legitimately refuse to answer all relevant questions.

[martin II]

These were your two questions.



Here are my answers.



You see I did answer your questions and explained my answers and didn't allow you to demand a yes or no answer of me.

I don't know whether the inference is mine alone but it should be that of all those with unbiased eyes, who saw the video or read the transcript.

Bob posted katos testimony where he said he entered the house with Arnell Which was the biggest lie of all.

[martin II]

IJM

Re: directed verdict

This should tell you you were wrong on you post on directed verdict.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


A special intervention at trial occurring on the judge’s initiative or on a party’s motion, once the party with the burden of proof has closed his/her case, that the case be dismissed based on the allegation that the burden has not been met.

In a jury trial, the judge is the master of law and the gate-keeper of evidence, including the threshold of the burden of proof. If the Court is of the view that the evidence brought by the prosecutor (in a criminal case) or the plaintiff (in a civil case) has not met the burden of proof, the Court will “direct” the trial away from the jury and “direct a verdict” as to dismissal of a civil claim or the acquittal of an accused in a criminal matter.

In a criminal trial, this would result in an acquittal of the accused.

In a civil case, this would result in the action being dismissed against the plaintiff.

.

[martin II]

William--FGUMP2

In case you don't know

PAVELIC REGARDING LAPD CHIEF DARYL GATES

"....As a 19 year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, I am elated that Chief Gates was forced into retirement. His corrupt managerial style, coupled with his inflammatory and intemperate public comments, have done irreparable damage to the City of Los Angeles and its police department...."

"....Daryl Gates and his close associates are suffering from a disease called megalomania....an exaggerated belief in their own greatness and that of the organization. In order to maintain a mythical status of being "the best law enforcement agency in the world" the LAPD management developed a bunker mentality and consciously impeded and retarded investigations or inquiries which reflected poorly on the organization. The "us against them" mentality required faulty analysis which was oftentimes based on pseudo reasoning, clever fallacies and distorted or manufactured evidence...."

"....The disciplinary system under the leadership of Daryl Gates lacked consistency, uniformity and equality and sent a deplorable signal to others on the force, that it is OK to falsify official investigations, violate the LAPD manual, discredit the Code of Ethics and be dishonest as long as you are a member of management or have friends at the top who will protect you even when prima facie evidence of a crime is clearly evident...."

"....Chief Gates has failed to hold accountable personnel under his control who were acting under the color of law and were exercising illegal direction under the guise of official authority. In no sphere of public life is this practice more repugnant than in law enforcement. Chief Gates, who morally bankrupt the Los Angeles Police Department, forgot, or never knew, that true leadership can be gained only by an intolerance of wrong doing and unless we all abide by the highest standards among ourselves, we have no business enforcing the law upon others...."

"....Chief Gates used the Internal Affairs Division to intimidate those officers who dared to speak out against Los Angeles Police Department's institutionalized racism, corruption, sexism, mismanagement, promotional cronyism and other sensitive issues. If the Internal Affairs Division didn't get these "disloyal" police officers, like the Russian KGB, the organization could always count on the Medical Liaison Unit to send these officers to the Department shrink to certify them as functionally crazy...."

[William Anthony]

IJM

Re: directed verdict

This should tell you you were wrong on you post on directed verdict.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


A special intervention at trial occurring on the judge’s initiative or on a party’s motion, once the party with the burden of proof has closed his/her case, that the case be dismissed based on the allegation that the burden has not been met.

In a jury trial, the judge is the master of law and the gate-keeper of evidence, including the threshold of the burden of proof. If the Court is of the view that the evidence brought by the prosecutor (in a criminal case) or the plaintiff (in a civil case) has not met the burden of proof, the Court will “direct” the trial away from the jury and “direct a verdict” as to dismissal of a civil claim or the acquittal of an accused in a criminal matter.

In a criminal trial, this would result in an acquittal of the accused.

In a civil case, this would result in the action being dismissed against the plaintiff.

.

It seems I got it right without going to Harvard. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

William--FGUMP2

In case you don't know

PAVELIC REGARDING LAPD CHIEF DARYL GATES

"....As a 19 year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, I am elated that Chief Gates was forced into retirement. His corrupt managerial style, coupled with his inflammatory and intemperate public comments, have done irreparable damage to the City of Los Angeles and its police department...."

"....Daryl Gates and his close associates are suffering from a disease called megalomania....an exaggerated belief in their own greatness and that of the organization. In order to maintain a mythical status of being "the best law enforcement agency in the world" the LAPD management developed a bunker mentality and consciously impeded and retarded investigations or inquiries which reflected poorly on the organization. The "us against them" mentality required faulty analysis which was oftentimes based on pseudo reasoning, clever fallacies and distorted or manufactured evidence...."

"....The disciplinary system under the leadership of Daryl Gates lacked consistency, uniformity and equality and sent a deplorable signal to others on the force, that it is OK to falsify official investigations, violate the LAPD manual, discredit the Code of Ethics and be dishonest as long as you are a member of management or have friends at the top who will protect you even when prima facie evidence of a crime is clearly evident...."

"....Chief Gates has failed to hold accountable personnel under his control who were acting under the color of law and were exercising illegal direction under the guise of official authority. In no sphere of public life is this practice more repugnant than in law enforcement. Chief Gates, who morally bankrupt the Los Angeles Police Department, forgot, or never knew, that true leadership can be gained only by an intolerance of wrong doing and unless we all abide by the highest standards among ourselves, we have no business enforcing the law upon others...."

"....Chief Gates used the Internal Affairs Division to intimidate those officers who dared to speak out against Los Angeles Police Department's institutionalized racism, corruption, sexism, mismanagement, promotional cronyism and other sensitive issues. If the Internal Affairs Division didn't get these "disloyal" police officers, like the Russian KGB, the organization could always count on the Medical Liaison Unit to send these officers to the Department shrink to certify them as functionally crazy...."

Very informative.

[martin II]

It seems I got it right without going to Harvard. Thanks.

I think your poisition on the issue has been confirmed.

[tv]

I'm going to guess that the uninformed will continue to NOT understand the purpose of the motion was to 'impeach' Fuhrman's statement that he had not used a racial epithet in the last ten years and NOT about Fuhrman/LE planting evidence of which Judge Ito had already ruled:

". . .The defense proffers include 41 examples of Fuhrman using the particular racial epithet in question and 18 examples of misconduct argued to be relevant on the issue of Fuhrman's credibility and willingness to fabricate. The defense also offers 2 comments made by Fuhrman in late July of 1994 which are argued to be relevant to Fuhrman's attitude towards testifying as a witness. See Evidence Code Section 780 (j). Interestingly, the proffers do not address what evidence supports the allegation that the Rockingham glove was moved. . .
1. Reaction to being called names: objection is sustained.
2. Tearing up a driver's license as a pretext to arrest: objection is sustained.
3. Hype arrest: objection is sustained.
4. Use of deadly force in making arrests: objection is sustained.
5. Use of deadly force in making arrests: objection is sustained.
6. Revenge for killing policemen: objection is sustained.
7. Manufacturing probable cause for arrest: objection is sustained.
8. Field interrogation techniques: objection is sustained.
9. Cover up of unlawful use of force: objection is sustained.
10. Necessity for the police officers to be willing to lie: objection is sustained.
11. Revenge against those who oppose the choke hold: objection is sustained.
12. Destruction of a suspect's property: objection is sustained.
13. Tearing up of driver's licenses: objection is sustained.
14. Beating of suspects: The proffer is rejected for the same reason stated as to Incident 9.
15. Testimony for events not witnesses: objection is sustained.
16. Coercing statements from suspects: objection is sustained.
17. Baton use in different parts of the City: objection is sustained.
18. Automobile stops: objection is sustained.

Where's the one that says 'planting evidence to implicate someone in a double-murder? I don't see it anywhere.

[weezer]

Where's the one that says 'planting evidence to implicate someone in a double-murder? I don't see it anywhere.

I didn't see that but I'll keep looking. ;)

[tv]

*snipped*

No, it doesn’t make any sense that Simpson would have used the back door just past Kaelin’s room since Simpson entered his estate on the other side of the house behind Kaelin’s room. Besides the fact that back door at that time was probably locked just as all the outside doors to Simpson’s house, except his front door, were probably locked because he was leaving town.

bobaugust

All the fuss made on this board about the back door not having an outside lock -- of course Simpson couldn't get in his own back door because it was locked from the inside. He had no choice but to go in the front and risk being seen by Park -- which we know he was. Arnelle couldn't enter that way when she went to do the laundry -- she disarmed the alarm on the front door, entered the house, started the wash and exited by the back door leaving it unlocked...lol...just like pieces of a puzzle all coming together...:D

[weezer]

All the fuss made on this board about the back door not having an outside lock -- of course Simpson couldn't get in his own back door because it was locked from the inside. He had no choice but to go in the front and risk being seen by Park -- which we know he was. Arnelle couldn't enter that way when she went to do the laundry -- she disarmed the alarm on the front door, entered the house, started the wash and exited by the back door leaving it unlocked...lol...just like pieces of a puzzle all coming together...:D

isn't it comforting when things fall into place and make sense -- ;)

[tv]

isn't it comforting when things fall into place and make sense -- ;)

It sure is. I always wondered why he didn't go in the back; why he would take a chance on being seen -- I always figured he must have had door keys on his Bronco key ring...now it's very clear that it didn't matter how many keys he had -- he couldn't open the back door because it had no outside lock. Perfect!

[GreenIce]

Wagner’s speculation that the photographer stood on top of the fence when he took a photo of the glove has no basis in fact and is contradicted by the actual photo that was taken. Wagner’s speculation doesn’t change the fact that after the hanging foliage that covered the top of the fence was cut back some bent wires were exposed. Wires that were bent inwards, towards the wall, consistent with someone standing on the other side of the fence and putting their foot on top of the fence to scale it to enter Simpson’s property. The exposed bent wires were directly over where the glove was found on the south path and opposite the place on Kaelin’s wall where Kaelin said he heard the thumps.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Not sure what you saying. Are you now saying that Simpson did not stand on the wires or that he did stand on the wires and jumped into the wall?

