Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

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.

IF the DA gave Darden and Clarke time off, i don't believe they told them just go and we will talk when you return. He was civil service. If he was in a union he would have left under specific circumstances.

I think when darden returned and was told you have no job he knew he had another option of opening his law office which he did. Cochran and others helped him get started so he moved on.

I am sure GG didn't like some of Dardens comments and pushing Darden out may have been a way of deflecting blame from himself.

[martin II]

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.



If the trial had been held in Santa Monica i believe the jury would have looked at le testimnony as they are cops, they protect us i believe them out of hand.Their testimnont must be true if they say so.

In la the jurors had experience or knew some in their community that had experienced le lying in court, abuse in the community and planting evidence so they saw the detectives testimony through a sharper eye and listened with a open ear. Thank God for that.IMO

[martin II]

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.

Ditto that for me.:cool:

[tv]

: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

I'm sorry you've decided to leave the board. I hope you'll stop by and see us sometimes. Many good posters have been chased off of here by those that choose to ridicule them and accuse them of racism whether the word is used or not (and often it is!). This forum will turn you into someone you hardly recognize -- please don't judge yourself too harshy; there is enough judgement going on here as it is.

For what it's worth, I think your neice sounds like a wonderful young woman with a bright future who's really making a contribution to society. You must be very proud of her. She was unfairly made fun of but that's the way it works around here. There are a few posters here, and one in particular, who looks for a vulnerable spot and uses it to demean and demoralize that person.

I hope you'll reconsider taking a leave of absense but most people with a lick of sense leave this forum and don't look back. It's like those scary movies where they offer somone a million dollars to spend a night in a haunted mansion -- just forget the money and run! :D

I'm even worried we're going to lose Hotwater if this nonsense keeps up.

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry you've decided to leave the board. I hope you'll stop by and see us sometimes. Many good posters have been chased off of here by those that choose to ridicule them and accuse them of racism whether the word is used or not (and often it is!). This forum will turn you into someone you hardly recognize -- please don't judge yourself too harshy; there is enough judgement going on here as it is.

For what it's worth, I think your neice sounds like a wonderful young woman with a bright future who's really making a contribution to society. You must be very proud of her. She was unfairly made fun of but that's the way it works around here. There are a few posters here, and one in particular, who looks for a vulnerable spot and uses it to demean and demoralize that person.

I hope you'll reconsider taking a leave of absense but most people with a lick of sense leave this forum and don't look back. It's like those scary movies where they offer somone a million dollars to spend a night in a haunted mansion -- just forget the money and run! :D

I'm even worried we're going to lose Hotwater if this nonsense keeps up.

I took it that the poster was leaving this forum and not the board. I don't know why you are mentioning racism, since I do not recall anyone leveling that claim at that poster.

No one made fun of this poster's niece and for you to say so is a false accusation and I respectfully ask that you post any post in which the poster's niece was made fun of. If you can't then, I think the correct thing for you to do would be to apologize.

This is part of the aforementioned poster's post but I took it for what I thought it was worth and just went on to provide links proving what I say or, if you will, providing information to show that I had an informed opinion.

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. By Its just me

[William Anthony]

I inadvertently posted a link to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here is the link to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule29.htm

You will see that this rule does not speak of a defendant's innocence but specifically states;

"After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. "

[weezer]

: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

I'm sorry to see you leave -- you brought humor and common sense to us and believe me, this board could certainly use both. I apologize for the lack of civility shown to you and your family. Of course, the 'ignore' option is a wonderful thing.

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry to see you leave -- you brought humor and common sense to us and believe me, this board could certainly use both. I apologize for the lack of civility shown to you and your family. Of course, the 'ignore' option is a wonderful thing.

A poster should not dish out what they cannot take, IMHO, and there was nothing but civility shown to this poster, who for some reason, displayed a lack of civility to other posters, IMHO. Despite this, I wish the poster well and respect her decision.

[William Anthony]

If the trial had been held in Santa Monica i believe the jury would have looked at le testimnony as they are cops, they protect us i believe them out of hand.Their testimnont must be true if they say so.

In la the jurors had experience or knew some in their community that had experienced le lying in court, abuse in the community and planting evidence so they saw the detectives testimony through a sharper eye and listened with a open ear. Thank God for that.IMO

Bump

I, likewise, believe that the differences in the venues of the trials had a lot to do with the difference in the verdicts and how LE interacted differently with residents in those venues.

[martin II]

I inadvertently posted a link to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here is the link to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule29.htm

You will see that this rule does not speak of a defendant's innocence but specifically states;

"After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. "

The issue cannot be any more plain.

It is my belief that the poster posted her opinion on the subject as a way of saying oj was guilty because his defense could have requested a directed verdict to show they though he was innocent
and if they had and the judge agreed he would have been declared innocent. Since his defense didn't make such a request oj was not innocent.

The basic problem was the posters theory of what a directed verdict would mean was FAULTY at its root. ACQUITAL is the only result possible. Never innocent. imo

[William Anthony]

The issue cannot be any more plain.

It is my belief that the poster posted her opinion on the subject as a way of saying oj was guilty because his defense could have requested a directed verdict to show they though he was innocent
and if they had and the judge agreed he would have been declared innocent. Since his defense didn't make such a request oj was not innocent.

The basic problem was the posters theory of what a directed verdict would mean was FAULTY at its root. ACQUITAL is the only result possible. Never innocent. imo

That is a part of the problem as people do not realize what a trial is about, IMHO. The trial is about the evidence admitted in line with the burden of proof and what one side can make the trier of fact belief about that evidence, whether or not that evidence reaches the burden of proof. This is why the jury is told to listen to the evidence and they are not to speculate about things/information/evidence that they have not heard introduced in the courtroom.

[martin II]

Bump

I, likewise, believe that the differences in the venues of the trials had a lot to do with the difference in the verdicts and how LE interacted differently with residents in those venues.

One poster here posted that she had no problems with le because they protect and serve us. I assume that statement to be true based on the community she lived. But those in a community LIKE S Central LA see a different kind of le 'SERVING AND PROTECTING." They see abuse, lies and in some instances planting.
So it is no surprise that the jury did not just accept some detectives testimony without closer examination.
According to the DOJ , THE Christopher report and Police watch they had good reason to do so. :cool:

[William Anthony]

One poster here posted that she had no problems with le because they protect and serve us. I assume that statement to be true based on the community she lived. But those in a community LIKE S Central LA see a different kind of le 'SERVING AND PROTECTING." They see abuse, lies and in some instances planting.
So it is no surprise that the jury did not just accept some detectives testimony without closer examination.
According to the DOJ , THE Christopher report and Police watch they had good reason to do so. :cool:

To me, living in communities that were nowhere near as affluent as the one Simpson lived in, it is like playing a certain poker game when I encountered LE. It was all in the luck of the draw.;)

[martin II]

I took it that the poster was leaving this forum and not the board. I don't know why you are mentioning racism, since I do not recall anyone leveling that claim at that poster.

No one made fun of this poster's niece and for you to say so is a false accusation and I respectfully ask that you post any post in which the poster's niece was made fun of. If you can't then, I think the correct thing for you to do would be to apologize.

This is part of the aforementioned poster's post but I took it for what I thought it was worth and just went on to provide links proving what I say or, if you will, providing information to show that I had an informed opinion.

The poster has posted many times that she does not like to discuss race. Yet she is the first to interject race into the discussion on law. No one has said amyhthig about race. Not IJM. Not william ,Not martin. Not any poster but one that just did. go figure.

[William Anthony]

The poster has posted many times that she does not like to discuss race. Yet she is the first to interject race into the discussion on law. No one has said amyhthig about race. Not IJM. Not william ,Not martin. Not any poster but one that just did. go figure.

A very astute and interesting observation, IMHO. I do not want you to take this wrong and it is only out of concern for this thread and you and other posters that I suggest Simpson is not without issues for us to discuss.

[William Anthony]

When we compare the criminal trial with, IMHO, the socio political production, alias the civil trial, it is interesting to contemplate what effect the venue had on the outcome of the trials and the judge's rulings on planting of evidence in the socio political production and in the criminal trial.

[martin II]

That is a part of the problem as people do not realize what a trial is about, IMHO. The trial is about the evidence admitted in line with the burden of proof and what one side can make the trier of fact belief about that evidence, whether or not that evidence reaches the burden of proof. This is why the jury is told to listen to the evidence and they are not to speculate about things/information/evidence that they have not heard introduced in the courtroom.

I have read many post on the case that repeated prosecution claims of direct testimony as if that was fact. I have yet to read any cross examination
testimony where the original direct testimmony was proved to be unbleivable.

There are many examples of some making decisions based on half facts.

My other issues is if the detectives were all telling the truth about which door they entered, why did some give different testimony at different times.
If they were telling the truth then it stands that all the testimonies would be exactly the same. When they are not it indicates that someone is not being truthful.imo

[William Anthony]

I have read many post on the case that repeated prosecution claims of direct testimony as if that was fact. I have yet to read any cross examination
testimony where the original direct testimmony was proved to be unbleivable.

There are many examples of some making decisions based on half facts.

My other issues is if the detectives were all telling the truth about which door they entered, why did some give different testimony at different times.
If they were telling the truth then it stands that all the testimonies would be exactly the same. When they are not it indicates that someone is not being truthful.imo

Correction-"and what one side can make the trier of fact believe about that evidence."

Both sides had a chance to use the greatest engine in the search for truth, cross-examination. The defense did better in the second prong of the burden of proof, the burden of persuasion, IMHO.

The truth often exposes a lie, as did the testimony of the unlocking of the door proved the only door that could have therefore been opened and through which they entered.

[martin II]

When we compare the criminal trial with, IMHO, the socio political production, alias the civil trial, it is interesting to contemplate what effect the venue had on the outcome of the trials and the judge's rulings on planting of evidence in the socio political production and in the criminal trial.

Well
As i remember the criminal trial was held in LA a very diverse mixed community. All races,backgrounds and financial status. That by history
had problems with le abuse and mistreating of citizens.

The civil trial was in Santa Monica a community of about 75% of one group That has experienced very little abuse by le. Or not the same treatment as those in LA.

Which location would have citizens that by history would be inclined to examine le witnesses testimony more closely. Which community would be more inclined by history to just accept le testimony on its face.

The prosecution decided to go to the grand jury which was in la and this is why the trial was held there. There were some other reasons given by GG, but think that was the real reason.

I also believe the reason for so many complaints from media and others that the trial was moved from Santa Monica to la was that there was a belief that in Santa Monica the prosecution would have won easily as the plaintiff did in the civil trial based on the makeup of that community.imo

[William Anthony]

Well
As i remember the criminal trial was held in LA a very diverse mixed community. All races,backgrounds and financial status. That by history
had problems with le abuse and mistreating of citizens.

The civil trial was in Santa Monica a community of about 75% of one group That has experienced very little abuse by le. Or not the same treatment as those in LA.

Which location would have citizens that by history would be inclined to examine le witnesses testimony more closely. Which community would be more inclined by history to just accept le testimony on its face.

The prosecution decided to go to the grand jury which was in la and this is why the trial was held there. There were some other reasons given by GG, but think that was the real reason.

I also believe the reason for so many complaints from media and others that the trial was moved from Santa Monica to la was that there was a belief that in Santa Monica the prosecution would have won easily as the plaintiff did in the civil trial based on the makeup of that community.imo

You bring up some excellent points. Additionally, IMHO, I might add that not only was the judge in the socio political production concerned about turning on another government official but his ruling on the planting of evidence may have been with the thought in mind of what members from that community would likely believe and what they might think of him.

[martin II]

You bring up some excellent points. Additionally, IMHO, I might add that not only was the judge in the socio political production concerned about turning on another government official but his ruling on the planting of evidence may have been with the thought in mind of what members from that community would likely believe and what they might think of him.