[GreenIce]

There were other case issues and mf history that he for sure did not want to talk about. so he took a blanket 5th to evade those.

Martin,

The point I was trying to make is that MF and the DA's knew this was going to be an issue a weeks after the murders. IMO, the media again waged a war in favor of MF but said nothing that the DA's put a witness on the stand who they knew was lying and had several witnesses to this.

A lawyer, regardless of which side, can't a witness on the stand knowing or believing that he was going to lie on the stand.

I wonder why charges were not filed against Clark and Company?

[Hipcheck]

imo
the person taking the 5th has the option to take it on some questions or all.

From what I understand it's all or nothing as you can't pick and chose what questions you are going to answer.

If you answer one question then you must answer them all. That is my understanding of the matter.

[tv]

From what I understand it's all or nothing as you can't pick and chose what questions you are going to answer.

If you answer one question then you must answer them all. That is my understanding of the matter.

That's always been mine too.

[GreenIce]

A couple of minor corrections, if you will. If, which is not supported by anything, Ms. Arnelle did the things you claim when you say if, then she would be an accessory after the fact and not an accomplice to the murders.

William,

Not so, since there is no proof that Simpson ever contacted Arnelle after the murders, that means she had to know beforehand. She had to know what her father was wearing, why there was blood on it and where he was going to leave it for her. So if she knew beforehand, then isn't she an accomplice?

[GreenIce]

From what I understand it's all or nothing as you can't pick and chose what questions you are going to answer.

If you answer one question then you must answer them all. That is my understanding of the matter.

Hipcheck,

Had MF told the truth when he was asked, he would not have exposed himself to this. You seem to forget that he never forgot about the tapes, he knew that members of the LAPD had runs in with him and he knew about Kathleen Bell as well as others.

He chose to lie and he chose to bring down the other detectives and the LAPD. He was the one who labled everyone else the liar but himself.

[GreenIce]

If Arnelle did indeed wash her father’s sweat suit then she was an accomplice to the murders by destroying blood evidence, so she played dumb when the police asked her questions.

If Arnelle did indeed wash her father’s sweat suit then she was an accomplice to the murders by destroying blood evidence, so she played dumb when the police asked her questions.

The detectives didn’t have a valid reason to suspect Simpson of the murders until the glove was found. After all the detectives were shown the glove Vannatter asked Fuhrman to return to Bundy to make sure the glove at Rockingham matched the one at Bundy. It was starting to get light outside and that’s when Vannatter started to look around and first saw blood drops on the driveway which he followed out to the Bronco. He saw more blood drops on the cement near the Bronco and then when he looked through the side window he saw blood smears on the center console.

No, it doesn’t make any sense that Simpson would have used the back door just past Kaelin’s room since Simpson entered his estate on the other side of the house behind Kaelin’s room. Besides the fact that back door at that time was probably locked just as all the outside doors to Simpson’s house, except his front door, were probably locked because he was leaving town.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

So now you are saying that Arnelle knew all along that her father was out of town and when she allegedy told or asked the detective, "isn't he in there?" she knew all along that was a lie? You are now accusing her of playing dumb? Do I have this right?

[weezer]

From what I understand it's all or nothing as you can't pick and chose what questions you are going to answer.

If you answer one question then you must answer them all. That is my understanding of the matter.

that's also my understanding -- think I'll look at what the law was in California at the time Fuhrman offered his plea.

[tv]

that's also my understanding -- think I'll look at what the law was in California at the time Fuhrman offered his plea.

weezer, love your signature.:beer: How ironic that Simpson would quote a theme song associated with another wife-killer. Maybe he should have listened to his own advice before entering the Palace Station Hotel. ;)

[martin II]

From what I understand it's all or nothing as you can't pick and chose what questions you are going to answer.

If you answer one question then you must answer them all. That is my understanding of the matter.

Without your proof i will just say your claims against Darden were false. i don't know why you posted that.

[martin II]

From what I understand it's all or nothing as you can't pick and chose what questions you are going to answer.

If you answer one question then you must answer them all. That is my understanding of the matter.

Read AC'S depo.

[martin II]

It sure is. I always wondered why he didn't go in the back; why he would take a chance on being seen -- I always figured he must have had door keys on his Bronco key ring...now it's very clear that it didn't matter how many keys he had -- he couldn't open the back door because it had no outside lock. Perfect!

not true

IF oj was in the walkway the laundry door was a few feet from where you think he dropped the glove. he could open that and walk in.

for your story to work you need PROOF OF A PHONE CALL FROM OJ TO ARNELL TELLING HER ABOUT THE WASHING MACHINE.

THERE IS NONE.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

Had MF told the truth when he was asked, he would not have exposed himself to this. You seem to forget that he never forgot about the tapes, he knew that members of the LAPD had runs in with him and he knew about Kathleen Bell as well as others.

He chose to lie and he chose to bring down the other detectives and the LAPD. He was the one who labled everyone else the liar but himself.

Remember Darden said mf did what he did on the stand on purpose.MF said if he goes down the case goes down. maby he was correct. both went down.

[martin II]

gi
There would be no reason for oj to put sweats in the washing machine if he did have some. He could just put them in a bag when he was upstairs and take them with him in the limo as the prosecution claimed he did with the shoes and knife.

[martin II]

that's also my understanding -- think I'll look at what the law was in California at the time Fuhrman offered his plea.

Look for what the law was when AC testified and inform me.

[martin II]

AC

Q: Have you ever met with - Have I missed anybody, Mr. Leonard?

MR. LEONARD: I don't think so.

BY MR. KELLY:

Q: Melissa Fink -

A: Who's that?

Q: Have you ever heard of her?

A: I have no knowledge of her.

Q: And I've got to ask, what about Alan Dershowitz? Have you ever met with him -

A: No.









Q: Prior to your meetings with Cici and Cora and [Name Deleted] and speaking to Reichardt, had you spoken to Mr. Shapiro at all during that time period?

MR. RE: Wait a second. During what time period are you talking about?

MR. KELLY: Prior to his meeting with these individuals and after June 17th.

MR.RE: Well, that's the period of time that we are asserting the privilege to.


MR. KELLY: Okay. So you don't want him answering anything -

MR. RE: Right.

MR. KELLY: - in that time frame.

MR. RE: That's right.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

[martin II]

From what I understand it's all or nothing as you can't pick and chose what questions you are going to answer.

If you answer one question then you must answer them all. That is my understanding of the matter.

See my post above.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

Had MF told the truth when he was asked, he would not have exposed himself to this. You seem to forget that he never forgot about the tapes, he knew that members of the LAPD had runs in with him and he knew about Kathleen Bell as well as others.

He chose to lie and he chose to bring down the other detectives and the LAPD. He was the one who labled everyone else the liar but himself.

Gi

from mf history and the case his first option was to lie. otherwise he could have just answered yes.
But Bailey, knowing mf, knew he would lie.

[William Anthony]

Where's the one that says 'planting evidence to implicate someone in a double-murder? I don't see it anywhere.

Look at the date of September 6, 1995 when the defense was allowed to ask MF, if he planted evidence in this case and you should find it.:)

[William Anthony]

I didn't see that but I'll keep looking. ;)

Sometime eyes will not see what the mind does not want them to see (a Williamism).

[Hipcheck]

Without your proof i will just say your claims against Darden were false. i don't know why you posted that.

It's called using common sense Martin and you should try someone time.

Darden wasn't an employee with the DA's office when he asked to return so you can't fire a person who doesn't work for you.

Darden never said he was fired but said he was "basicly" fired.

Give it up already Martin. I thought we moved on but I guess you can't.

[William Anthony]

isn't it comforting when things fall into place and make sense -- ;)

Yes, the only door that could have been unlocked was the front.:);):cool:

[weezer]

weezer, love your signature.:beer: How ironic that Simpson would quote a theme song associated with another wife-killer. Maybe he should have listened to his own advice before entering the Palace Station Hotel. ;)

do you love it? dumb arse -- he cannot be that stupid -- he knows people believe he got away with double murder -- he has ripped everybody he's ever had dealings with -- and HE'S offering advice to Robert Blake.

[William Anthony]

It sure is. I always wondered why he didn't go in the back; why he would take a chance on being seen -- I always figured he must have had door keys on his Bronco key ring...now it's very clear that it didn't matter how many keys he had -- he couldn't open the back door because it had no outside lock. Perfect!

Why worry about being seen when you were at home?:);):cool:

[rovaan]

Wagner’s speculation that the photographer stood on top of the fence when he took a photo of the glove has no basis in fact and is contradicted by the actual photo that was taken. Wagner’s speculation doesn’t change the fact that after the hanging foliage that covered the top of the fence was cut back some bent wires were exposed. Wires that were bent inwards, towards the wall, consistent with someone standing on the other side of the fence and putting their foot on top of the fence to scale it to enter Simpson’s property. The exposed bent wires were directly over where the glove was found on the south path and opposite the place on Kaelin’s wall where Kaelin said he heard the thumps.

bobaugust

Who would think that hanging foliage would be such a barrier to detectives?
Are you implying that the detectives did not investigate properly? The only way you could tie that bent wire to the murders would be if the detectives had found blood on the wire with DNA from the Bundy scene. Either the bent wire was not there on the 6/13 or the detectives checked it out and found nothing to prove when that wire got bent.

You failed to mention Tom, OJ's security guard after the murders. He admits to climbing up on the fence and looking around. From what you have said before, you have a curious physical law about this: that a wire only bends in the direction of the front of the shoe stepping on it. The bent wire proves nothing.

[William Anthony]

From what I understand it's all or nothing as you can't pick and chose what questions you are going to answer.

If you answer one question then you must answer them all. That is my understanding of the matter.

I posted the link and it is within the judge's discretion with the plea is one of a blanket plea or not and considering that MF was asked a few questions, then it would appear that Ito decided in his discretionary role that the blanket plea was not applicable at that point. I had heard some express the view that you have and had not looked into the matter for myself until today.

[William Anthony]

That's always been mine too.

Which only goes to prove that understanding can be a misunderstanding. (a Williamism) :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

William,

Not so, since there is no proof that Simpson ever contacted Arnelle after the murders, that means she had to know beforehand. She had to know what her father was wearing, why there was blood on it and where he was going to leave it for her. So if she knew beforehand, then isn't she an accomplice?

Having knowledge and doing something to facilitate a crime are two different things. If the beautiful Ms. Arnelle would have done something to facilitate the murders before they were committed, she could have been charged under a theory of an accomplice. However, since there are those, who want to claim she did something criminal without, IMHO, any proof that she did something criminal after the murders, she could have only been charged with tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact or crimes of that nature.

[socaldiva]

that's also my understanding -- think I'll look at what the law was in California at the time Fuhrman offered his plea.

I've also understood it to mean that you have to answer all questions by pleaing the 5th, IIRC that's why Flea Bailey asked one of the questions that he did (can't remember which one lol). I also LOVE your signature line :beer:

[William Anthony]

Darden wasn't an employee with the DA's office when he asked to return so you can't fire a person who doesn't work for you.



I have asked for proof of this, which you state as fact, and you have not provided it.

[William Anthony]

Who would think that hanging foliage would be such a barrier to detectives?
Are you implying that the detectives did not investigate properly? The only way you could tie that bent wire to the murders would be if the detectives had found blood on the wire with DNA from the Bundy scene. Either the bent wire was not there on the 6/13 or the detectives checked it out and found nothing to prove when that wire got bent.

You failed to mention Tom, OJ's security guard after the murders. He admits to climbing up on the fence and looking around. From what you have said before, you have a curious physical law about this: that a wire only bends in the direction of the front of the shoe stepping on it. The bent wire proves nothing.

That is what reasonable thinking unbiased people knew, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

There is a question that lawyers use when they know that they have a witness trapped, which is, "Are you as sure about this as everything else you have testified to". There has been a post made about understanding in regard to MF's taking of the 5th and a question put to him by Bailey at that time. I have said, "Which only goes to prove that understanding can be a misunderstanding. (a Williamism) " The fact is that Bailey did not ask MF any questions when MF invoked the 5th. The questioning was done by Uelmen.

September 7, 1995

"THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. The record in this case indicates in our hearing yesterday outside the presence of the jury--and that was an appropriate procedure to proceed outside the presence of the jury because the counsel for Mr. Fuhrman, Darryl Mounger, did advise the court that it was a--and counsel that it was a possibility, in fact, a likelihood that Mr. Fuhrman would in fact seek to exercise his right not to testify under the 5th amendment to the United States constitution. After we held our hearing yesterday afternoon, the record is also clear that Mr. Fuhrman will refuse to answer any further questions as a witness in this case and he is, therefore, unavailable within the definition of evidence code section 240. The record is equally clear that when we adjourned, that the cross-examination as to Detective Fuhrman was adjourned subject to recall for further cross-examination. The subject matter that Mr. Fuhrman is likely and reasonably and appropriately subject to further cross-examination, we have heard over the last day and a half four witnesses who have come in to testify for the specific reason to impeach the testimony of Detective Fuhrman. Kathleen Bell was called--and this is not a particularly compelling reason for further cross-examination since Detective Fuhrman was in fact asked questions about Miss Bell on direct examination and cross-examination and there was sufficient opportunity since counsel on both sides were aware of the facts and circumstances that led to Miss Bell coming to the attention of counsel on both sides. However, as to Miss Singer, as to Mr. Hodge and as to Miss McKinny, Detective Fuhrman was not direct or cross-examined as to any of the statements made by those three witnesses who were called for the specific purpose of impeaching Detective Fuhrman. The prejudice to the Defendant based upon this unique set of circumstances is the inability to further cross-examine as to these three witnesses and the impeachment evidence that they have offered through their testimony; that is Singer, Hodge and McKinny. However, the case law is equally clear to the court that it is not appropriate to call a witness before a jury that counsel know will invoke the privilege, and that is clearly the fact and circumstance here. And the court will, therefore, deny the request to recall Detective Fuhrman at this time in front of the jury."

[weezer]

I've also understood it to mean that you have to answer all questions by pleaing the 5th, IIRC that's why Flea Bailey asked one of the questions that he did (can't remember which one lol). I also LOVE your signature line :beer:

wasn't it flea who started the debacle and then cockran drug uelman in to argue the motion and question Fuhrman. Ahh, if only ito hadn't got his feelings hurt about his wife. . .:shrug:

[martin II]

William

le had ojs phone records. NO CALL TO ARNELL ABOUT ANY WASHING MACHINE. As some claim.

[William Anthony]

wasn't it flea who started the debacle and then cockran drug uelman in to argue the motion and question Fuhrman. Ahh, if only ito hadn't got his feelings hurt about his wife. . .:shrug:

I am doing this from memory but I do believe it was Uelmen, who questioned MF, in the preliminary hearing an I don't think Ulemen questioned any witness in the presence of the jury (maybe, Ms. McKinny), since he had not practiced in a courtroom in a long time. It may have been the magnificent one's magnificent decision to have the brilliant Bailey cross the confused-tongue MF. Whether or not Ito's feelings were hurt over the nasty vile remarks MF made about Ito's wife and other women, his rulings were on solid legal ground and, if the prosecution or the defense did not think so, I am sure they heard or should have heard of an interlucotory appeal. I heard of one and I did not attend Harvard.:)
MF started his own demise when by the evidence reasonable inference can be drawn that he planted evidence in this case.

[William Anthony]

William

le had ojs phone records. NO CALL TO ARNELL ABOUT ANY WASHING MACHINE. As some claim.

I figured as much since I requested a link showing a phone call approximately two weeks ago and did not receive one and I am waiting on a link to show that Darden was not officially an employee of the DA's office when he took his LOA.

[martin II]

It's called using common sense Martin and you should try someone time.

Darden wasn't an employee with the DA's office when he asked to return so you can't fire a person who doesn't work for you.

Darden never said he was fired but said he was "basicly" fired.

Give it up already Martin. I thought we moved on but I guess you can't.

ITS very simple
When you post something as FACT people may ask for proof IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

If you indicate your post is just your opinion you may not be asked for proof.

You are required by the rules to give links for proof when asked.
hope this helps.

[martin II]

I figured as much since I requested a link showing a phone call approximately two weeks ago and did not receive one and I am waiting on a link to show that Darden was not officially an employee of the DA's office when he took his LOA.

NO PHONE CALL TO Arnell

NO LINK OR PROOF OF THE CLAIM AGAINST DARDEN

SOUNDS LIKE TWO FALSE CLAIMS TO ME.

[weezer]

It's called using common sense Martin and you should try someone time.

Darden wasn't an employee with the DA's office when he asked to return so you can't fire a person who doesn't work for you.

Darden never said he was fired but said he was "basicly" fired.

Give it up already Martin. I thought we moved on but I guess you can't.

the only absence of leave that I know of that is protected by law is 1) FMLA and/or 2) employment agreement. I know folks who have taken leaves of absence and the job they left was not held open for them but they were invited to apply for open positions if any existed for which they were qualified when they were ready to return to work. It is a reasonable inference that Darden obviously either violated the terms of the agreement or didn't have an agreement. At any rate, I agree with you -- Darden wasn't an employee. Maybe he thought he was entitled to the job and when that didn't happen, he felt he was 'basicly' fired. :shrug:

[weezer]

From what I understand it's all or nothing as you can't pick and chose what questions you are going to answer.

If you answer one question then you must answer them all. That is my understanding of the matter.

I've been doing more reading and you are right -- all or none.

[martin II]

wasn't it flea who started the debacle and then cockran drug uelman in to argue the motion and question Fuhrman. Ahh, if only ito hadn't got his feelings hurt about his wife. . .:shrug:

It was BAILEY that asked mf the MAGIC QUESTION that caused mf to change the cooky expression on his face.

[martin II]

I've been doing more reading and you are right -- all or none.

See AC DEPO. YOU THINK ac taking the 5th and answering questions was illegal?

[martin II]

the only absence of leave that I know of that is protected by law is 1) FMLA and/or 2) employment agreement. I know folks who have taken leaves of absence and the job they left was not held open for them but they were invited to apply for open positions if any existed for which they were qualified when they were ready to return to work. It is a reasonable inference that Darden obviously either violated the terms of the agreement or didn't have an agreement. At any rate, I agree with you -- Darden wasn't an employee. Maybe he thought he was entitled to the job and when that didn't happen, he felt he was 'basicly' fired. :shrug:

I think Daeden would be in a better position to know if he was fired or not.At least he would be more informed than any one posting here.

I doubt Darden would be silly enough to announce he was fired on national tv
and have Lapd PR department prove him a lie on national tv. He may not have had the court skills AS COCHRAN BUT TO SUGGEST HE WAS A FOOL.
i don't think so.

I think the original post may have been made without thought of the validity of Dardens comments. imo

I have not seen a LAPD response to his claim.

[Its just me]

IJM

Re: directed verdict

This should tell you you were wrong on you post on directed verdict.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


A special intervention at trial occurring on the judge’s initiative or on a party’s motion, once the party with the burden of proof has closed his/her case, that the case be dismissed based on the allegation that the burden has not been met.

In a jury trial, the judge is the master of law and the gate-keeper of evidence, including the threshold of the burden of proof. If the Court is of the view that the evidence brought by the prosecutor (in a criminal case) or the plaintiff (in a civil case) has not met the burden of proof, the Court will “direct” the trial away from the jury and “direct a verdict” as to dismissal of a civil claim or the acquittal of an accused in a criminal matter.

In a criminal trial, this would result in an acquittal of the accused.

In a civil case, this would result in the action being dismissed against the plaintiff.

.

Martin you sure got you law education real fast....When this circus began that you and you bud can't seem to stop you posted that Cochran said the time line proved OJ was innocent. I said if it had he would have filed a motion for it to be dismissed.....blah blah blah

Your uneducated self (same as IJM) posted this. It's not a quote but its back there in black and white...."I don't remember him asking the case be dismissed when he thought that was proved but he may have"

Then William posted a link with info. on directed verdict. He almost had to knock you in the head to catch on but you finally did and posted to William that you had read the link and ever since you've been a Harvard Law Grad and you and William have kept the circus running about legal terms. I posted a link to an article and below are two snips which states LC was cleared or criminal charges and about the judge responding to motions to dismiss the case.