I agree oj had been found not guilty. Some saw the civil trial as the last chance for what they thought would be justice. Since they dissagreed with the criminal verdict. The pressure was strong for the civil judge to rule in favor of the plaintiff to insure a liable verdict.

two trials

The criminal judge allowed the prosecution and the defense room for arguments of their positions and allowed the jury to determine what was truth.

The civil judge allowed the plaintiff wide latitude for their arguments but restricted the defense arguments based on his opinions. He took the jury function away from them and reserved it for himself.

Both judges were in court rooms in the same state, so how did this differance occur and why?

[weezer]

there has been discussion on the board about how darden loved cockran. Here from his book, in his words:

". . .Darden's harshest words, however, are reserved for Cochran, whom he describes with a quote from Proverbs: ``A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.'' Of Cochran's efforts to transform ``a murder trial into a backhanded hearing about centuries of oppression and racism,'' he writes: ``The revolution is over when the revolutionaries have nothing better to do than decry the treatment of a millionaire who was given every deference by the system. The movement will be a farce when young blacks are forced to storm the streets, yelling `Remember Brentwood!' ''

Cochran's manipulation of the race issue had personal consequences for Darden as well. The defense lawyer's suggestion that Darden was a token black recruited by the prosecution team for the color of his skin led to accusations, on the street, that he was ``an Uncle Tom, a sellout, a house N----.'' Darden says he received death threats, was spit upon, and his family, too, was harassed. Worst of all, he says, were the stories about his brother Michael, depicting him as a pathetic drug addict unable to help himself. . ."

[martin II]

You bring up some excellent points. Additionally, IMHO, I might add that not only was the judge in the socio political production concerned about turning on another government official but his ruling on the planting of evidence may have been with the thought in mind of what members from that community would likely believe and what they might think of him.

In that respect judges are like regular politicians.They have to satisfy the people or they will not be elected to a second term. I doubt the community would have forgiven the civil judge if he had allowed evidence of mf planting
or tossed the rockingham evidence.

We all know that lawyers are required to contribute to the judges local political clubs and this has the effect of 'GREASING THE POLE" when they appear in court.

[William Anthony]

there has been discussion on the board about how darden loved cockran. Here from his book, in his words:

". . .Darden's harshest words, however, are reserved for Cochran, whom he describes with a quote from Proverbs: ``A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.'' Of Cochran's efforts to transform ``a murder trial into a backhanded hearing about centuries of oppression and racism,'' he writes: ``The revolution is over when the revolutionaries have nothing better to do than decry the treatment of a millionaire who was given every deference by the system. The movement will be a farce when young blacks are forced to storm the streets, yelling `Remember Brentwood!' ''

Cochran's manipulation of the race issue had personal consequences for Darden as well. The defense lawyer's suggestion that Darden was a token black recruited by the prosecution team for the color of his skin led to accusations, on the street, that he was ``an Uncle Tom, a sellout, a house N----.'' Darden says he received death threats, was spit upon, and his family, too, was harassed. Worst of all, he says, were the stories about his brother Michael, depicting him as a pathetic drug addict unable to help himself. . ."

Did Darden speak of himself in the third person or refuse the clients the magnificent one sent him out of his despise for the magnificent one?:)

[William Anthony]

I agree oj had been found not guilty. Some saw the civil trial as the last chance for what they thought would be justice. Since they dissagreed with the criminal verdict. The pressure was strong for the civil judge to rule in favor of the plaintiff to insure a liable verdict.

two trials

The criminal judge allowed the prosecution and the defense room for arguments of their positions and allowed the jury to determine what was truth.

The civil judge allowed the plaintiff wide latitude for their arguments but restricted the defense arguments based on his opinions. He took the jury function away from them and reserved it for himself.

Both judges were in court rooms in the same state, so how did this differance occur and why?

It would appear that this was the case (pun intended).

[tv]

there has been discussion on the board about how darden loved cockran. Here from his book, in his words:

". . .Darden's harshest words, however, are reserved for Cochran, whom he describes with a quote from Proverbs: ``A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.'' Of Cochran's efforts to transform ``a murder trial into a backhanded hearing about centuries of oppression and racism,'' he writes: ``The revolution is over when the revolutionaries have nothing better to do than decry the treatment of a millionaire who was given every deference by the system. The movement will be a farce when young blacks are forced to storm the streets, yelling `Remember Brentwood!' ''

Cochran's manipulation of the race issue had personal consequences for Darden as well. The defense lawyer's suggestion that Darden was a token black recruited by the prosecution team for the color of his skin led to accusations, on the street, that he was ``an Uncle Tom, a sellout, a house N----.'' Darden says he received death threats, was spit upon, and his family, too, was harassed. Worst of all, he says, were the stories about his brother Michael, depicting him as a pathetic drug addict unable to help himself. . ."

Very interesting, weezer. Doesn't sound like a slobbering love affair to me.

Another thing, some blacks and even some posters on this forum have said that Chris Darden was a token black on the prosecution team. So what if he was chosen because he might be able to relate to the jury? Are we supposed to believe that Cochran didn't get his message across to the jury because of his color and encouraging them to feel victimized? If Chris Darden didn't have the qualifications to try the case he wouldn't have been on the prosecution team -- his color should not have been an issue. I had the feeling thoughout the trial that he was taunting Darden -- some of it spoken and some of it not.

[martin II]

there has been discussion on the board about how darden loved cockran. Here from his book, in his words:

". . .Darden's harshest words, however, are reserved for Cochran, whom he describes with a quote from Proverbs: ``A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.'' Of Cochran's efforts to transform ``a murder trial into a backhanded hearing about centuries of oppression and racism,'' he writes: ``The revolution is over when the revolutionaries have nothing better to do than decry the treatment of a millionaire who was given every deference by the system. The movement will be a farce when young blacks are forced to storm the streets, yelling `Remember Brentwood!' ''

Cochran's manipulation of the race issue had personal consequences for Darden as well. The defense lawyer's suggestion that Darden was a token black recruited by the prosecution team for the color of his skin led to accusations, on the street, that he was ``an Uncle Tom, a sellout, a house N----.'' Darden says he received death threats, was spit upon, and his family, too, was harassed. Worst of all, he says, were the stories about his brother Michael, depicting him as a pathetic drug addict unable to help himself. . ."

Then we have the very friendly CNN conversation that you posted and the Oprah comment that i posted.

The book was for public consumption to those that disliked Cochran for his success and wanted to read nagativity in Dardens book.Darden knew what he was doing feeding red meat to that crowd. imo

I t is my belief that they were friends in real life as indicated in weezers cnn post.

[William Anthony]

In that respect judges are like regular politicians.They have to satisfy the people or they will not be elected to a second term. I doubt the community would have forgiven the civil judge if he had allowed evidence of mf planting
or tossed the rockingham evidence.

We all know that lawyers are required to contribute to the judges local political clubs and this has the effect of 'GREASING THE POLE" when they appear in court.

Ah yes, IMHO, that socio political production with the alias of a civil trial.

[William Anthony]

Then we have the very friendly CNN conversation that you posted and the Oprah comment that i posted.

The book was for public consumption to those that disliked Cochran for his success and wanted to read nagativity in Dardens book.Darden knew what he was doing feeding red meat to that crowd. imo

Perhaps, Darden had learned how to use people from his experience with the DA's office. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Very interesting, weezer. Doesn't sound like a slobbering love affair to me.

Another thing, some blacks and even some posters on this forum have said that Chris Darden was a token black on the prosecution team. So what if he was chosen because he might be able to relate to the jury? Are we supposed to believe that Cochran didn't get his message across to the jury because of his color and encouraging them to feel victimized? If Chris Darden didn't have the qualifications to try the case he wouldn't have been on the prosecution team -- his color should not have been an issue. I had the feeling thoughout the trial that he was taunting Darden -- some of it spoken and some of it not.

I am not opposed to bring race in the case to this thread, if the moderator is so inclined. I am of the opinion that Darden was qualified to try any case. However, he was placed in the position he was tactically by the lead attorney or the prosecutor, which amounted in him being used. If the magnificent one was so astute to be cognizant of the fact that his taunting of Darden would make him lose focus and not perform to the best of his ability, then this adds to the magnificent one's magnificence and professionalism and deters from Darden's if Darden lost focus, IMHO.

[martin II]

Very interesting, weezer. Doesn't sound like a slobbering love affair to me.

Another thing, some blacks and even some posters on this forum have said that Chris Darden was a token black on the prosecution team. So what if he was chosen because he might be able to relate to the jury? Are we supposed to believe that Cochran didn't get his message across to the jury because of his color and encouraging them to feel victimized? If Chris Darden didn't have the qualifications to try the case he wouldn't have been on the prosecution team -- his color should not have been an issue. I had the feeling thoughout the trial that he was taunting Darden -- some of it spoken and some of it not.

Darden and Clarke were not the most qualified prosecutors in the office to handle the case. Clarke got it because of politics and Darden because the prosecution was trying to send a message to the jury.
Darden was a Junior prosecutor going against one of the most seasoned and skillful lawyers in Cochran. Both said the infighting in court was business not perrsonal.

Clarke did as much taunting of others as anyone in the case. Nothing wrong with that by either party.

Basically Darden was just too gruff and Cochran had a way about him that caused people to listen to him when he spoke. I noticed that some prosecution witnesses acted as if Cochran was not asking questions to prove them wrong. He was very smoothy that way.

Darden had a equal opportunity to convince the jury as cochran. He had the same opportunity to get their attention as Cochran.

[martin II]

Very interesting, weezer. Doesn't sound like a slobbering love affair to me.

Another thing, some blacks and even some posters on this forum have said that Chris Darden was a token black on the prosecution team. So what if he was chosen because he might be able to relate to the jury? Are we supposed to believe that Cochran didn't get his message across to the jury because of his color and encouraging them to feel victimized? If Chris Darden didn't have the qualifications to try the case he wouldn't have been on the prosecution team -- his color should not have been an issue. I had the feeling thoughout the trial that he was taunting Darden -- some of it spoken and some of it not.

It was some jury members that said Darden was added to the prosecution table becasuse he was black. That the prosecution was trying to tell them they were not racist.

[martin II]

Very interesting, weezer. Doesn't sound like a slobbering love affair to me.

Another thing, some blacks and even some posters on this forum have said that Chris Darden was a token black on the prosecution team. So what if he was chosen because he might be able to relate to the jury? Are we supposed to believe that Cochran didn't get his message across to the jury because of his color and encouraging them to feel victimized? If Chris Darden didn't have the qualifications to try the case he wouldn't have been on the prosecution team -- his color should not have been an issue. I had the feeling thoughout the trial that he was taunting Darden -- some of it spoken and some of it not.

opossing lawyers go after each other every day in courtrooms. Maby you have not been in a court room or have not heard of lawyers dissagreeing in court. In the cnn article posted here they both agreed that the court room was about businness and their personal relationships were different.
do you discount the cnn interview?

[weezer]

Very interesting, weezer. Doesn't sound like a slobbering love affair to me.

Another thing, some blacks and even some posters on this forum have said that Chris Darden was a token black on the prosecution team. So what if he was chosen because he might be able to relate to the jury? Are we supposed to believe that Cochran didn't get his message across to the jury because of his color and encouraging them to feel victimized? If Chris Darden didn't have the qualifications to try the case he wouldn't have been on the prosecution team -- his color should not have been an issue. I had the feeling thoughout the trial that he was taunting Darden -- some of it spoken and some of it not.

I think darden felt his relationship with cockrane was going to help him and I also believe cockraner took advantage of the relationship. I think darden felt a real betrayal and -- according to darden, cackraner did indeed taunt him

[weezer]

Very interesting, weezer. Doesn't sound like a slobbering love affair to me.

Another thing, some blacks and even some posters on this forum have said that Chris Darden was a token black on the prosecution team. So what if he was chosen because he might be able to relate to the jury? Are we supposed to believe that Cochran didn't get his message across to the jury because of his color and encouraging them to feel victimized? If Chris Darden didn't have the qualifications to try the case he wouldn't have been on the prosecution team -- his color should not have been an issue. I had the feeling thoughout the trial that he was taunting Darden -- some of it spoken and some of it not.

oh gosh -- please, please don't stsart the 'race' thing again. we have folks on this board that cannot keep it civil.

[tv]

oh gosh -- please, please don't stsart the 'race' thing again. we have folks on this board that cannot keep it civil.

You're right, weezer.:o Thanks for the reminder. The last thing I want to do is start a discussion that gets out of hand and makes the mud slingers start slinging. Consider the subject closed. :chicken:

[LetsBeConcerned]

I will be honest and admit that I have not read all these threads.

This will probably be my one post on this subject….

There is something that everyone seems to either dance around, not know about or already has discussed it to the end.

I remember the day that Nichole’s body was found. I remember it being a breaking news story interrupting regular programming… I remember seeing O.J. coming home with luggage in hand (for all we knew (at the time) he was coming back from the Bahamas)….O.J. was kind to the news media but declined any interviews until later… and then walked over to talk to the police… they walked further away to stand in the shade underneath a tree in the distance. It was a hot sunny day.

O.J. was then asked to put his hands behind his back and the handcuffs were put on him. Then, a short time later you see Kardashian walking down the street with OJ.’s luggage, in hand, past the police officers.

If the Police thought that they had enough evidence to put the handcuffs on O.J…. Why did police not think to take custody of OJ.’s luggage that he just arrived home with too~?

The police would later remove the handcuffs but it was a little too late after it was already broadcast on T.V. across the county of Los Angeles.


The police did not look good in the eyes of the public at that very moment. This was broadcast live on local Los Angeles television on different channels. This is before the slow speed Bronco chase that interrupted the basketball playoffs that was broadcast nationally.

[tv]

I will be honest and admit that I have not read all these threads.

This will probably be my one post on this subject….

There is something that everyone seems to either dance around, not know about or already has discussed it to the end.

I remember the day that Nichole’s body was found. I remember it being a breaking news story interrupting regular programming… I remember seeing O.J. coming home with luggage in hand (for all we knew (at the time) he was coming back from the Bahamas)….O.J. was kind to the news media but declined any interviews until later… and then walked over to talk to the police… they walked further away to stand in the shade underneath a tree in the distance. It was a hot sunny day.

O.J. was then asked to put his hands behind his back and the handcuffs were put on him. Then, a short time later you see Kardashian walking down the street with OJ.’s luggage, in hand, past the police officers.

If the Police thought that they had enough evidence to put the handcuffs on O.J…. Why did police not think to take custody of OJ.’s luggage that he just arrived home with too~?

The police would later remove the handcuffs but it was a little too late after it was already broadcast on T.V. across the county of Los Angeles.


The police did not look good in the eyes of the public at that very moment. This was broadcast live on local Los Angeles television on different channels. This is before the slow speed Bronco chase that interrupted the basketball playoffs that was broadcast nationally.

I don't remember too much about the handcuffing discussion on this forum. Maybe I missed it also. I do know that it was done in a private area and that a camera man climbed a fence or something like that to get the shot. One of the detectives also said it was a miscommunication that Simpson was supposed to be handcuffed. That's all I know about it but I'm sure there are others that know more. :)

[socaldiva]

*snip*I don't remember too much about the handcuffing discussion on this forum.

I do remember that Khardashian somehow got the luggage, but I can't remember who drove Simpson from the airport. I don't know why the police wouldn't have taken his luggage.

[tv]

I do remember that Khardashian somehow got the luggage, but I can't remember who drove Simpson from the airport. I don't know why the police wouldn't have taken his luggage.

I think they need a warrant to take it and I also think you have to specifically name in the warrant what you want to take...I don't know if that's why they didn't take it but it's a thought.

[martin II]

I will be honest and admit that I have not read all these threads.

This will probably be my one post on this subject….

There is something that everyone seems to either dance around, not know about or already has discussed it to the end.

I remember the day that Nichole’s body was found. I remember it being a breaking news story interrupting regular programming… I remember seeing O.J. coming home with luggage in hand (for all we knew (at the time) he was coming back from the Bahamas)….O.J. was kind to the news media but declined any interviews until later… and then walked over to talk to the police… they walked further away to stand in the shade underneath a tree in the distance. It was a hot sunny day.

O.J. was then asked to put his hands behind his back and the handcuffs were put on him. Then, a short time later you see Kardashian walking down the street with OJ.’s luggage, in hand, past the police officers.

If the Police thought that they had enough evidence to put the handcuffs on O.J…. Why did police not think to take custody of OJ.’s luggage that he just arrived home with too~?

The police would later remove the handcuffs but it was a little too late after it was already broadcast on T.V. across the county of Los Angeles.


The police did not look good in the eyes of the public at that very moment. This was broadcast live on local Los Angeles television on different channels. This is before the slow speed Bronco chase that interrupted the basketball playoffs that was broadcast nationally.

C Randa and RK brought oj home from the airport. They tried to bring his luggage in with him them but were told by le that they could not bring the liggage onto the property so they put it back into the car and took it to RK house. OJ had a small nag with hin and vanahher took it when he took oj to Parker Center for the interview. There is a video of this.

[martin II]

I think they need a warrant to take it and I also think you have to specifically name in the warrant what you want to take...I don't know if that's why they didn't take it but it's a thought.

When oj returned le had complete control of his property.They didn't have a warrant for the r glove but they took it. They had taken personal items from his house. The luggage was suspected of containing murder evidence.It was a screw up. But the luggage remained at RK house for some time after oj was locked up.It was as if le didn't care. As a matter of fact i think it was the defense that brought the luggage to court.

[martin II]

I think darden felt his relationship with cockrane was going to help him and I also believe cockraner took advantage of the relationship. I think darden felt a real betrayal and -- according to darden, cackraner did indeed taunt him

I doubt Darden thought his personal relationship with Cochran was going to help him in court when Darden was trying to put Cochrans client in jail.

The trial was business not friendship. Darden knew that.

[martin II]

I don't remember too much about the handcuffing discussion on this forum. Maybe I missed it also. I do know that it was done in a private area and that a camera man climbed a fence or something like that to get the shot. One of the detectives also said it was a miscommunication that Simpson was supposed to be handcuffed. That's all I know about it but I'm sure there are others that know more. :)

OJ was handcuffed near a large tree in his front yard. Not in a private area.

[martin II]

I think they need a warrant to take it and I also think you have to specifically name in the warrant what you want to take...I don't know if that's why they didn't take it but it's a thought.

Just before Vannater took oj to Parker center oj had a small bag and vannater took it from him. Did he have a warrant? This was a very short time after oj arrived right after they took the handcuffs off.imo

[William Anthony]

I think darden felt his relationship with cockrane was going to help him and I also believe cockraner took advantage of the relationship. I think darden felt a real betrayal and -- according to darden, cackraner did indeed taunt him

The magnificent one sure knew how to rattle Darden and in the end it was Darden standing there crying like a jilted bride.

[William Anthony]

oh gosh -- please, please don't stsart the 'race' thing again. we have folks on this board that cannot keep it civil.

That's a big ten four and, IMHO, they all are of the G persuasion.

[William Anthony]

I will be honest and admit that I have not read all these threads.

This will probably be my one post on this subject….

There is something that everyone seems to either dance around, not know about or already has discussed it to the end.

I remember the day that Nichole’s body was found. I remember it being a breaking news story interrupting regular programming… I remember seeing O.J. coming home with luggage in hand (for all we knew (at the time) he was coming back from the Bahamas)….O.J. was kind to the news media but declined any interviews until later… and then walked over to talk to the police… they walked further away to stand in the shade underneath a tree in the distance. It was a hot sunny day.

O.J. was then asked to put his hands behind his back and the handcuffs were put on him. Then, a short time later you see Kardashian walking down the street with OJ.’s luggage, in hand, past the police officers.

If the Police thought that they had enough evidence to put the handcuffs on O.J…. Why did police not think to take custody of OJ.’s luggage that he just arrived home with too~?

The police would later remove the handcuffs but it was a little too late after it was already broadcast on T.V. across the county of Los Angeles.


The police did not look good in the eyes of the public at that very moment. This was broadcast live on local Los Angeles television on different channels. This is before the slow speed Bronco chase that interrupted the basketball playoffs that was broadcast nationally.

Yes, and then LE tried to make a mountain out of the fact that Kardashian took the luggage. Don't let this be your last post.

[William Anthony]

I think they need a warrant to take it and I also think you have to specifically name in the warrant what you want to take...I don't know if that's why they didn't take it but it's a thought.

Knowing how nervous and sleepy, causing them to be careless and make so many human errors and mistakes, I would not put it past them to have forgotten to include that in the warrant. However, since they collected a pair of magical socks at some point in time, I think they would have worded the affidavit so that the luggage could have been seized or they could have shown a reckless disregard for the truth and seized it anyway. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Knowing how nervous and sleepy, causing them to be careless and make so many human errors and mistakes, I would not put it past them to have forgotten to include that in the warrant. However, since they collected a pair of magical socks at some point in time, I think they would have worded the affidavit so that the luggage could have been seized or they could have shown a reckless disregard for the truth and seized it anyway. :);):cool:

AC and RK looked at the luggage in RK garage when oj was living there so le did not ask for it then. Defense brought the luggage to court months after. DA had claimed oj took shoes and knife in luggage to chacago.
you figure.

[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?

I believe Arnelle got very flustered when the detectives woke her up so soon after she had left Simpson’s house. The fact that Arnelle led the three detectives directly to the back door to let them into the house means she knew that door was unlocked because she had previously unlocked it to go back to her room. Later after some coaching from her father she lied by telling a fabricated story of taking two detectives around the house to the front door to turn off the house alarm before she let them in.

bobaugust

[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.

Rovann, you saw and heard for your self how Simpson did a double take and stuttered when he saw the exposed bent wires on his video tape. I believe he realized exactly why they were bent. In hind site I don’t believe the detectives conducted a very good investigation regarding the top of the fence that was covered with overgrown foliage.

Why should there have been blood on the wires if it was bent with Simpson’s shoe? There is no curious law only common sense and life experience as to what happens when someone puts their shoe and then their weight on top of a chain link fence to scale it from one side to the other. The wires would bend in the direction the person was going. There is no evidence that anyone later stood on that fence where the bent wires were found and if someone had stood on top of the fence climbing it from Simpson’s property any wires he bent would have been bent towards the Salingers’ property, not towards Simpson’s property. Besides the fact that there was a metal pole that ran along the top of the fence on Simpson’s side of the fence that someone could have used to stand on by simply turning their foot and not bending any wires.

Is it just coincidence that the bent wires that were later exposed were directly over the place where the killer’s right hand glove was found? Is it just coincidence that the bent wires that were later exposed were directly opposite the place on Kaelin’s back wall where he testified the loud thumps and vibrations occurred?

bobaugust

[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.

I see you are still claiming the four detectives and Kato Kaelin lied because you think Arnelle was telling the truth

The video of the back door only proves that the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the door before she opened it and irrelevant to the reality that all five witnesses who entered the house testified they entered through the back door. One of those witnesses, Arnelle’s friend Kato Kaelin, testified he saw her enter the house leading the three detectives and he and the fourth detective followed them in through the back door. The fact that in her fabricated story Arnelle said she unlocked the front door is irrelevant.

You are entitled to your opinions but I’m sorry I can’t respect an opinion that is based on an illogical, unreasonable inference that makes no sense and comes to a false conclusion, especially when it has been pointed out to you why it makes no sense.

The evidence is that Arnelle Simpson lied by fabricating a false story, not the four detectives and not Kato Kaelin who all impeached her story. And we know why she lied about this based on Daniel Petrocelli’s clear understanding of the facts, something unfortunately that the prosecutors and the police evidently never figured out.

I do not recall your explanation as to why you are so infatuated with Arnelle Simpson; all I recall is that the way you refer to her shows that you are infatuated with her.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

I think they need a warrant to take it and I also think you have to specifically name in the warrant what you want to take...I don't know if that's why they didn't take it but it's a thought.