The author uses terms that you and William do not agree with or so you say but it is acceptable for most of America including journalist and should be on this message board. I will add it's terms that you seem to understand and agree with until william steps to the plate.

With all that has been said and done the fact remains OJ's attorneys were not successful to stop the case from going to a jury...if they attempted. Using the motion for a directed verdict or Federal rule 29 or what ever...it didn't happen because the evidence pointed to OJ's guilt. And that brings up another subject...Martin I know the difference between MF and the glove OJ dropped. The defense couldn't cut up the glove so they took on MF.

I'm not alone in my thoughts either....it doesn't say it's the OJ case but it sure sounds like it. Read what a Judge on the Supreme Court had to say.
And wouldn’t I like to know what they would think about you and William the Harvard wannabe’s and the legal circus you have going at times on this board. Carry on Martin but I hope one day your realize your going now where sitting on this message board so much defending OJ who probably wouldn't give you the time of day in real life.

Justice Scalia: Mr. Blume, I... I know you're more concerned about... about what result you get in this case and... and whether your client gets another trial or not.
I am more concerned about... about the rule of law that we're going to apply in the case which will affect a whole lot of other trials, and I... I frankly think we're playing with fire.
I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.
I worry that... that that will be the... the result if... if we take your suggestion, which is to prescind from any consideration of the strength of the prosecution's case and simply look at the... at the alleged third party guilt evidence on its own without... without any consideration of its relative... its relative strength.
Just... you want us to do it just absolutely.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1327/argument/

snip
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.

snip
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.

[martin II]

I've been doing more reading and you are right -- all or none.

MF AND AC both answered questions and took the 5th. So i don't think it was ALL OR NONE in these instances. Both did so in the same trial.

[martin II]

Martin you sure got you law education real fast....When this circus began that you and you bud can't seem to stop you posted that Cochran said the time line proved OJ was innocent. I said if it had he would have filed a motion for it to be dismissed.....blah blah blah

Your uneducated self (same as IJM) posted this. It's not a quote but its back there in black and white...."I don't remember him asking the case be dismissed when he thought that was proved but he may have"

Then William posted a link with info. on directed verdict. He almost had to knock you in the head to catch on but you finally did and posted to William that you had read the link and ever since you've been a Harvard Law Grad and you and William have kept the circus running about legal terms. I posted a link to an article and below are two snips which states LC was cleared or criminal charges and about the judge responding to motions to dismiss the case.

The author uses terms that you and William do not agree with or so you say but it is acceptable for most of America including journalist and should be on this message board. I will add it's terms that you seem to understand and agree with until william steps to the plate.

With all that has been said and done the fact remains OJ's attorneys were not successful to stop the case from going to a jury...if they attempted. Using the motion for a directed verdict or Federal rule 28 or what ever...it didn't happen because the evidence pointed to OJ's guilt. And that brings up another subject...Martin I know the difference between MF and the glove OJ dropped. The defense couldn't cut up the glove so they took on MF.

I'm not alone in my thoughts either....it doesn't say it's the OJ case but it sure sounds like it. Read what a Judge on the Supreme Court had to say.
And wouldn’t I like to know what they would think about you and William the Harvard wannabe’s and the legal circus you have going at times on this board. Carry on Martin but I hope one day your realize your going now where sitting on this message board so much defending OJ who probably wouldn't give you the time of day in real life.

Justice Scalia: Mr. Blume, I... I know you're more concerned about... about what result you get in this case and... and whether your client gets another trial or not.
I am more concerned about... about the rule of law that we're going to apply in the case which will affect a whole lot of other trials, and I... I frankly think we're playing with fire.
I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.
I worry that... that that will be the... the result if... if we take your suggestion, which is to prescind from any consideration of the strength of the prosecution's case and simply look at the... at the alleged third party guilt evidence on its own without... without any consideration of its relative... its relative strength.
Just... you want us to do it just absolutely.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1327/argument/

snip
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.

snip
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.

ijm
WHAT Cochran said in public has nothing to do with the judges words in the Carriol case you posted. We are talking about law and not what people said on their.

Cochrans exact words were 'THE TIME LINE PROVED THAT OJ DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME"
IF I POSTED THAT HE SAID OJ WAS INNOCENT THAT WAS A MISQUOTE BY ME. Simple as that.

[martin II]

Martin you sure got you law education real fast....When this circus began that you and you bud can't seem to stop you posted that Cochran said the time line proved OJ was innocent. I said if it had he would have filed a motion for it to be dismissed.....blah blah blah

Your uneducated self (same as IJM) posted this. It's not a quote but its back there in black and white...."I don't remember him asking the case be dismissed when he thought that was proved but he may have"

Then William posted a link with info. on directed verdict. He almost had to knock you in the head to catch on but you finally did and posted to William that you had read the link and ever since you've been a Harvard Law Grad and you and William have kept the circus running about legal terms. I posted a link to an article and below are two snips which states LC was cleared or criminal charges and about the judge responding to motions to dismiss the case.

The author uses terms that you and William do not agree with or so you say but it is acceptable for most of America including journalist and should be on this message board. I will add it's terms that you seem to understand and agree with until william steps to the plate.

With all that has been said and done the fact remains OJ's attorneys were not successful to stop the case from going to a jury...if they attempted. Using the motion for a directed verdict or Federal rule 28 or what ever...it didn't happen because the evidence pointed to OJ's guilt. And that brings up another subject...Martin I know the difference between MF and the glove OJ dropped. The defense couldn't cut up the glove so they took on MF.

I'm not alone in my thoughts either....it doesn't say it's the OJ case but it sure sounds like it. Read what a Judge on the Supreme Court had to say.
And wouldn’t I like to know what they would think about you and William the Harvard wannabe’s and the legal circus you have going at times on this board. Carry on Martin but I hope one day your realize your going now where sitting on this message board so much defending OJ who probably wouldn't give you the time of day in real life.

Justice Scalia: Mr. Blume, I... I know you're more concerned about... about what result you get in this case and... and whether your client gets another trial or not.
I am more concerned about... about the rule of law that we're going to apply in the case which will affect a whole lot of other trials, and I... I frankly think we're playing with fire.
I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.
I worry that... that that will be the... the result if... if we take your suggestion, which is to prescind from any consideration of the strength of the prosecution's case and simply look at the... at the alleged third party guilt evidence on its own without... without any consideration of its relative... its relative strength.
Just... you want us to do it just absolutely.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1327/argument/

snip
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.

snip
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.

yOU HAVE TRIED TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT

You said a directed verdict can be issued by a judge and the reason would be INNOSENCE.

You posted the CARROLL link thinking it proved your point.
When the judges reason for the directed verdict was highlited it was clear that the reason was because the prosecution did not present enough evidence and your idea was wrong.

Now you are ignoring that and making a long post about why oj did not ask for a directed verdict. We are not fools.

[William Anthony]

the only absence of leave that I know of that is protected by law is 1) FMLA and/or 2) employment agreement. I know folks who have taken leaves of absence and the job they left was not held open for them but they were invited to apply for open positions if any existed for which they were qualified when they were ready to return to work. It is a reasonable inference that Darden obviously either violated the terms of the agreement or didn't have an agreement. At any rate, I agree with you -- Darden wasn't an employee. Maybe he thought he was entitled to the job and when that didn't happen, he felt he was 'basicly' fired. :shrug:

I understand that you don't know the terms of Darden's LOA and you have an opinion, which may or may not be correct, but the poster posted it as fact that when Dadren took his LOA he was not an employee, which is why I asked for proof of the poster's factual contention.

[William Anthony]

I've been doing more reading and you are right -- all or none.

Link please as to what you claimed to have read as I posted a link that said there was no blanket plea and that Ito allowed questions?

[William Anthony]

yOU HAVE TRIED TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT

You said a directed verdict can be issued by a judge and the reason would be INNOSENCE.

You posted the CARROLL link thinking it proved your point.
When the judges reason for the directed verdict was highlited it was clear that the reason was because the prosecution did not present enough evidence and your idea was wrong.

Now you are ignoring that and making a long post about why oj did not ask for a directed verdict. We are not fools.

A quick ditto and I will provide an additional long response in a subsequent post.

[William Anthony]

Martin you sure got you law education real fast....When this circus began that you and you bud can't seem to stop you posted that Cochran said the time line proved OJ was innocent. I said if it had he would have filed a motion for it to be dismissed.....blah blah blah

I will answer this without reading your link and in parts due to the length and your opposition to me responding within your posts so as to be misleading. I will snip and address and will say that I admire your persistence and just might nickname you Ms. bobaugust, if you won't take offense.:) This is in part what you actually said.

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"

There is never an option to prove that someone is innocent. There is a strategy to show by the evidence that a reasonable inference can be drawn that the defendant did not do the alleged crime. I don't know if Harvard students speak like this. Smile

[martin II]

Martin you sure got you law education real fast....When this circus began that you and you bud can't seem to stop you posted that Cochran said the time line proved OJ was innocent. I said if it had he would have filed a motion for it to be dismissed.....blah blah blah

Your uneducated self (same as IJM) posted this. It's not a quote but its back there in black and white...."I don't remember him asking the case be dismissed when he thought that was proved but he may have"

Then William posted a link with info. on directed verdict. He almost had to knock you in the head to catch on but you finally did and posted to William that you had read the link and ever since you've been a Harvard Law Grad and you and William have kept the circus running about legal terms. I posted a link to an article and below are two snips which states LC was cleared or criminal charges and about the judge responding to motions to dismiss the case.

The author uses terms that you and William do not agree with or so you say but it is acceptable for most of America including journalist and should be on this message board. I will add it's terms that you seem to understand and agree with until william steps to the plate.

With all that has been said and done the fact remains OJ's attorneys were not successful to stop the case from going to a jury...if they attempted. Using the motion for a directed verdict or Federal rule 29 or what ever...it didn't happen because the evidence pointed to OJ's guilt. And that brings up another subject...Martin I know the difference between MF and the glove OJ dropped. The defense couldn't cut up the glove so they took on MF.