You're probably right. I doubt there was anything incriminating in the suitcase, what do you think?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I do not recall your explanation as to why you are so infatuated with Arnelle Simpson; all I recall is that the way you refer to her shows that you are infatuated with her.


I have that poster on ignore, but I know what you are referring to. There are so many posting rules, I think there should be one against gushing over Arnelle :D

[William Anthony]

I believe Arnelle got very flustered when the detectives woke her up so soon after she had left Simpson’s house. The fact that Arnelle led the three detectives directly to the back door to let them into the house means she knew that door was unlocked because she had previously unlocked it to go back to her room. Later after some coaching from her father she lied by telling a fabricated story of taking two detectives around the house to the front door to turn off the house alarm before she let them in.

bobaugust

I believe the beautiful Ms. Arnelle told the truth, as shown by the video, in that she let the detectives in through the front door and, IMHO, the detectives lied but were again caught showing a reckless disregard for the truth by the video. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Rovann, you saw and heard for your self how Simpson did a double take and stuttered when he saw the exposed bent wires on his video tape. I believe he realized exactly why they were bent. In hind site I don’t believe the detectives conducted a very good investigation regarding the top of the fence that was covered with overgrown foliage.

Why should there have been blood on the wires if it was bent with Simpson’s shoe? There is no curious law only common sense and life experience as to what happens when someone puts their shoe and then their weight on top of a chain link fence to scale it from one side to the other. The wires would bend in the direction the person was going. There is no evidence that anyone later stood on that fence where the bent wires were found and if someone had stood on top of the fence climbing it from Simpson’s property any wires he bent would have been bent towards the Salingers’ property, not towards Simpson’s property. Besides the fact that there was a metal pole that ran along the top of the fence on Simpson’s side of the fence that someone could have used to stand on by simply turning their foot and not bending any wires.

Is it just coincidence that the bent wires that were later exposed were directly over the place where the killer’s right hand glove was found? Is it just coincidence that the bent wires that were later exposed were directly opposite the place on Kaelin’s back wall where he testified the loud thumps and vibrations occurred?

bobaugust


There is no perfect wire fense made by any company that does not have at lease one bent wire during installation. There was NO BLOOD FOUND ON ANY BENT WIRE IN THE WALKWAY. The gardner using machines when he cut the trees down could have bent the wire. The photographer that stood on the fense to take the overhead picture of the glove stood on the top of the fense.

If oj had blood on the bottom of his shoes why was there no bloody foot prints on the Salingers driveway where some think oj walked to get to the fence. Why was there blood drops in ojs walkway if he didn't walk there and walked around from the bronco to the salangers yard. He didn't walk in both places.


to make a charge in court you need proof not OJ may have or oj could have or maby he did .

vanatter and two other detectives investigate the fence area and testified that in their opinion NO ONE jumped that fense or was in the walkway.
There was not one piece of evidence found that anyone jumped the fence , bumped into a wall and ran out of the walkway. Katos testimony about the Gates he found closed proves that. imo
sorry no cigar.

[William Anthony]

I see you are still claiming the four detectives and Kato Kaelin lied because you think Arnelle was telling the truth

The video of the back door only proves that the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the door before she opened it and irrelevant to the reality that all five witnesses who entered the house testified they entered through the back door. One of those witnesses, Arnelle’s friend Kato Kaelin, testified he saw her enter the house leading the three detectives and he and the fourth detective followed them in through the back door. The fact that in her fabricated story Arnelle said she unlocked the front door is irrelevant.

You are entitled to your opinions but I’m sorry I can’t respect an opinion that is based on an illogical, unreasonable inference that makes no sense and comes to a false conclusion, especially when it has been pointed out to you why it makes no sense.

The evidence is that Arnelle Simpson lied by fabricating a false story, not the four detectives and not Kato Kaelin who all impeached her story. And we know why she lied about this based on Daniel Petrocelli’s clear understanding of the facts, something unfortunately that the prosecutors and the police evidently never figured out.

I do not recall your explanation as to why you are so infatuated with Arnelle Simpson; all I recall is that the way you refer to her shows that you are infatuated with her.

bobaugust

You say mistaken and I say IMHO they lied about which door was entered. They all slipped and admitted Ms. Arnelle told the truth about which door when they testified truthfully that she unlocked the door.

Not only am I entitled to my opinion but I and my opinions are entitled to be respected on this board, even if you do not agree with my opinion, according to the moderator and, perhaps, you will respect the moderator.

Petrocelli fabricated a story after realizing LE was trapped in their lies,IMHO. The support for this opinion of mine is garnered by asking one simple question, "where is the missing link-the wet sweatsuit."

[martin II]

I see you are still claiming the four detectives and Kato Kaelin lied because you think Arnelle was telling the truth

The video of the back door only proves that the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the door before she opened it and irrelevant to the reality that all five witnesses who entered the house testified they entered through the back door. One of those witnesses, Arnelle’s friend Kato Kaelin, testified he saw her enter the house leading the three detectives and he and the fourth detective followed them in through the back door. The fact that in her fabricated story Arnelle said she unlocked the front door is irrelevant.

You are entitled to your opinions but I’m sorry I can’t respect an opinion that is based on an illogical, unreasonable inference that makes no sense and comes to a false conclusion, especially when it has been pointed out to you why it makes no sense.

The evidence is that Arnelle Simpson lied by fabricating a false story, not the four detectives and not Kato Kaelin who all impeached her story. And we know why she lied about this based on Daniel Petrocelli’s clear understanding of the facts, something unfortunately that the prosecutors and the police evidently never figured out.

I do not recall your explanation as to why you are so infatuated with Arnelle Simpson; all I recall is that the way you refer to her shows that you are infatuated with her.

bobaugust

How would you describe your deal with furhman?

[William Anthony]

I do not recall your explanation as to why you are so infatuated with Arnelle Simpson; all I recall is that the way you refer to her shows that you are infatuated with her.

bobaugust

I am much to mature and masculine to be infatuated. It is healthy natural robust innocent passion coupled with an intense desire that it could be more. :);):cool:

[martin II]

I believe Arnelle got very flustered when the detectives woke her up so soon after she had left Simpson’s house. The fact that Arnelle led the three detectives directly to the back door to let them into the house means she knew that door was unlocked because she had previously unlocked it to go back to her room. Later after some coaching from her father she lied by telling a fabricated story of taking two detectives around the house to the front door to turn off the house alarm before she let them in.

bobaugust

bob
i believe you must know your post is not correct. The evidence is too strong against your position.

[William Anthony]

There is a rule against bashing Ms. Arnelle. Why should there be a rule about admiring someone. I think that most of us have been admired at some point in time and, as you see, I was hesitant to say all of us. I hesitate, because I have learned not to use such words as always and all, because there might be an exception to the statement, even though all might claim to have been admired.

[weezer]

You're probably right. I doubt there was anything incriminating in the suitcase, what do you think?

LOL -- I was thinking about the suitcase that the defense brought to the court trying to pass it off as the missing one -- LOL -- just one flaw in their plan -- LOL -- they forgot to take the store (price)tag off. :punch::tongue:

[martin II]

I am much to mature and masculine to be infatuated. It is healthy natural robust innocent passion coupled with an intense desire that it could be more. :);):cool:

Ditto

[socaldiva]

LOL -- I was thinking about the suitcase that the defense brought to the court trying to pass it off as the missing one -- LOL -- just one flaw in their plan -- LOL -- they forgot to take the store (price)tag off. :punch::tongue:

Sounds like the dream team fell asleep :tongue:

[William Anthony]

LOL -- I was thinking about the suitcase that the defense brought to the court trying to pass it off as the missing one -- LOL -- just one flaw in their plan -- LOL -- they forgot to take the store (price)tag off. :punch::tongue:

The evidence is that nothing incriminating was found in any bag and LE searched but they searched for things that weren't there when they should have been and were somewhere when they should not have been and the defense easily pointed this out and, imho, that sophisticated jury picked up on that without very much deliberation. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Ditto

Martin,

I admire your ability to learn thing easily, so learn that Ms. Arnelle and my relationship works well when there is no outside interference. :D

http://www.love-poems.me.uk/byron_she_walks_in_beauty_l.htm

[martin II]

LOL -- I was thinking about the suitcase that the defense brought to the court trying to pass it off as the missing one -- LOL -- just one flaw in their plan -- LOL -- they forgot to take the store (price)tag off. :punch::tongue:

The prosecution made weeks of claimes questioning Park and Kato about the luggage that they loaded into the limo.
Refused to allow oj to give them the luggage and allowed the luggage to stay ay RK house until the defense brought the luggage to court.And then tries to waste time by making a fuss about the luggage.

I think most people used common sense and decided that since oj brought the luggage back and tried to give them to le and they refused to take them, no shoe or knife had been in the luggage

[William Anthony]

I thought it was the claim that LE was nervous and sleepy.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution made weeks of claimes questioning Park and Kato about the luggage that they loaded into the limo.
Refused to allow oj to give them the luggage and allowed the luggage to stay ay RK house until the defense brought the luggage to court.And then tries to waste time by making a fuss about the luggage.

We say it was there even though we can't show you it was there, so believe us when we say it could have been here or there or on the mountain or everywhere.:);):cool:

[martin II]

I thought it was the claim that LE was nervous and sleepy.

That is the excuse some try to make when le is caught,

[GreenIce]

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 and Martin,

I don't think I have ever asked you this question before. In your opinon, had MF told the truth on the stand about the N-word, how do you think the jury would have viewed his testimony?

[martin II]

We say it was there even though we can't show you it was there, so believe us when we say it could have been here or there or on the mountain or everywhere.:);):cool:

In her closing Clarke told the jury "believe it because i said it is true"

[martin II]

William and Martin,

I don't think I have ever asked you this question before. In your opinon, had MF told the truth on the stand about the N-word, how do you think the jury would have viewed his testimony?

My quick answer would be they would view him the same.

[martin II]

Martin,

I admire your ability to learn thing easily, so learn that Ms. Arnelle and my relationship works well when there is no outside interference. :D

http://www.love-poems.me.uk/byron_she_walks_in_beauty_l.htm

Beautiful words.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I don't think I have ever asked you this question before. In your opinon, had MF told the truth on the stand about the N-word, how do you think the jury would have viewed his testimony?

I think that most of us have used that word at sometime and to say that we did would give credibility to the remainder of our testimony. That was the shame to lose credibility in front of the jury and be later convicted of perjury, over something that most of us have done. Stupidity comes to mind.

[William Anthony]

Beautiful words.

Ditto.

[martin II]

I believe Arnelle got very flustered when the detectives woke her up so soon after she had left Simpson’s house. The fact that Arnelle led the three detectives directly to the back door to let them into the house means she knew that door was unlocked because she had previously unlocked it to go back to her room. Later after some coaching from her father she lied by telling a fabricated story of taking two detectives around the house to the front door to turn off the house alarm before she let them in.

bobaugust

Then phillip and kato lied.

[GreenIce]

Well
As i remember the criminal trial was held in LA a very diverse mixed community. All races,backgrounds and financial status. That by history
had problems with le abuse and mistreating of citizens.

The civil trial was in Santa Monica a community of about 75% of one group That has experienced very little abuse by le. Or not the same treatment as those in LA.

Which location would have citizens that by history would be inclined to examine le witnesses testimony more closely. Which community would be more inclined by history to just accept le testimony on its face.

The prosecution decided to go to the grand jury which was in la and this is why the trial was held there. There were some other reasons given by GG, but think that was the real reason.

I also believe the reason for so many complaints from media and others that the trial was moved from Santa Monica to la was that there was a belief that in Santa Monica the prosecution would have won easily as the plaintiff did in the civil trial based on the makeup of that community.imo

Martin,

IMO, I think it is unfair for GG to have received criticism for moving the trial to downtown LA. There is no proof, not one shred of proof had the criminal trial been held in Santa Monica the same issues would not have come up and that the verdict would have been different. IMO, it would not have been a different verdict and I also believe had the jury been mostly white, the verdict would have been rendered even quicker.