I'm not alone in my thoughts either....it doesn't say it's the OJ case but it sure sounds like it. Read what a Judge on the Supreme Court had to say.
And wouldn’t I like to know what they would think about you and William the Harvard wannabe’s and the legal circus you have going at times on this board. Carry on Martin but I hope one day your realize your going now where sitting on this message board so much defending OJ who probably wouldn't give you the time of day in real life.

Justice Scalia: Mr. Blume, I... I know you're more concerned about... about what result you get in this case and... and whether your client gets another trial or not.
I am more concerned about... about the rule of law that we're going to apply in the case which will affect a whole lot of other trials, and I... I frankly think we're playing with fire.
I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.
I worry that... that that will be the... the result if... if we take your suggestion, which is to prescind from any consideration of the strength of the prosecution's case and simply look at the... at the alleged third party guilt evidence on its own without... without any consideration of its relative... its relative strength.
Just... you want us to do it just absolutely.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1327/argument/

snip
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.

snip
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.


Please give me the post number where i said Cochran said oj was Innocent???

[martin II]

Martin you sure got you law education real fast....When this circus began that you and you bud can't seem to stop you posted that Cochran said the time line proved OJ was innocent. I said if it had he would have filed a motion for it to be dismissed.....blah blah blah

Your uneducated self (same as IJM) posted this. It's not a quote but its back there in black and white...."I don't remember him asking the case be dismissed when he thought that was proved but he may have"

Then William posted a link with info. on directed verdict. He almost had to knock you in the head to catch on but you finally did and posted to William that you had read the link and ever since you've been a Harvard Law Grad and you and William have kept the circus running about legal terms. I posted a link to an article and below are two snips which states LC was cleared or criminal charges and about the judge responding to motions to dismiss the case.

The author uses terms that you and William do not agree with or so you say but it is acceptable for most of America including journalist and should be on this message board. I will add it's terms that you seem to understand and agree with until william steps to the plate.

With all that has been said and done the fact remains OJ's attorneys were not successful to stop the case from going to a jury...if they attempted. Using the motion for a directed verdict or Federal rule 29 or what ever...it didn't happen because the evidence pointed to OJ's guilt. And that brings up another subject...Martin I know the difference between MF and the glove OJ dropped. The defense couldn't cut up the glove so they took on MF.

I'm not alone in my thoughts either....it doesn't say it's the OJ case but it sure sounds like it. Read what a Judge on the Supreme Court had to say.
And wouldn’t I like to know what they would think about you and William the Harvard wannabe’s and the legal circus you have going at times on this board. Carry on Martin but I hope one day your realize your going now where sitting on this message board so much defending OJ who probably wouldn't give you the time of day in real life.

Justice Scalia: Mr. Blume, I... I know you're more concerned about... about what result you get in this case and... and whether your client gets another trial or not.
I am more concerned about... about the rule of law that we're going to apply in the case which will affect a whole lot of other trials, and I... I frankly think we're playing with fire.
I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.
I worry that... that that will be the... the result if... if we take your suggestion, which is to prescind from any consideration of the strength of the prosecution's case and simply look at the... at the alleged third party guilt evidence on its own without... without any consideration of its relative... its relative strength.
Just... you want us to do it just absolutely.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1327/argument/

snip
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.

snip
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.

IJM

Now you are suggesting that a u.s.Supreme Court Justice spoke on the OJ Case?? hahaha

[William Anthony]

[COLOR=black]Your uneducated self (same as IJM) posted this. It's not a quote but its back there in black and white...."I[FONT=Verdana] don't remember him asking the case be dismissed when he thought that was proved but he may have"

I don't think there is anything in this portion that requires a response.

[William Anthony]

Then William posted a link with info. on directed verdict. He almost had to knock you in the head to catch on but you finally did and posted to William that you had read the link and ever since you've been a Harvard Law Grad and you and William have kept the circus running about legal terms. I posted a link to an article and below are two snips which states LC was cleared or criminal charges and about the judge responding to motions to dismiss the case. [/QUOTE]

I can only say that, if your premise is true, Martin caught on very quickly showing his intelligence, which may be considerably more than a Harvard graduate and I vehemently deny that at anytime have I come close to assaulting nor have I assaulted Martin. :)

[martin II]

You are confused.

You said, i think, the carroll directed verdict was because C arroll was declared innocent.

The judges decision below proves it was because of lack of evidence by the prosecution.

Proving you wrong.


why you continue to argue this i don't know.

snip
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.

[Hipcheck]

I doubt Darden would be silly enough to announce he was fired on national tv
and have Lapd PR department prove him a lie on national tv. He may not have had the court skills AS COCHRAN BUT TO SUGGEST HE WAS A FOOL.


But Darden NEVER said he was FIRED. He said he was BASICLY FIRED.

I doubt very much that the LAPD would comment about this. Darden wasn't working for the LAPD so why would they care.

[William Anthony]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]The author uses terms that you and William do not agree with or so you say but it is acceptable for most of America including journalist and should be on this message board. I will add it's terms that you seem to understand and agree with until william steps to the plate.

I do have a problem with some things that are acceptable to most of America and in regard to the media wrongly using terms and, if I do and I have, I do not take offense at being corrected or informed. I think that it is a sign of intelligence for a person to use terminology correctly after being informed, don't you?:)

[Its just me]

Hahaha, I see the circus is still in town. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]With all that has been said and done the fact remains OJ's attorneys were not successful to stop the case from going to a jury...if they attempted. Using the motion for a directed verdict or Federal rule 29 or what ever...it didn't happen because the evidence pointed to OJ's guilt. And that brings up another subject...Martin I know the difference between MF and the glove OJ dropped. The defense couldn't cut up the glove so they took on MF.

I have tried to explain to you that the directed verdict motion or motion for acquittal (if you prefer that terminology) is usually a pro forma motion that is usually denied. It is purported that the magnificent one wanted a jury trial under certain conditions and those conditions were met, so I must question, if what is purported is true, the earnestness with which the defense fought for the motion. There was evidence that pointed to Simpson's guilt but not beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by the jury. The defense did cut up MF, in regard to his credibility, leading me to call him the confused-tongue MF, and the defense in so doing raised doubt about his testimony that he found the glove where he claimed to have found it and allowed a reasonable inference to be drawn that MF planted the glove, IMHO. :)

[socaldiva]

wasn't it flea who started the debacle and then cockran drug uelman in to argue the motion and question Fuhrman. Ahh, if only ito hadn't got his feelings hurt about his wife. . .:shrug:

I think you are right (again) :)

[William Anthony]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

Justice Scalia: Mr. Blume, I... I know you're more concerned about... about what result you get in this case and... and whether your client gets another trial or not.
I am more concerned about... about the rule of law that we're going to apply in the case which will affect a whole lot of other trials, and I... I frankly think we're playing with fire.
I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.
I worry that... that that will be the... the result if... if we take your suggestion, which is to prescind from any consideration of the strength of the prosecution's case and simply look at the... at the alleged third party guilt evidence on its own without... without any consideration of its relative... its relative strength.
Just... you want us to do it just absolutely.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1327/argument/

I took a look at your link and it is very interesting but it is oral argument in front of the United States Supreme Court and I will need time to devote to reading it in its entirety, without taking this one quote out of context.

[William Anthony]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
snip
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.

snip
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.

We have already discussed this and the wrong terminology and the proper terminology used by the court and the court's legal reasoning, which was not on the defendant's innocence but on the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. In this case, a Harvard try to change the wording did not pass muster. :);):cool:

[tv]

But Darden NEVER said he was FIRED. He said he was BASICLY FIRED.

I doubt very much that the LAPD would comment about this. Darden wasn't working for the LAPD so why would they care. I agree -- why would they care? Does anyone expect the LAPD to ask for equal time on Oprah to address this issue? I'm sure they considered it a non-issue if they even paid attention to it. The trial was life changing for some of the participants and Darden was treated badly by many fellow blacks and had some issues with the DA's office -- I think that was just an emotional response from him.

[martin II]

But Darden NEVER said he was FIRED. He said he was BASICLY FIRED.

I doubt very much that the LAPD would comment about this. Darden wasn't working for the LAPD so why would they care.

Do you have a link to prove your claim. yet

[William Anthony]

I agree -- why would they care? Does anyone expect the LAPD to ask for equal time on Oprah to address this issue? I'm sure they considered it a non-issue if they even paid attention to it. The trial was life changing for some of the participants and Darden was treated badly by many fellow blacks and had some issues with the DA's office -- I think that was just an emotional response from him.

I think that Darden was treated worse by Caucasians and that Marcia Clark realized this and tried to make amends.

[William Anthony]

Interlucotory appeal.

[tv]

wasn't it flea who started the debacle and then cockran drug uelman in to argue the motion and question Fuhrman. Ahh, if only ito hadn't got his feelings hurt about his wife. . .:shrug:

Yes, Ito used the tapes to get back at Mark Fuhrman for his feelings about his wife. He should have never been the judge for the case with such a conflict of interest but he was and the rest is history...the circus came to town.

[Hipcheck]

Do you have a link to prove your claim. yet

You posted that Darden said he was basicly fired. He never said he was fired.

Why do you think the LAPD would say anything about Darden and the DA's office? Darden didn't work for the LAPD so why would they care.

The news media reported that Darden was terminated for abandonding his job.

[William Anthony]

Yes, Ito used the tapes to get back at Mark Fuhrman for his feelings about his wife. He should have never been the judge for the case with such a conflict of interest but he was and the rest is history...the circus came to town.

If I don't like being on the loosing side, I will take my ball and go home.

[William Anthony]

You posted that Darden said he was basicly fired. He never said he was fired.

Why do you think the LAPD would say anything about Darden and the DA's office? Darden didn't work for the LAPD so why would they care.

The news media reported that Darden was terminated for abandonding his job.

You posted that Darden wasn't an employee of the DA's office when he was on his leave of absence and I have asked you for a link.