IMO, there is no proof had the civil trial been held the exact same location as the criminal trial that the verdict would have been any different.

I do believe that media, more then any lawyer on either side played the "race card". I also believe that many people in the media were not kind to Petrocelli during his book tour because they were offended that he did not give them, the media, their fair share of the credit for their role in the civil trial and the verdict.

However, it may be possible that GG figured out very early that moving the trial to downtown was a win-win for his office. If the DA's won the case, then the verdict would have been accepted. If there was an aquittal, he could blame the jury.

I would like to believe that he did it because he believed in his case but I can't forget, he also has to run for office.

[William Anthony]

Later after some coaching from her father she lied by telling a fabricated story of taking two detectives around the house to the front door to turn off the house alarm before she let them in.

bobaugust

If this is a part of your belief, then ignore my request. However, if it is not, then link to proof of what you state as fact, please?

[GreenIce]

TV and FBG,

I can't remember which one of you made a post about the knife that was found on Nicole's counter.

I read something that you may find interesting. When Lange and Vanatter saw it, one of them, I think Lange did wonder if Nicole took the knife out because she was warned. Which I am assuming they mean she was warned about OJ Simpson.

Just FYI for both of you.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

IMO, I think it is unfair for GG to have received criticism for moving the trial to downtown LA. There is no proof, not one shred of proof had the criminal trial been held in Santa Monica the same issues would not have come up and that the verdict would have been different. IMO, it would not have been a different verdict and I also believe had the jury been mostly white, the verdict would have been rendered even quicker.

IMO, there is no proof had the civil trial been held the exact same location as the criminal trial that the verdict would have been any different.

I do believe that media, more then any lawyer on either side played the "race card". I also believe that many people in the media were not kind to Petrocelli during his book tour because they were offended that he did not give them, the media, their fair share of the credit for their role in the civil trial and the verdict.

However, it may be possible that GG figured out very early that moving the trial to downtown was a win-win for his office. If the DA's won the case, then the verdict would have been accepted. If there was an aquittal, he could blame the jury.

I would like to believe that he did it because he believed in his case but I can't forget, he also has to run for office.

GreenIce,

What you say may very well be true but I don't think that the jury in the socio political production, alias the civil trial, would have had the same experiences with LE, as they would likely have, IMHO, more influence and credibility when voicing complaints by virtue of their community, and, consequently, they may have had a harder time accepting that LE would plant evidence.

[GreenIce]

OJ was handcuffed near a large tree in his front yard. Not in a private area.

Martin,

TV may be right on this one. They took Simpson by his kids play area and tried to shield behind the larger structures of the play area. However, I don't think VA was responsible for this, I think the officer who actually cuffed him did this on his own. I think the officer did testify to this in the trial.

However, this does work against the detectives, if the uniform knew the media attention and knew what it would look like cuffing Simpson in plain view the media, VA should have known this as well, IMO.

I think VA and Lange knew, even then, they were going to have do somethings to combat Simpson's public image. I don't think VA and Lange have been given enough credit for being media savvy and knew how to use it to their advantage.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

What you say may very well be true but I don't think that the jury in the socio political production, alias the civil trial, would have had the same experiences with LE, as they would likely have, IMHO, more influence and credibility when voicing complaints by virtue of their community, and, consequently, they may have had a harder time accepting that LE would plant evidence.

William,

Regardless of the race of the jury or the gender of the jury, they still would have had the same instructions. Also, the civil trial jurors, at least a few of them did say that their verdict did not invalidate that the criminal trial jury. The said they had different evidence, different rules of evidence as well as a different burden of proof. Also, the civil trial was about money, only money not someone's freedom.

Also, IMO, I don't care what color you are, you are going to question how blood evidence could keep appearing and then disappearing. No jury could have ignored the obvious lies of the LAPD or the disaster of Dennis Fung.

IMO.

[martin II]

TV and FBG,

I can't remember which one of you made a post about the knife that was found on Nicole's counter.

I read something that you may find interesting. When Lange and Vanatter saw it, one of them, I think Lange did wonder if Nicole took the knife out because she was warned. Which I am assuming they mean she was warned about OJ Simpson.

Just FYI for both of you.

It is believed she took it out because she heard k1 making noise to get her to open the garage door.or some door.But when she knew ron was at ther gate she left it and went out the front door.

[GreenIce]

I believe Arnelle got very flustered when the detectives woke her up so soon after she had left Simpson’s house. The fact that Arnelle led the three detectives directly to the back door to let them into the house means she knew that door was unlocked because she had previously unlocked it to go back to her room. Later after some coaching from her father she lied by telling a fabricated story of taking two detectives around the house to the front door to turn off the house alarm before she let them in.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Why would Arnelle try to hide that the door was unlocked and the alarm was turned off? Since she lived on the property and access to the main house, what is the big deal if she went into the main house after coming home that night to grab a coke or something from inside the house?

Also, if VA was with the other detectives when she went into the house and he was there when Arnelle called Cathy Randa, then he would have known that the trip to Chicago was planned and therefore he never would have wrote that Simpson left on an unexpected flight.

You also forget that the detectives in this case seemed only see and hear what they wanted to hear and when they wanted to do it.

What is interesting is that in Simpson's interview with the police, when asked what he was wearing that day, Simpson told them what type of pants he was wearing. The detectives asked him how did wash the, as in did he just have to throw them in the washer and Simpson said yes.

IMO, this means they had checked the washing machine and IMO, it is more likey that dark clothes were either a woman's or a child or one of the detectives already looked in the washing machine, saw nothing and was later surprised by claims that dark clothes--the sweats were seen in the washing machine.

Why would Arnelle lie about how many detectives she said she let in the house? Are you suggesting that Arnelle is accusing VA and MF of doing something wrong because they did not follow her? How does this help Simpson?

[martin II]

William,

Regardless of the race of the jury or the gender of the jury, they still would have had the same instructions. Also, the civil trial jurors, at least a few of them did say that their verdict did not invalidate that the criminal trial jury. The said they had different evidence, different rules of evidence as well as a different burden of proof. Also, the civil trial was about money, only money not someone's freedom.

Also, IMO, I don't care what color you are, you are going to question how blood evidence could keep appearing and then disappearing. No jury could have ignored the obvious lies of the LAPD or the disaster of Dennis Fung.

IMO.


Remember that juror that said she did not care how the glove got in the walkway. Others may have had simular acceptance of certain things and ignored defense cross. completely.they did have less to consider and a very low burden of proof and knew it was only about money.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Why would Arnelle try to hide that the door was unlocked and the alarm was turned off? Since she lived on the property and access to the main house, what is the big deal if she went into the main house after coming home that night to grab a coke or something from inside the house?

Also, if VA was with the other detectives when she went into the house and he was there when Arnelle called Cathy Randa, then he would have known that the trip to Chicago was planned and therefore he never would have wrote that Simpson left on an unexpected flight.

You also forget that the detectives in this case seemed only see and hear what they wanted to hear and when they wanted to do it.

What is interesting is that in Simpson's interview with the police, when asked what he was wearing that day, Simpson told them what type of pants he was wearing. The detectives asked him how did wash the, as in did he just have to throw them in the washer and Simpson said yes.

IMO, this means they had checked the washing machine and IMO, it is more likey that dark clothes were either a woman's or a child or one of the detectives already looked in the washing machine, saw nothing and was later surprised by claims that dark clothes--the sweats were seen in the washing machine.

Why would Arnelle lie about how many detectives she said she let in the house? Are you suggesting that Arnelle is accusing VA and MF of doing something wrong because they did not follow her? How does this help Simpson?

very keen observation about VA and the washing machine.

[GreenIce]

It is believed she took it out because she heard k1 making noise to get her to open the garage door.or some door.But when she knew ron was at ther gate she left it and went out the front door.

Martin,

I think you miss the point---why would Lange or Vanatter even feel it was possible that someone else contacted Nicole and warned of her danger? What evidence did they have that made this a possibility, maybe they knew what Sydney and Justin heard that night? Maybe they knew about Dr. Ameli's statement to the police?

Maybe they suspected Faye Resnick may have warned her of danger. Maybe they felt that since Ron appeared to be warned by his boss not to go to Nicole's that night, Nicole was also warned?

IMO, I think the knife on the counter was probably used to cut the stems off of the flowers Syndey got after her performance. Come to think of it, I don't think any questions were asked where the flowers were or if their stems were cut to fit into a vase. Again, just a thought.

[GreenIce]

Remember that juror that said she did not care how the glove got in the walkway. Others may have had simular acceptance of certain things and ignored defense cross. completely.they did have less to consider and a very low burden of proof and knew it was only about money.

Martin,

I may have given you and William the wrong impression. IMO, I think that where ever the criminal trial was held, it would going to be an aquittal. Which is why it angers me when the media kept on saying that if the trial was held in Santa Monica, he would have been convicted.

I also think it is wrong to say that if the civil trial was heard by a downtown jury, that he would not have been held liable for the deaths.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't believe either verdict was a racial verdict.

[GreenIce]

It is believed she took it out because she heard k1 making noise to get her to open the garage door.or some door.But when she knew ron was at ther gate she left it and went out the front door.

Martin,

When the police arrived, the garage door was already open. Simpson told the detectives what Nicole's customs were when she was expecting a guest, she would leave the garage door open or she would leave the garage door opener where her guest could get it and let themselves in.

It makes no sense that if Nicole felt she was in danager, she would have left the garage door open. Don't forget, we don't know how Ron entered the property.

[GreenIce]

I think that most of us have used that word at sometime and to say that we did would give credibility to the remainder of our testimony. That was the shame to lose credibility in front of the jury and be later convicted of perjury, over something that most of us have done. Stupidity comes to mind.

William,

One of the jurors who wrote the book basically said the same thing. However, nothing MF said was stupid or a slip of the tongue. He knew what he was doing and loved playing with the defense.

Also, another interesting tidbit. In MF's book, he says that he came cleaned with his then wife, about his wanting off of the force. MF believes the defense found out about the tapes when his wife called the Geraldo show and she told them that MAW was about a screenplay.

I never caught that before.

[GreenIce]

I believe Arnelle got very flustered when the detectives woke her up so soon after she had left Simpson’s house. The fact that Arnelle led the three detectives directly to the back door to let them into the house means she knew that door was unlocked because she had previously unlocked it to go back to her room. Later after some coaching from her father she lied by telling a fabricated story of taking two detectives around the house to the front door to turn off the house alarm before she let them in.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Arnelle Simpson gave them key evidence and proof of their case by taking them to the front door. They should have been all over this as well as the DA's---why? Because Arnelle had no choice to take them to the front door which explains why Simpson used his front door to enter the main house, he could not have used any other door. That while he was getting his murder gear in place, he forgot to leave a back door open so he could enter his house without having to use his front door.

Arnelle's front door entry makes perfect sense as to why there was a blood trail from the Bronco to Simpson's front door.

The fact they didn't use this to their advantage, IMO, only confirms what I have posted all along, they needed to make sure they had a view of MF and had he planted a glove, they would have seen it.

The more I think about it, the more I believe VA knew that glove was not there when he checked out the grounds or he thought MF's actions were odd and that it took him too long to find the glove. Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

Regardless of the race of the jury or the gender of the jury, they still would have had the same instructions. Also, the civil trial jurors, at least a few of them did say that their verdict did not invalidate that the criminal trial jury. The said they had different evidence, different rules of evidence as well as a different burden of proof. Also, the civil trial was about money, only money not someone's freedom.

Also, IMO, I don't care what color you are, you are going to question how blood evidence could keep appearing and then disappearing. No jury could have ignored the obvious lies of the LAPD or the disaster of Dennis Fung.

IMO.

GreenIce,

You say that certain criteria do not matter and that no jury could have ignored the obvious but that is just what appeared to have happened in the socio political production, which to me means that they did not consider that LE lied but were nervous and sleepy, causing them to be careless (which for some reason suggests it should have been overlooked) and to make human errors and mistakes.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I think you miss the point---why would Lange or Vanatter even feel it was possible that someone else contacted Nicole and warned of her danger? What evidence did they have that made this a possibility, maybe they knew what Sydney and Justin heard that night? Maybe they knew about Dr. Ameli's statement to the police?

Maybe they suspected Faye Resnick may have warned her of danger. Maybe they felt that since Ron appeared to be warned by his boss not to go to Nicole's that night, Nicole was also warned?

IMO, I think the knife on the counter was probably used to cut the stems off of the flowers Syndey got after her performance. Come to think of it, I don't think any questions were asked where the flowers were or if their stems were cut to fit into a vase. Again, just a thought.

GreenIce,

Maybe, the knife had gotten dull and would not cut paper and Ms. NBS wanted to throw it away.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I may have given you and William the wrong impression. IMO, I think that where ever the criminal trial was held, it would going to be an aquittal. Which is why it angers me when the media kept on saying that if the trial was held in Santa Monica, he would have been convicted.

I also think it is wrong to say that if the civil trial was heard by a downtown jury, that he would not have been held liable for the deaths.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't believe either verdict was a racial verdict.

I am not saying that the veridicts were based soley on one thing but I am not ruling out anything as a basis for the difference.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

He always blamed women and his wife was no different, which shows another of his, imho, stupid slips of the tongue. It seems that Geraldo knew about MAW and maybe MF's involvement and MF's wife tried to defend him but got the blame from MF.

William,

IMO, MF never did anything stupid nor did he ever make any slip of the tongue--to include "them". He was playing a game that merged two of the oldest games on the book, "cat and mouse" and "chicken". He was playing "chicken" with the LAPD and the DA's office and he was playing cat and "rat" with the defense. I had to elevate him to a "rat".

William couldn't see the gleam in his eyes when he knew every one in that freaking courtroom didn't believe a word he said and kept on playing the game?

BTW, his wife does shoot down his claims he forgot about the tapes and he may have been caught in his own lie in the book. I will have look it up first.

[Its just me]

I inadvertently posted a link to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here is the link to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule29.htm

You will see that this rule does not speak of a defendant's innocence but specifically states;

"After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. "

I just couldn't roll over and play dead. Innocent/Innocence and guilt/guilty are words that are commonly used in terminology relating to trials and IMHOO for you to sit and post trying to convince me I'm wrong and there is no such thing as innocence in a trial is a waste of time and total nonsense especially when you sit the same amount of time arguing OJ is innocent of murder. I'm sure you will claim the "evidence is insufficient" to prove guilt as I do in OJ's trial. I say the evidence was insufficient to say OJ is innocent...only the contrary and there was a mountain of evidence collected that prove OJ is "guilty". I probably will be amazed what you will come up with about OJ innocence but the undeniable fact remains that you sit here day after day arguing and trying to prove OJ is "innocent" of two murders.
No matter what terms you demand I use it won't change that there were no evidence that proved OJ did not kill 2 people and was innocent of the charges and if there were any the defense certainly would have presented it in court. Granted it does not happen often but I am broad minded enough to know there have been cases where evidence proved (absolutely) that the defendant was innocent but sadly like OJ the absolutely innocent defendant will have to wear the "Not guilty" because the DA/Prosecution failed to convince the jury/Judge the defendant was Guilty. Sadly some people won’t accept the truth and allow anyone to say the defense “proved” an absolutely innocent defendant was innocent.

I don't think it's possible in OJ's case but if you don't think it's possible to prove the defendant OJ is innocent....why are here arguing.

Just giving you and Martin something to post about. :seeya:

ETA..Any lawyer who will settle for just a reasonable doubt defense when there is actual proof the defendant is innocence needs to be disbarred.

ETA: If there is no such thing as innocent just tell me what would OJ be if he was actually framed as you claim.

ETA: The truth is IMHOO that you don't like what I post so you attact my intellect....granted it's not much but it's like Martin likes to say I aint no fool.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal
Whether the trial is to a jury or, as here, to the bench, subjecting the defendant to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Smalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smalis&action=edit&redlink=1) v. Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania), 476 U.S. 140 (1986)

[William Anthony]

William,

What I am basically saying is that I believe an all white jury would have found Simpson not guilty in a criminal trial and that all black jury have found him liable in a civil trial.

IMO, it seems to me that in a civil trial, can hate the defendant more then you have to listen to the testimony. You can pick and choose which evidence you like and which evidence you don't like.

The point is, after the criminal trial, the media made sure that they let the American people the verdict in the civil trial would be much different and they were right. But was it because of the skin color of the jurors or the rules of evidence and the much lower burden of proof?

IMO, if the civil trial was held downtown, the media would have used a different a different venue to demonize Simpson. I bet you everything my own, VB's "Uncle Tom" file would have finally made into evidence--least in the court of public opinon---just in case any one missed in the criminal trial.

GreenIce,

I believe it was a combination of reasons to include all those you have mentioned.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, MF never did anything stupid nor did he ever make any slip of the tongue--to include "them". He was playing a game that merged two of the oldest games on the book, "cat and mouse" and "chicken". He was playing "chicken" with the LAPD and the DA's office and he was playing cat and "rat" with the defense. I had to elevate him to a "rat".

William couldn't see the gleam in his eyes when he knew every one in that freaking courtroom didn't believe a word he said and kept on playing the game?

BTW, his wife does shoot down his claims he forgot about the tapes and he may have been caught in his own lie in the book. I will have look it up first.

GreenIce,

I am not saying you are wrong as I see his arrogance as a guiding light to his stupidity.

[martin II]

I just couldn't roll over and play dead. Innocent/Innocence and guilt/guilty are words that are commonly used in terminology relating to trials and IMHOO for you to sit and post trying to convince me I'm wrong and there is no such thing as innocence in a trial is a waste of time and total nonsense especially when you sit the same amount of time arguing OJ is innocent of murder. I'm sure you will claim the "evidence is insufficient" to prove guilt as I do in OJ's trial. I say the evidence was insufficient to say OJ is innocent...only the contrary and there was a mountain of evidence collected that prove OJ is "guilty". I probably will be amazed what you will come up with about OJ innocence but the undeniable fact remains that you sit here day after day arguing and trying to prove OJ is "innocent" of two murders.
No matter what terms you demand I use it won't change that there were no evidence that proved OJ did not kill 2 people and was innocent of the charges and if there were any the defense certainly would have presented it in court. Granted it does not happen often but I am broad minded enough to know there have been cases where evidence proved (absolutely) that the defendant was innocent but sadly like OJ the absolutely innocent defendant will have to wear the "Not guilty" because the DA/Prosecution failed to convince the jury/Judge the defendant was Guilty. Sadly some people won’t accept the truth and allow anyone to say the defense “proved” an absolutely innocent defendant was innocent.

I don't think it's possible in OJ's case but if you don't think it's possible to prove the defendant OJ is innocent....why are here arguing.

Just giving you and Martin something to post about. :seeya:

ETA..Any lawyer who will settle for just a reasonable doubt defense when there is actual proof the defendant is innocence needs to be disbarred.

ETA: If there is no such thing as innocent just tell me what would OJ be if he was actually framed as you claim.

ETA: The truth is IMHOO that you don't like what I post so you attact my intellect....granted it's not much but it's like Martin likes to say I aint no fool.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal
Whether the trial is to a jury or, as here, to the bench, subjecting the defendant to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Smalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smalis&action=edit&redlink=1) v. Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania), 476 U.S. 140 (1986)

IF the subject of discussion is about what is allowed in the CJS as far as verdicts are concerned thats one issue. If it is about what some think and say, thats another issue..

From the proof that has been posted it is obvious that a verdict cannot be innocent. If you just refuse to agree with the proof/facts, nothing changes.
The facts remain against what you think.

I don't remember saying oj was declared innocent i have agreed with the jury that he was NOT GUILTY. Your claim over and over that i have argued he was innocent is just false.

Arguing that oj was not innopcent is just a was to try to attack the NOT GUILTY verdict and most informed people know it is just pure nonsense from some that cannot just accept the verdict and move on.imo

In light of the proof given you i am not sure why we are still talking about this issue.imo
We have already moved on to other subjects so no need for you to give me anything to talk about.

[tv]

I have that poster on ignore, but I know what you are referring to. There are so many posting rules, I think there should be one against gushing over Arnelle :D

You know, socal, I've been thinking about this Arnelle infatuation thing. I'm starting to suspect (just my opinion of course) that the passion for Arnelle has something to do with the fact that she looks so much like her father. Have you ever seen someone with a man-crush? IMO, that's what we're dealing with here...:eek:

[William Anthony]

I just couldn't roll over and play dead. Innocent/Innocence and guilt/guilty are words that are commonly used in terminology relating to trials and IMHOO for you to sit and post trying to convince me I'm wrong and there is no such thing as innocence in a trial is a waste of time and total nonsense especially when you sit the same amount of time arguing OJ is innocent of murder. I'm sure you will claim the "evidence is insufficient" to prove guilt as I do in OJ's trial. I say the evidence was insufficient to say OJ is innocent...only the contrary and there was a mountain of evidence collected that prove OJ is "guilty". I probably will be amazed what you will come up with about OJ innocence but the undeniable fact remains that you sit here day after day arguing and trying to prove OJ is "innocent" of two murders.
No matter what terms you demand I use it won't change that there were no evidence that proved OJ did not kill 2 people and was innocent of the charges and if there were any the defense certainly would have presented it in court. Granted it does not happen often but I am broad minded enough to know there have been cases where evidence proved (absolutely) that the defendant was innocent but sadly like OJ the absolutely innocent defendant will have to wear the "Not guilty" because the DA/Prosecution failed to convince the jury/Judge the defendant was Guilty. Sadly some people won’t accept the truth and allow anyone to say the defense “proved” an absolutely innocent defendant was innocent.

I don't think it's possible in OJ's case but if you don't think it's possible to prove the defendant OJ is innocent....why are here arguing.

Just giving you and Martin something to post about. :seeya:

ETA..Any lawyer who will settle for just a reasonable doubt defense when there is actual proof the defendant is innocence needs to be disbarred.

ETA: If there is no such thing as innocent just tell me what would OJ be if he was actually framed as you claim.

ETA: The truth is IMHOO that you don't like what I post so you attact my intellect....granted it's not much but it's like Martin likes to say I aint no fool.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal
Whether the trial is to a jury or, as here, to the bench, subjecting the defendant to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Smalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smalis&action=edit&redlink=1) v. Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania), 476 U.S. 140 (1986)

IJM,

I am not asking you to play dead as I believe that would be asking you to act out of character. :) I have not denied that guilt and innocence are words used by some in speaking of trials and I have said they are used by lay people. However, you claimed that a defendant's case was dismissed because of his innocence and I have shown you that was not the case in the legal system based on legal principles, which you persistently have tried to prove me wrong but have thus far failed. I double dog dare (language that you seem familiar with, :)-just joking as I realize your facade) to find one post where I said Simpson was innocent, other than when I spoke of the legal presumption of innocence. I have explained that my point is that there was reasonable doubt and I spend a lot of time showing the evidence leading to my conclusion of reasonable doubt and defending the jury against the barage of attacks made against them, which, IIRC, you incorrectly posted that the barrage hadn't occurred in over a year.

I see your second paragraph as a round-about acknowledgement that there is not such animal as a finding of innocence or a declaration of innocence, if you will, in a criminal trial.

I thought I explained it to you but here it goes again. I am here, after reading the negative comments about the magnificent one and the jury, to see why there was not an equal amount of outraged expressed against other juries and lawyers, when others were acquitted of murder and most thought they were guilty. Likewise, I am showing the evidence that I feel points toward reasonable doubt.

ETA What the evidence proves is for the trier of fact to determine. Any lawyer that would risk believing that the trier of fact had to believe the evidence proves what he believes and not show additionally or alternatively that there is reasonable doubt, needs to be disbarred.

ETA The same as he is today not guilty of murder.