[martin II]

You posted that Darden said he was basicly fired. He never said he was fired.

Why do you think the LAPD would say anything about Darden and the DA's office? Darden didn't work for the LAPD so why would they care.

The news media reported that Darden was terminated for abandonding his job.

You made a post in conflict with Dardens comment and have refused to offer proof to support your claims. So i will assum you spoke without proof.

[Its just me]

I took a look at your link and it is very interesting but it is oral argument in front of the United States Supreme Court and I will need time to devote to reading it in its entirety, without taking this one quote out of context.

Of course it's an oral argument and it was concerning a case in South Carolina..... that is why I provided the link and I underlined what I think is related to OJ's case.....The police were on trial and it's pretty clear what Justice Scalia thinks about police being on trial.

quote from Justice Scalia: "I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.

If you don't mind inform Martin what the link is about....he seems to think it's about OJ.

[Its just me]

I see it as abrasive and rude in addition to agressive.

Martin, Take a little journey and read all your posts until you find the one you asked me to find. You just may see that you are no angel when it comes to your thoughts about me. But I just wear my big girl panties and don't let it bother me. You need to do the same but I think you need droors instead of panties.

[martin II]

Of course it's an oral argument and it was concerning a case in South Carolina..... that is why I provided the link and I underlined what I think is related to OJ's case.....The police were on trial and it's pretty clear what Justice Scalia thinks about police being on trial.

quote from Justice Scalia: "I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.

If you don't mind inform Martin what the link is about....he seems to think it's about OJ.

You now agree that a directed verdict cannot result in innocense.
Who cares what SCALIA said he helped Bush steal a election from bush.gees

[William Anthony]

Of course it's an oral argument and it was concerning a case in South Carolina..... that is why I provided the link and I underlined what I think is related to OJ's case.....The police were on trial and it's pretty clear what Justice Scalia thinks about police being on trial.

quote from Justice Scalia: "I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.

If you don't mind inform Martin what the link is about....he seems to think it's about OJ.

I am unable to cut and paste but the lawyer's response about the South Carolina law being unconstitutional is worth pasting, IMHO, because a defendant is guaranteed the right to confront the witnesses against him and, in this case, it would be the state. If that is anywhere in the argument, could you post it? That would have been my strongest argument, although I am not a Harvard graduate. I think that is where the lawyer was headed.

[Its just me]

I am unable to cut and paste but the lawyer's response about the South Carolina law being unconstitutional is worth pasting, IMHO, because a defendant is guaranteed the right to confront the witnesses against him and, in this case, it would be the state. If that is anywhere in the argument, could you post it? That would have been my strongest argument, although I am not a Harvard graduate. I think that is where the lawyer was headed.

Actually I can't read your mind so I don't know what you want me to cut and paste and it is a pretty long argument for me to read and try and figure out just exactly your talking about.

FWIW It's Holmes v. South Carolina

Mr. Blume: Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court--
In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court took the second of two recent steps that dramatically curtail a defendant's ability to create a reasonable doubt as to his innocence by presenting evidence that another individual committed the crime.
The first step came in 2001 when, in State v. Gay, the court held that the admissibility of third party guilt evidence was dependent on the strength of the prosecution's case.
The second step, which occurred in Mr. Holmes' case, holds that third party guilt evidence is inadmissible whenever the prosecution has presented strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt.

[Its just me]

You now agree that a directed verdict cannot result in innocense.
Who cares what SCALIA said he helped Bush steal a election from bush.gees

Martin Sadly this post just speaks Volumes.

[GreenIce]

gi
There would be no reason for oj to put sweats in the washing machine if he did have some. He could just put them in a bag when he was upstairs and take them with him in the limo as the prosecution claimed he did with the shoes and knife.

Martin,

IMO, I think had the DA's tried to enter these pictures into evidence through the state witnesses, the defense could have used the same logic in regards to the socks. They look out of place in a home that is kept so clean that it sparkles. IMO, the socks were taken out of the hamper and I believe the dark objects were placed in the washer and it was not done by Arnelle or Simpson.

I agree with you, no way would he have gotten rid of the shoes and the weapons and not put the socks and the clothes with them. The only way these items could have disappeared if Simpson is the murderer is that he had help at Bundy as well as getting rid of the evidence. IMO.

It is clear the police knew what time OJ left for Chicago and they always knew where he was. It is obvious from their behavior as well as their testimony. Their big mistake was saying too much and they buried themselves, IMO. I am going through Lange and Vanatter's book and I keep learning more how they buried themselves while trying to cover for MF and Phillips.

In their book, Vanatter clearly states that he, MF learned about the thumps from Kato Kalin at the same time that MF deposited Kato to wait for VA. It is clear in MF's and Kato's testimony that it did not happen this way and it is clear in Kato's testimony he told VA about the thumps before he was brought inside in the house.

[William Anthony]

Actually I can't read your mind so I don't know what you want me to cut and paste and it is a pretty long argument for me to read and try and figure out just exactly your talking about.

FWIW It's Holmes v. South Carolina

Mr. Blume: Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court--
In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court took the second of two recent steps that dramatically curtail a defendant's ability to create a reasonable doubt as to his innocence by presenting evidence that another individual committed the crime.
The first step came in 2001 when, in State v. Gay, the court held that the admissibility of third party guilt evidence was dependent on the strength of the prosecution's case.
The second step, which occurred in Mr. Holmes' case, holds that third party guilt evidence is inadmissible whenever the prosecution has presented strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt.

IIRC, it comes right after that about the South Carolina law being unconstitutional. However, let's look at this, unless you are ready to concede that no one has been declared innocent pursuant to a motion of acquittal or a directed verdict, if you will. You see that it speaks of an ability to create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's innocence not to the fact that the defendant was innocent. The case citation will most likely only give me the Court's ruling and not the oral arguments.

[Hotwater]

bump

The Moderator will not give more than one warning regarding problem behavior.
The Moderator will determine member timeouts based on lack of civility, which includes:
· Rudeness to others
· Foul language
· Failure to follow the guidelines of discussion
· Repeated bashing of each other -- everyone's entitled to their opinion. Please find a way to be respectful even if you don't agree.


A TIMEOUT IS A BAN OF ANYWHERE FROM 3-10 DAY'S TBD BY THE MODERATOR. REPEAT OFFENDERS RISK BEING PERMANENTLY BANNED!

[bobaugust]

You see I did answer your questions and explained my answers and didn't allow you to demand a yes or no answer of me.

I don't know whether the inference is mine alone but it should be that of all those with unbiased eyes, who saw the video or read the transcript.

I see, you now claim that when you said, “I respectfully decline to answer the question, (not questions)” that somehow means you did answer my questions. Wow.

I have never seen or heard anyone make the illogical inference you made that since the detectives said Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it somehow means that they were talking about the front door so the detectives lied. That illogical inference is yours and yours alone just as other illogical inferences you have made you call “reasonable” that are based only on your imagination.

The fact that Kato Kaelin saw Arnelle and the three detectives enter that back door and he and Fuhrman followed them in clearly corroborates the three detectives’ testimony that Arnelle opened that door to let them into the house. The fact that the back door could not be unlocked from the outside clearly shows the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking it, they were not mistaken about Arnelle opening it.

Anyone who is unbiased understands that Arnelle’s story was impeached by the four detectives and Kato Kaelin. Only someone who is bias because of an obvious infatuation with Arnelle Simpson would claim the five witnesses lied about this, not Arnelle.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Not sure what you saying. Are you now saying that Simpson did not stand on the wires or that he did stand on the wires and jumped into the wall?

Let me be perfectly clear, the bent wires are consistent with Simpson jumping from the top of his fence from the Salinger’s property to his property. The evidence of the noises and vibrations Kaelin testified to are consistent with Simpson slamming into the wall when he landed on the narrow path. The place the glove was found, directly under those bent wires is consistent with Simpson unknowingly dropping his right hand glove in the dark.

I have no idea what leads you to believe I have ever said anything different.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Is Justice Scallia saying that, because of the Simpson case, LE should no longer be allowed to be cross examined about their activities or is he saying that LE was so corrupt that the number of cases involving ineptitude and corruption charges will become so public as to appear to be a circus like atmosphere?

[martin II]

Of course it's an oral argument and it was concerning a case in South Carolina..... that is why I provided the link and I underlined what I think is related to OJ's case.....The police were on trial and it's pretty clear what Justice Scalia thinks about police being on trial.

quote from Justice Scalia: "I... I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which... in... in which the police are put on trial, which is part of what is happening here and what has happened in... in a famous recent American case.

If you don't mind inform Martin what the link is about....he seems to think it's about OJ.


According to this commission and the u.s. DOJ someone should have been looking at the laPD LONG TIME AGO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Commission

[William Anthony]

I see, you now claim that when you said, “I respectfully decline to answer the question, (not questions)” that somehow means you did answer my questions. Wow.

I have never seen or heard anyone make the illogical inference you made that since the detectives said Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it somehow means that they were talking about the front door so the detectives lied. That illogical inference is yours and yours alone just as other illogical inferences you have made you call “reasonable” that are based only on your imagination.

The fact that Kato Kaelin saw Arnelle and the three detectives enter that back door and he and Fuhrman followed them in clearly corroborates the three detectives’ testimony that Arnelle opened that door to let them into the house. The fact that the back door could not be unlocked from the outside clearly shows the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking it, they were not mistaken about Arnelle opening it.

Anyone who is unbiased understands that Arnelle’s story was impeached by the four detectives and Kato Kaelin. Only someone who is bias because of an obvious infatuation with Arnelle Simpson would claim the five witnesses lied about this, not Arnelle.

bobaugust

There is no need for you to be uncivil, rude, disrespectful and to engage in a personal attack so quickly following the moderator's reminder, as you should by the rules be respectful of my opinion. You obviously did not read this when you say that I did not answer your question, "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. "

I have read your posts where you have relied on technology camcorders cameras and the likes thereof to support your position. A video was introduced, showing that the only door able to be unlocked with a key was the front door as the, imho, beautiful, Ms. Arnelle testified. You are saying that she lied in that she didn't unlock the door. Therefore, if she lied, the logical deduction is that the detectives lied. Since the detectives said she unlocked the door and let them in and you contend that Kato says they went in through the rear door as did the detectives, the technology on which you have relied shows that they lied and Ms. Arnelle was truthful about which door she let them enter.