ETA I had to learn what I know of the law from training and experience and I am sure there are things based on your training and experience that you can teach me. It has nothing to do with your intellect and I am not buying that facade. You are far from a fool and very intelligent, IMHO. (Careful, I wouldn't want to start a rumor that I like you).

I will try to find and review the case so that I can respond to the remainder of your post to see how that language was used.

[martin II]

William,

One of the jurors who wrote the book basically said the same thing. However, nothing MF said was stupid or a slip of the tongue. He knew what he was doing and loved playing with the defense.

Also, another interesting tidbit. In MF's book, he says that he came cleaned with his then wife, about his wanting off of the force. MF believes the defense found out about the tapes when his wife called the Geraldo show and she told them that MAW was about a screenplay.

I never caught that before.

When mfs wife called GERALDO was there some conflict in the time he said he came home and when she said he was already sleep?

[martin II]

I just couldn't roll over and play dead. Innocent/Innocence and guilt/guilty are words that are commonly used in terminology relating to trials and IMHOO for you to sit and post trying to convince me I'm wrong and there is no such thing as innocence in a trial is a waste of time and total nonsense especially when you sit the same amount of time arguing OJ is innocent of murder. I'm sure you will claim the "evidence is insufficient" to prove guilt as I do in OJ's trial. I say the evidence was insufficient to say OJ is innocent...only the contrary and there was a mountain of evidence collected that prove OJ is "guilty". I probably will be amazed what you will come up with about OJ innocence but the undeniable fact remains that you sit here day after day arguing and trying to prove OJ is "innocent" of two murders.
No matter what terms you demand I use it won't change that there were no evidence that proved OJ did not kill 2 people and was innocent of the charges and if there were any the defense certainly would have presented it in court. Granted it does not happen often but I am broad minded enough to know there have been cases where evidence proved (absolutely) that the defendant was innocent but sadly like OJ the absolutely innocent defendant will have to wear the "Not guilty" because the DA/Prosecution failed to convince the jury/Judge the defendant was Guilty. Sadly some people won’t accept the truth and allow anyone to say the defense “proved” an absolutely innocent defendant was innocent.

I don't think it's possible in OJ's case but if you don't think it's possible to prove the defendant OJ is innocent....why are here arguing.

Just giving you and Martin something to post about. :seeya:

ETA..Any lawyer who will settle for just a reasonable doubt defense when there is actual proof the defendant is innocence needs to be disbarred.

ETA: If there is no such thing as innocent just tell me what would OJ be if he was actually framed as you claim.

ETA: The truth is IMHOO that you don't like what I post so you attact my intellect....granted it's not much but it's like Martin likes to say I aint no fool.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal
Whether the trial is to a jury or, as here, to the bench, subjecting the defendant to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Smalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smalis&action=edit&redlink=1) v. Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania), 476 U.S. 140 (1986)


Show me one post where i have declared oj was innocent. Just one will do.
Otherwise you can correct your false claim. Again.imo

[William Anthony]

I just couldn't roll over and play dead. Innocent/Innocence and guilt/guilty are words that are commonly used in terminology relating to trials and IMHOO for you to sit and post trying to convince me I'm wrong and there is no such thing as innocence in a trial is a waste of time and total nonsense especially when you sit the same amount of time arguing OJ is innocent of murder. I'm sure you will claim the "evidence is insufficient" to prove guilt as I do in OJ's trial. I say the evidence was insufficient to say OJ is innocent...only the contrary and there was a mountain of evidence collected that prove OJ is "guilty". I probably will be amazed what you will come up with about OJ innocence but the undeniable fact remains that you sit here day after day arguing and trying to prove OJ is "innocent" of two murders.
No matter what terms you demand I use it won't change that there were no evidence that proved OJ did not kill 2 people and was innocent of the charges and if there were any the defense certainly would have presented it in court. Granted it does not happen often but I am broad minded enough to know there have been cases where evidence proved (absolutely) that the defendant was innocent but sadly like OJ the absolutely innocent defendant will have to wear the "Not guilty" because the DA/Prosecution failed to convince the jury/Judge the defendant was Guilty. Sadly some people won’t accept the truth and allow anyone to say the defense “proved” an absolutely innocent defendant was innocent.

I don't think it's possible in OJ's case but if you don't think it's possible to prove the defendant OJ is innocent....why are here arguing.

Just giving you and Martin something to post about. :seeya:

ETA..Any lawyer who will settle for just a reasonable doubt defense when there is actual proof the defendant is innocence needs to be disbarred.

ETA: If there is no such thing as innocent just tell me what would OJ be if he was actually framed as you claim.

ETA: The truth is IMHOO that you don't like what I post so you attact my intellect....granted it's not much but it's like Martin likes to say I aint no fool.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal
Whether the trial is to a jury or, as here, to the bench, subjecting the defendant to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Smalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smalis&action=edit&redlink=1) v. Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania), 476 U.S. 140 (1986)

Here is a link to the opinion.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/476/140/case.html

"Petitioners, husband and wife, who owned a building housing a restaurant and apartments, were charged with various crimes in connection with a fire in the building that resulted in the killing of two tenants. At the close of the prosecution's case in chief at their bench trial in a Pennsylvania state court, petitioners challenged the sufficiency of the evidence by filing a demurrer pursuant to a Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure. The trial court sustained the demurrer, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed the Commonwealth's appeal on the ground that it was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that the granting of a demurrer is not the functional equivalent of an acquittal, and that, for purposes of considering a plea of double jeopardy, a defendant who demurs at the close of the prosecution's case in chief "elects to seek dismissal on grounds unrelated to his factual guilt or innocence."

Meaning that factual innocence of guilt is not a consideration.

In your post it said "proceedings going to guilt or innocence", not proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. You see guilty is not the same in the vulgar vernacular as it is in the legal jargon, which is a shortened form of saying guilty as charged. This means that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime for which he/she was charged and not that the defendant was actually guilty of the crime.

[martin II]

Here is a link to the opinion.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/476/140/case.html

"Petitioners, husband and wife, who owned a building housing a restaurant and apartments, were charged with various crimes in connection with a fire in the building that resulted in the killing of two tenants. At the close of the prosecution's case in chief at their bench trial in a Pennsylvania state court, petitioners challenged the sufficiency of the evidence by filing a demurrer pursuant to a Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure. The trial court sustained the demurrer, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed the Commonwealth's appeal on the ground that it was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that the granting of a demurrer is not the functional equivalent of an acquittal, and that, for purposes of considering a plea of double jeopardy, a defendant who demurs at the close of the prosecution's case in chief "elects to seek dismissal on grounds unrelated to his factual guilt or innocence."

Meaning that factual innocence of guilt is not a consideration.

In your post it said "proceedings going to guilt or innocence", not proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. You see guilty is not the same in the vulgar vernacular as it is in the legal jargon, which is a shortened form of saying guilty as charged. This means that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime for which he/she was charged and not that the defendant was actually guilty of the crime.

You have any idea as to why a poster claims we have said oj was innocent when it is not true?

[socaldiva]

You know, socal, I've been thinking about this Arnelle infatuation thing. I'm starting to suspect (just my opinion of course) that the passion for Arnelle has something to do with the fact that she looks so much like her father. Have you ever seen someone with a man-crush? IMO, that's what we're dealing with here...:eek:

I think you're on to something :eek:

[William Anthony]

You have any idea as to why a poster claims we have said oj was innocent when it is not true?

I am one for giving the benefit of the doubt, so, I will not say that the poster is trying to start trouble and just has a misunderstanding of what was said.

[William Anthony]

A lot of people thought Maddoff was onto something and some invested/donated their life savings, only to discover that what he was onto was duping them. ;)

[martin II]

William,

What I am basically saying is that I believe an all white jury would have found Simpson not guilty in a criminal trial and that all black jury have found him liable in a civil trial.YOU MAY BE CORRECT AND I AM NOT DISSAGREEING WITH YOUR POST BUT THINK BASED ON BLACKS EXPERIENCE WITH LE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES WOULD LOOK AT LE TESTIMONY MORE CLOSELY THAN WHITES IN BOTH TRIALS. bUT BLACK WOMEN SEND BLACKS TO JAILY DAILY IN LA.

IMO, it seems to me that in a civil trial, can hate the defendant more then you have to listen to the testimony. You can pick and choose which evidence you like and which evidence you don't like.

The point is, after the criminal trial, the media made sure that they let the American people the verdict in the civil trial would be much different and they were right. But was it because of the skin color of the jurors or the rules of evidence and the much lower burden of proof?

IMO, if the civil trial was held downtown, the media would have used a different a different venue to demonize Simpson. I bet you everything my own, VB's "Uncle Tom" file would have finally made into evidence--least in the court of public opinon---just in case any one missed in the criminal trial.

I do remember the media telling the puiblic 'IT WILL BE DIFFERENT IN THE CIVIL TRIAL. Maby because they knew the civil trial would be in Santa Monica.

[tv]

I think you're on to something :eek:

Me too. :D

[martin II]

A lot of people thought Maddoff was onto something and some invested/donated their life savings, only to discover that what he was onto was duping them. ;)

Some females thought MF was in love with them and this caused them to defend him and write him love letters.Same with SP.

[William Anthony]

Me too. :D

I do not know, who is infatuated with Ms. Arnelle, but I do know that youth is often wasted on the young and it appears that not all of the mature are wise. Not only do great minds think alike but the same can be said for warped minds, IMHO. I think it may be against the rules to accuse a poster of having certain attractions to members of the same sex.

[William Anthony]

Some females thought MF was in love with them and this caused them to defend him and write him love letters.Same with SP.

I understand the wisdom of not being a follower, because often times you may be led by someone that does not know where they are going and you end up just as lost, confused and dumbfounded as the leader. :);):cool: To those that have ears, let them hear. To those that have eyes, let them see. To those that have brains, let them think and understand. This is why I think Simpson did not follow the leader but got rid of Shapiro and hired the magnificent one. :)

[GreenIce]

Show me one post where i have declared oj was innocent. Just one will do.
Otherwise you can correct your false claim. Again.imo

Martin,

I believe I am the only NG that has posted I believe he is innocent. However, I have never based it on that he "wouldn't" have done it, I have always believed that he "could not" have done because of the timeline.

I have also posted that if it ever comes out that he did actually do it, I still think the verdict was correct.

I hope that takes the heat off you and William.

[GreenIce]

I do remember the media telling the puiblic 'IT WILL BE DIFFERENT IN THE CIVIL TRIAL. Maby because they knew the civil trial would be in Santa Monica.

Martin,

IMO, those comments were unprofessional and they tainted the the civil trial jurors' verdict. They clearly were saying because those jurors would be white, he would be found liable.

However, as I posted before, they have no proof that a white jury would have convicted Simpson in the criminal trial and that a black jury would not have found him liable in the civil trial. I think the majority did such a dis-service to their profession as well as their fellow Americans.

I feel the same way about the lawyers who said that police would never plant evidence and they do not lie on the stand. Another miscarriage in legal journalism, IMO.

[GreenIce]

When mfs wife called GERALDO was there some conflict in the time he said he came home and when she said he was already sleep?

Martin,

For some bizarre reason, which I could never figure out, Clark basically had MF testify to his alibi that night. I still don't get that.

I have looked for that in the book yet. But I thought he said that he never told his wife about LHM because he claimed they were lovers. However, I am not sure about this. I will try to find it tomorrow.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I am not saying you are wrong as I see his arrogance as a guiding light to his stupidity.

William,

IMO, MF read the court of public opinon better then any other witness in the history of this country. His "stupidity" has been defended with more vigor then the most argued cases in history. His "stupidity" also has earned him millions of dollars.

So I guess I am disagreeing with you. IMO, MF had his own agenda and he was there to promote it and he did just that.

From the bottom of my heart, I don't MF cared who won as long as he was the "winner" in the end and he was. IMO.

[Hotwater]

Race In the Case discussion is closed.