I have explained my point on infatuation and see no need to repeat myself.

[GreenIce]

According to this commission and the u.s. DOJ someone should have been looking at the laPD LONG TIME AGO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Commission

Martin,

IMO, it was two judges that turned the Simpson trial into a circus, Judge Kennedy Powell and Judge Ito.

I don't believe Judge Ito knew about his wife and MF. I don't think she would have gone to him with this. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

IMO, it was two judges that turned the Simpson trial into a circus, Judge Kennedy Powell and Judge Ito.

I don't believe Judge Ito knew about his wife and MF. I don't think she would have gone to him with this. IMO.

GreenIce,

Had not those involved been seeking their five minutes of fame, the evidence would have been suppressed, IMHO.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I think had the DA's tried to enter these pictures into evidence through the state witnesses, the defense could have used the same logic in regards to the socks. They look out of place in a home that is kept so clean that it sparkles. IMO, the socks were taken out of the hamper and I believe the dark objects were placed in the washer and it was not done by Arnelle or Simpson.

I agree with you, no way would he have gotten rid of the shoes and the weapons and not put the socks and the clothes with them. The only way these items could have disappeared if Simpson is the murderer is that he had help at Bundy as well as getting rid of the evidence. IMO.

It is clear the police knew what time OJ left for Chicago and they always knew where he was. It is obvious from their behavior as well as their testimony. Their big mistake was saying too much and they buried themselves, IMO. I am going through Lange and Vanatter's book and I keep learning more how they buried themselves while trying to cover for MF and Phillips.

In their book, Vanatter clearly states that he, MF learned about the thumps from Kato Kalin at the same time that MF deposited Kato to wait for VA. It is clear in MF's and Kato's testimony that it did not happen this way and it is clear in Kato's testimony he told VA about the thumps before he was brought inside in the house.

You are correct again.

Why would oj hide two murder items and leave two in plain sight for le to bump into.
The socks and the dark whatever it was was taken fron the hamper. More likely the washer contained the black bathrobe Park said oj could have had on when he walked into the house.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

Had not those involved been seeking their five minutes of fame, the evidence would have been suppressed, IMHO.

William,

I totally disagree with you. As I have posted before, our LE are the foundation of our justice system. It is clear that DA's and judge's are afraid of them. I don't think they seek their 15 minutes of fame, they just don't want 1 second of "infamy" when they tell the cops they don't believe them and they are tossing out the evidence or the case.

Judge's don't want to lose their jobs.

The sad part about this William is that juries then get blamed when they aquit a defendant on evidence that the judge never should should have allowed in. I am convinced that each juror knew that Judge Ito was calling VA a liar but he was going to allow it any way. Never in a million years will be able to convince that either Judge Kennedy or Judge Ito believed the 4 detectives reasons for going over the wall and that Simpson was not a suspect. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

Martin Sadly this post just speaks Volumes.

That was the intent.

[William Anthony]

William,

I totally disagree with you. As I have posted before, our LE are the foundation of our justice system. It is clear that DA's and judge's are afraid of them. I don't think they seek their 15 minutes of fame, they just don't want 1 second of "infamy" when they tell the cops they don't believe them and they are tossing out the evidence or the case.

Judge's don't want to lose their jobs.

The sad part about this William is that juries then get blamed when they aquit a defendant on evidence that the judge never should should have allowed in. I am convinced that each juror knew that Judge Ito was calling VA a liar but he was going to allow it any way. Never in a million years will be able to convince that either Judge Kennedy or Judge Ito believed the 4 detectives reasons for going over the wall and that Simpson was not a suspect. Again, IMO.

GreenIce,

We discussed this last week, IIRC, and I posted the link. I apologize if I suggested that fame was the only reason that the evidence wasn't suppressed.

[martin II]

William,

I totally disagree with you. As I have posted before, our LE are the foundation of our justice system. It is clear that DA's and judge's are afraid of them. I don't think they seek their 15 minutes of fame, they just don't want 1 second of "infamy" when they tell the cops they don't believe them and they are tossing out the evidence or the case.

Judge's don't want to lose their jobs.

The sad part about this William is that juries then get blamed when they aquit a defendant on evidence that the judge never should should have allowed in. I am convinced that each juror knew that Judge Ito was calling VA a liar but he was going to allow it any way. Never in a million years will be able to convince that either Judge Kennedy or Judge Ito believed the 4 detectives reasons for going over the wall and that Simpson was not a suspect. Again, IMO.

GI

I think the jurors knew ITO and Kennedy were wrong and prevented justice on that issue but it seems they were forced to hold their fire until they were asked to give a verdict.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

We discussed this last week, IIRC, and I posted the link. I apologize if I suggested that fame was the only reason that the evidence wasn't suppressed.

William,

I am old, I don't remember!

[William Anthony]

IJM

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-1327P.ZO

While the court did not use the exact language and I do not recall if the word unconstitutional was used as it pertained to the statute nor whether there was wording on the defendant's right to confrontation, the ruling did say it prevented the defendant from putting on a full defense, which, IMHO, is the same but a sugsr-coated way of saying it.

[William Anthony]

William,

I am old, I don't remember!

What? Are you saying you are suffering from--oh my, what do they call it?:)

[GreenIce]

GI

I think the jurors knew ITO and Kennedy were wrong and prevented justice on that issue but it seems they were forced to hold their fire until they were asked to give a verdict.

Martin,

IMO, Ito and Kennedy doomed the DA's case with their rulings. I was waiting for some brave media person to come right out and say this and blame them for allowing the search warrant to stand. But I guess they had other targets.

[GreenIce]

What? Are you saying you are suffering from--oh my, what do they call it?:)

William,

We have stop drinking out of each other's glasses!!!!!!!

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, it was two judges that turned the Simpson trial into a circus, Judge Kennedy Powell and Judge Ito.

I don't believe Judge Ito knew about his wife and MF. I don't think she would have gone to him with this. IMO.

Vannater and Clarke knew which judge to go to that would ignore their lies and rule in their favor for the warrant.

[William Anthony]

William,

We have stop drinking out of each other's glasses!!!!!!!

I can't remember where I put mine. A couple of days ago, I went to buy new reading glasses. The clerk asked me did I find the right ones. I told her I didn't know as I had to get glasses to see if I was getting the right glasses. We laughed hysterically.

[Its just me]

IIRC, it comes right after that about the South Carolina law being unconstitutional. However, let's look at this, unless you are ready to concede that no one has been declared innocent pursuant to a motion of acquittal or a directed verdict, if you will. You see that it speaks of an ability to create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's innocence not to the fact that the defendant was innocent. The case citation will most likely only give me the Court's ruling and not the oral arguments.

Did you say...concede. I can't concede when I'm not at war.

[William Anthony]

Did you say...concede. I can't concede when I'm not at war.

I did not say secede or surrender. I did see that in Holmes Justice Alito mentioned the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation in his opinion, not bad for someone that hasn't gone to Harvard, smile.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, Ito and Kennedy doomed the DA's case with their rulings. I was waiting for some brave media person to come right out and say this and blame them for allowing the search warrant to stand. But I guess they had other targets.

Gi

Some media did complain but not enough.

That ruling may have angered the jury causing them to feel disrespected. No jury likes to be lied to. that is what i have heard.
If the jury put vannaters playing with the truth, with running off with ojs blood sample, and taking Nicoles and rons blood on the qt and the lies about the doors, they could have discounted him as being believed. The judges instructions would allow this.imo

[martin II]

In the oj case there was collection problems. mishandling of blood evidense, lies by le, Failure to prove some claims, no murder weapon and some are concerned that the defense attacked les conduct. The cjs provides for the defense to attack the porosecutions claims. It is illegal for a defense not to go after the people making the claims. OJS defense knew this.The problem for the DA was the lapd could not stand a frisk and the dream team did frisk them.imo

[martin II]

i did not say secede or surrender. I did see that in holmes justice alito mentioned the sixth amendment right to confrontation in his opinion, not bad for someone that hasn't gone to harvard, smile.

you are as always on point.

[GreenIce]

Vannater and Clarke knew which judge to go to that would ignore their lies and rule in their favor for the warrant.

Martin,

IMO, all the judges would have ruled the same way. Don't forget, the judges get elected by the people.

[martin II]

Is Justice Scallia saying that, because of the Simpson case, LE should no longer be allowed to be cross examined about their activities or is he saying that LE was so corrupt that the number of cases involving ineptitude and corruption charges will become so public as to appear to be a circus like atmosphere?

knowing Scallia he may be saying forget the defendant leave my le alone.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, all the judges would have ruled the same way. Don't forget, the judges get elected by the people.

True dat. The public would have marched to the court house.

[GreenIce]

Gi

Some media did complain but not enough.

That ruling may have angered the jury causing them to feel disrespected. No jury likes to be lied to. that is what i have heard.
If the jury put vannaters playing with the truth, with running off with ojs blood sample, and taking Nicoles and rons blood on the qt and the lies about the doors, they could have discounted him as being believed. The judges instructions would allow this.imo

Martin,

IMO, it was VA and the SID team that had much more of a negative impact on the DA's then MF. As I posted before, the jurors knew that both MF and VA could not have been telling the truth. From their book, the jurors also studied VA's reactions to some of the questions and his reactions gave him away.

I think it was obvious three detectives were very vague on key and direct questions. MF was never vague on anything. Right there, you have to ask yourself why. IMO.

[GreenIce]

knowing Scallia he may be saying forget the defendant leave my le alone.

Martin,

I totally agree with you on this. It really bothers me that it appears to me that LE members who testify should get a credibility waiver. IMO, each and every witness who takes the stand, their credibility is fair game. I don't understand how expert witnesses can be questioned about how much money they are making on the case because it may slant their testimony but you can't do the same to the detectives or LE members?

I understand that LE members have a tough job and see things that no should ever have to see, but that does not mean they should get a pass on credibility and motive questions. IMO.

[GreenIce]

You posted that Darden wasn't an employee of the DA's office when he was on his leave of absence and I have asked you for a link.

William,

I just thought of something, Chris Darden was pretty vocal through out the trial about how he lost faith in the system and that he didn't even think he wanted to practice law again. Perhaps the DA's office may have reminded him of what he said?

If he lost his faith in the system, then how could he ever go back to it.

[GreenIce]

Gi

from mf history and the case his first option was to lie. otherwise he could have just answered yes.
But Bailey, knowing mf, knew he would lie.

Martin,

IMO, it doesn't bother me that Bailey knew he was going to lie, it bothers me that the DA's and probably the judge knew he was going to lie.

[William Anthony]

you are as always on point.

Thanks.

[William Anthony]

knowing Scallia he may be saying forget the defendant leave my le alone.

That's what it sounds like.:)

[William Anthony]

Martin,

IMO, it was VA and the SID team that had much more of a negative impact on the DA's then MF. As I posted before, the jurors knew that both MF and VA could not have been telling the truth. From their book, the jurors also studied VA's reactions to some of the questions and his reactions gave him away.

I think it was obvious three detectives were very vague on key and direct questions. MF was never vague on anything. Right there, you have to ask yourself why. IMO.

GreenIce,

I have to differ as MF had a slip and non slip of the tongue about the same issue. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

I just thought of something, Chris Darden was pretty vocal through out the trial about how he lost faith in the system and that he didn't even think he wanted to practice law again. Perhaps the DA's office may have reminded him of what he said?

If he lost his faith in the system, then how could he ever go back to it.

GreenIce,

Money, money, money.

[Its just me]

I did not say secede or surrender. I did see that in Holmes Justice Alito mentioned the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation in his opinion, not bad for someone that hasn't gone to Harvard, smile.

:eek:
Did I make that mistake? Oh well both kinda mean give in and I just don't do that unless I see that I should.

Yep and me finding it and being able to copy and paste wasn't bad for a redneck dirt farmer either. ;)

The link was an interesting read and get into the heads of these people. So is reading different information on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 29 for getting cases dismissed and showing the defendant is innocent in some cases. :) And it’s much more educational that arguing on OJ's board.

I'm taking a leave of absence because this board is about OJ and I think for now most here know my opinions and actually I don't like saying sarcastic and rude things to people :eek: :D it really is the truth...but I'm just human and far from perfect....when someone throws a stone at me I try to find a bigger one and knock the living day lights out of them and for me it is like my wonderful Mother in Law use to say....I don't think God is pleased with "me". FWIW...I'm only judging "myself" because that is the only one I'm suppose to judge on moral issues.

In defense of my niece who was made light of and has done nothing to deserve it
.....She practiced law with a firm in Atlanta for several years but she saw the corruption and didn't want to be a part of that world so she went to the Medical College in Georgia and is also a Doctor now.. She has her own office with clients needing legal help involving the medical field....and she pulls time in the Emergency Room helping the sick. FWIW her clients are not those suing doctors and such. LOL IMHOO she could hold her own with the Dr. Biden's but she's not looking for 15 minutes of fame either.
:seeya: Until. IJM

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I have to differ as MF had a slip and non slip of the tongue about the same issue. :)

William,

I got the impression that Vanatter only confirmed the jury's belief that MF was lying and that the other 3 detectives were trying to protect him.

Kind of like that old saying, "X will lie and the rest of the alphabet will swear to it."

And, as I have posted before, I don't the black jurors were surprised at all by MF and I do believe they knew he was lying on one issue, which, IMO, caused them to focus much harder on his testimony as well as the other detectives' testimony.

IMO, I believe if the jury had confidence in the evidence and believed the DA's proved their case, they would have convicted him and would have disregarded MF's racism. In other words, if there was Simpson's blood and other signs that he was back there behind Kato's wall, I think Simpson's goose would have been cooked. Yes, MF could have planted the glove but how could he have planted marks on the wall or the broken vines or whatever. Or if Kato heard someone running back there or if the DA's even explained how it got back there.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I do believe the jurors were looking for the truth in the detectives' testimony and they did not find much of it. I think the white juror saying in the jury room that they knew MF was a liar so they didn't even need to consider his testimony is very telling. I don't think the jury had an obligation to figure out why he lied or why he planted the glove. It was planted and MF lied. IMO, very simple.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

Money, money, money.

William,

After his novel bombed and his acting career bomb, he went back into the profession of law. I agree, money, money, money was a huge factor in this.

However, to be fair to all the lawyers in this case, I don't have a problem with the money they made from the case. They all had to deal with a media that was so vicious that nothing was left out of bounds. As much as I dislike Clark, I feel for her having a ex-mother in-law sell a topless photo of her. I think it was wrong that JC's mother's death certificate was tacked up on a wall in a media truck he just happened to be in. The stories about Darden's brother dying of AIDS.

[William Anthony]

:eek:
Did I make that mistake? Oh well both kinda mean give in and I just don't do that unless I see that I should.

Yep and me finding it and being able to copy and paste wasn't bad for a redneck dirt farmer either. ;)

The link was an interesting read and get into the heads of these people. So is reading different information on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 29 for getting cases dismissed and showing the defendant is innocent in some cases. :) And it’s much more educational that arguing on OJ's board.

I'm taking a leave of absence because this board is about OJ and I think for now most here know my opinions and actually I don't like saying sarcastic and rude things to people :eek: :D it really is the truth...but I'm just human and far from perfect....when someone throws a stone at me I try to find a bigger one and knock the living day lights out of them and for me it is like my wonderful Mother in Law use to say....I don't think God is pleased with "me". FWIW...I'm only judging "myself" because that is the only one I'm suppose to judge on moral issues.

In defense of my niece who was made light of and has done nothing to deserve it
.....She practiced law with a firm in Atlanta for several years but she saw the corruption and didn't want to be a part of that world so she went to the Medical College in Georgia and is also a Doctor now.. She has her own office with clients needing legal help involving the medical field....and she pulls time in the Emergency Room helping the sick. FWIW her clients are not those suing doctors and such. LOL IMHOO she could hold her own with the Dr. Biden's but she's not looking for 15 minutes of fame either.
:seeya: Until. IJM

The terminology I posted is used in war and none of us are perfect but that shouldn't stop us from being all that we should be.

If that is your opinion of yourself, who am I to argue?

I will reiterate that no rule is used to prove the defendant innocent and, certainly, nothing in Rule 29 of the FRCP speak to a defendant's innocence, as I have said the finding of innocence is not a part of any criminal trial.
http://cerberus.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/ACRule29.htm

If you have chosen to leave, because you are becoming sarcastic and rude or angry over others supporting their opinions with links that show your opinions are not in line with what is permissible in a courtroom and are consequently inaccurate, then who am I to argue and I agree and think most have seen your opinions and can evaluate them.

Your niece was made light of by me on this board. To the contrary, once you informed the board that she graduated with a law degree from Harvard and that you would take her advice over me, IIRC, you used the term wannabe in regard to me, I gave he due deference by indicating what I was able to find on the law and my interpretation thereof, notifying all that I was not a Harvard student or graduate. I think you should be proud of her, as she has decided to practice in the health care field that is currently under scrutiny for the corruption contained therein after fighting corruption in the legal field.

[William Anthony]

William,

I got the impression that Vanatter only confirmed the jury's belief that MF was lying and that the other 3 detectives were trying to protect him.

Kind of like that old saying, "X will lie and the rest of the alphabet will swear to it."

And, as I have posted before, I don't the black jurors were surprised at all by MF and I do believe they knew he was lying on one issue, which, IMO, caused them to focus much harder on his testimony as well as the other detectives' testimony.

IMO, I believe if the jury had confidence in the evidence and believed the DA's proved their case, they would have convicted him and would have disregarded MF's racism. In other words, if there was Simpson's blood and other signs that he was back there behind Kato's wall, I think Simpson's goose would have been cooked. Yes, MF could have planted the glove but how could he have planted marks on the wall or the broken vines or whatever. Or if Kato heard someone running back there or if the DA's even explained how it got back there.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I do believe the jurors were looking for the truth in the detectives' testimony and they did not find much of it. I think the white juror saying in the jury room that they knew MF was a liar so they didn't even need to consider his testimony is very telling. I don't think the jury had an obligation to figure out why he lied or why he planted the glove. It was planted and MF lied. IMO, very simple.

I totally agree and the noise could have been nothing more than the structure settling and the bent fence establishes nothing since we do not know when it got bent or who it went out drinking with. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

After his novel bombed and his acting career bomb, he went back into the profession of law. I agree, money, money, money was a huge factor in this.

However, to be fair to all the lawyers in this case, I don't have a problem with the money they made from the case. They all had to deal with a media that was so vicious that nothing was left out of bounds. As much as I dislike Clark, I feel for her having a ex-mother in-law sell a topless photo of her. I think it was wrong that JC's mother's death certificate was tacked up on a wall in a media truck he just happened to be in. The stories about Darden's brother dying of AIDS.

GreenIce,

I did not mean to imply that there was anything wrong with desiring money. The problem comes in when one is willing to sacrifice his integrity for it, IMHO. The media and the public can be vicious, unfortunately.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, it was VA and the SID team that had much more of a negative impact on the DA's then MF. As I posted before, the jurors knew that both MF and VA could not have been telling the truth. From their book, the jurors also studied VA's reactions to some of the questions and his reactions gave him away.

I think it was obvious three detectives were very vague on key and direct questions. MF was never vague on anything. Right there, you have to ask yourself why. IMO.

You have posted a very important fact and a reason why jurors have a better read on witness testimony than many that got their info from tv or print media. DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESS. Jurors can tell a lot from how a witness responds to questions and how they give their answers. Unless one saw the trial on tv one will miss this important piece.

It seems MF had a larger plan than the DA and LE realized until he took the stand and blindsided them. I think he saw the trial as a way off the job and to write books for money and fame as he is doing today.

However there was at least one juror that did not like his demeanor also and she spoke on it.imo

I watched him prance to the stand and felt he was acting something like the most important witnesses. but he left looking quite different.imo