[bobaugust]

I believe the beautiful Ms. Arnelle told the truth, as shown by the video, in that she let the detectives in through the front door and, IMHO, the detectives lied but were again caught showing a reckless disregard for the truth by the video. :);):cool:

The fact is there is no evidence or witness who corroborates Arnelle’s story. The fact is that five different witnesses’s impeached Arnelle’s story proving that it was a complete fabrication. Your belief that Arnelle is telling the truth and the five witnesses are lying is typical of the kind of beliefs you have previously posted.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There is no perfect wire fense made by any company that does not have at lease one bent wire during installation. There was NO BLOOD FOUND ON ANY BENT WIRE IN THE WALKWAY. The gardner using machines when he cut the trees down could have bent the wire. The photographer that stood on the fense to take the overhead picture of the glove stood on the top of the fense.

If oj had blood on the bottom of his shoes why was there no bloody foot prints on the Salingers driveway where some think oj walked to get to the fence. Why was there blood drops in ojs walkway if he didn't walk there and walked around from the bronco to the salangers yard. He didn't walk in both places.


to make a charge in court you need proof not OJ may have or oj could have or maby he did .

vanatter and two other detectives investigate the fence area and testified that in their opinion NO ONE jumped that fense or was in the walkway.
There was not one piece of evidence found that anyone jumped the fence , bumped into a wall and ran out of the walkway. Katos testimony about the Gates he found closed proves that. imo
sorry no cigar.

The twisted wires on top of a chain link fence are for security. If for some reason a wire was bent during installation, it would have been straightened. Evidently the kind of quality chain link fence that was on Simpson’s property is not part of your life experience.

How many times are you going to continue to repeat your false claims? Anyone who is familiar with photography and looks at the photos of the gloves would be able to clearly see they were not taken by someone standing on top of the fence. Either support your claim or stop repeating it.

http://bobaugust.com/bluepackage.jpg

By the time Simpson got to the Salingers driveway there probably wasn’t any blood left on the bottom of his shoes to transfer to the driveway. Besides the fact Simpson could very well have not walked on the driveway. He could have walked on the grass.

Either support your claim that any detective testified that NO ONE jumped the fence or stop posting it. Be sure and include the date of any testimony you post.

You’re the one claiming Simpson ran down the walkway. When Simpson walked from behind Kaelin’s room down the south path to the driveway he could have closed any of the gates he opened just as Kaelin did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Why would Arnelle try to hide that the door was unlocked and the alarm was turned off? Since she lived on the property and access to the main house, what is the big deal if she went into the main house after coming home that night to grab a coke or something from inside the house?

Also, if VA was with the other detectives when she went into the house and he was there when Arnelle called Cathy Randa, then he would have known that the trip to Chicago was planned and therefore he never would have wrote that Simpson left on an unexpected flight.

You also forget that the detectives in this case seemed only see and hear what they wanted to hear and when they wanted to do it.

What is interesting is that in Simpson's interview with the police, when asked what he was wearing that day, Simpson told them what type of pants he was wearing. The detectives asked him how did wash the, as in did he just have to throw them in the washer and Simpson said yes.

IMO, this means they had checked the washing machine and IMO, it is more likey that dark clothes were either a woman's or a child or one of the detectives already looked in the washing machine, saw nothing and was later surprised by claims that dark clothes--the sweats were seen in the washing machine.

Why would Arnelle lie about how many detectives she said she let in the house? Are you suggesting that Arnelle is accusing VA and MF of doing something wrong because they did not follow her? How does this help Simpson?

Arnelle testified that she got home that Sunday night around 12.30, 1:00. She said she went right to her room and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30.

Vannatter did not talk on the phone with anyone, and when some of those phone calls were made he had gone to the bar area to speak with Kaelin.

You have yet to support your claim that Kato Kaelin told Vannatter about the noises he heard before Kato and Fuhrman entered Simpson’s house. Either support that claim or stop repeating it.

You are so quick to make up accusations and claims based only on your imagination yet you just can’t seem to grasp the fact that Arnelle was proved to have lied when she said she led two detectives around the house to the front door so she could turn the alarm off before letting them into the house.

In the civil trial Arnelle was asked and said that Vannatter may have also been there when she opened the front door. Arnelle’s story was a complete fabrication.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Arnelle Simpson gave them key evidence and proof of their case by taking them to the front door. They should have been all over this as well as the DA's---why? Because Arnelle had no choice to take them to the front door which explains why Simpson used his front door to enter the main house, he could not have used any other door. That while he was getting his murder gear in place, he forgot to leave a back door open so he could enter his house without having to use his front door.

Arnelle's front door entry makes perfect sense as to why there was a blood trail from the Bronco to Simpson's front door.

The fact they didn't use this to their advantage, IMO, only confirms what I have posted all along, they needed to make sure they had a view of MF and had he planted a glove, they would have seen it.

The more I think about it, the more I believe VA knew that glove was not there when he checked out the grounds or he thought MF's actions were odd and that it took him too long to find the glove. Again, IMO.

Your speculation makes is contradicted by the actual evidence in this case. About the only thing it shows is that you understand that Simpson was the killer.

Nothing about Arnelle’s fabricated story makes any sense. The fact is that five witnesses impeached her story proving that she lied. And why would she lie? She lied to cover up the mistake she made of not turning the house alarm back on after she washed hers and her father’s clothing before the police arrived. She was probably so nervous about what she was doing all she could think of was getting back to her room and going back to sleep. But instead of going back the long way by going out the front door and turning the house alarm back on and then walking around the house to get back to her room, she took the short way, the way she always went. She unlocked and left the house through the back door that was only yards from her room and went back to sleep. I doubt if she even considered the possibility that the police would be knocking on her door a short time later, so when it happened she was flustered, nervous, and scared and automatically led the police to the back door and opened it just as she always did.

The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove and I have never seen any evidence that any of the other detectives including the Robbery Homicide detectives believed otherwise.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

Arnelle testified that she got home that Sunday night around 12.30, 1:00. She said she went right to her room and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30.

Vannatter did not talk on the phone with anyone, and when some of those phone calls were made he had gone to the bar area to speak with Kaelin.

You have yet to support your claim that Kato Kaelin told Vannatter about the noises he heard before Kato and Fuhrman entered Simpson’s house. Either support that claim or stop repeating it.

You are so quick to make up accusations and claims based only on your imagination yet you just can’t seem to grasp the fact that Arnelle was proved to have lied when she said she led two detectives around the house to the front door so she could turn the alarm off before letting them into the house.

In the civil trial Arnelle was asked and said that Vannatter may have also been there when she opened the front door. Arnelle’s story was a complete fabrication.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You need proof that Arnelle was asked to go inside the main house after she got home. You have not established any link and with out this link, there is no evidence to suggest that Arnelle is an accomplice.

What is the big deal if Arnelle did forget to set the alarm? Was OJ going to ground her? Make her move? She had absolutely no reason to lie. I would think if Arnelle was lying, the detectives would have made sure that they wrote this in their book. Not one of them challenged Arnelle's credibility.

I never said that VA spoke anyone on the phone. What I did say is that if VA followed them into the house and into the kitchen and would have known that Simpson's trip was planned. He also would not have wrote the first search warrant the way he did. It is obvious, he was already trying to keep MF out of the trial and distance MF from being the person who found the glove.

I told you what was in Kato's testimony, it is up to you to look it up. However, I will make a deal with you, I will find this testimony again and post it just for you, when you post the testimony of any detective or SID member who testified they saw the sweats in the washing machine and described them as being a man's sweat suit as well as them being wet.

Also, you have not posted why Arnelle would lie about how many detectives followed her into the house. I have always posted that under the circumstances, it was possible that Arnelle was mistaken. However, since she lived on the property off and on for many years, it makes no sense that she would go to any door she knew could not be open from the outside or will nailed shut.

The four detectives' credibility on this issue was shattered the second they allowed Arnelle to open the door, regardless if it was locked, and enter the house first. So keeping this in mind, IMO, the detectives did hear both Kato and Arnelle say that Simpson was in fact out of town and that his trip was planned. It is for that reason they allowed Arnelle to open the door and enter the house first.

Also, MF does not support Kato's claim of when they entered the house. Never does MF say that he knew what door to enter because he saw the others enter the main house. He has consistently said that the only reason why he did not have to ask Kato which door to use because he saw one that was open.

And you totally ignore the fact that the detectives and the DA's should have been playing up Arnelle's front door entry to the hilt. It makes no sense at all that if Simpson was the killer, he would set himself up to be seen by having to enter his house through the front door. It also explains the blood trail from the Bronco to the front door.

Didn't Clark at one time also promote why Simpson had to enter his house through the front door? Didn't she say that all other entries were blocked, like the door in the garage?

You have not produced any reasons, how Arnelle's "lies" help her father. In fact, if she is lying, then the question must be asked how did she fool all 4 of these detectives to the point where they wrote nothing against her in their books?

In fact, Lange and Vanatter shatter the whole sweat suit in the washing machine as well as Clark. The only one who is claiming dark clothes were found in the washing machine is MF. And he never testified to this in the trial.

[GreenIce]

Your speculation makes is contradicted by the actual evidence in this case. About the only thing it shows is that you understand that Simpson was the killer.

Nothing about Arnelle’s fabricated story makes any sense. The fact is that five witnesses impeached her story proving that she lied. And why would she lie? She lied to cover up the mistake she made of not turning the house alarm back on after she washed hers and her father’s clothing before the police arrived. She was probably so nervous about what she was doing all she could think of was getting back to her room and going back to sleep. But instead of going back the long way by going out the front door and turning the house alarm back on and then walking around the house to get back to her room, she took the short way, the way she always went. She unlocked and left the house through the back door that was only yards from her room and went back to sleep. I doubt if she even considered the possibility that the police would be knocking on her door a short time later, so when it happened she was flustered, nervous, and scared and automatically led the police to the back door and opened it just as she always did.

The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove and I have never seen any evidence that any of the other detectives including the Robbery Homicide detectives believed otherwise.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Are you serious? Arnelle knows her father is going to murder Nicole that night. She knows that he is going to use a knife. She knows that he is going to wear dress socks, a black sweat suit and have winter gloves with him. She knows there is going to be a blood bath at Bundy.

She knows her role is to clean up the mess and that she must be diligent in getting rid of the evidence and making sure that she does a load of wash. She knows the timeline of the murders, she knows Nicole must be murdered before 11:00 p.m. that night. She needs to be her father's accomplice because if she isn't, he will take away her lunch money at the very least and ground her for the rest her life and take away her allowance.

If that is the case, then why did she come home so late? How did she know that bodies would not be discovered until after midnight? How did she know that she had at least 6 or 7 hours to kill before the police were going to be at her door?

Since you can't provide a communication link between Simpson and his daughter after the murders, then you have say that Arnelle was in on it from the very beginning.

And there is no way could have gone back to sleep unless she took something to knock her out or she drank until she passed out. Since the detectives did testify that Arnelle looked drugged or was drunk, you are stuck with the "sleepy" look.

Please explain to me how any person over the age 7 would not expect the police after they have been asked to help clean up after a murder? Do you really think Simpson and his daughter did not think the police would not contact them about Nicole's death? That they both forgot about Sydney and Justin?

[William Anthony]

The fact is there is no evidence or witness who corroborates Arnelle’s story. The fact is that five different witnesses’s impeached Arnelle’s story proving that it was a complete fabrication. Your belief that Arnelle is telling the truth and the five witnesses are lying is typical of the kind of beliefs you have previously posted.

bobaugust

Four witnesses and the video corroborated the beautiful Ms. Arnelle's truthful testimony, despite your belief, for some reason, otherwise.

[martin II]

The twisted wires on top of a chain link fence are for security. If for some reason a wire was bent during installation, it would have been straightened. Evidently the kind of quality chain link fence that was on Simpson’s property is not part of your life experience.

How many times are you going to continue to repeat your false claims? Anyone who is familiar with photography and looks at the photos of the gloves would be able to clearly see they were not taken by someone standing on top of the fence. Either support your claim or stop repeating it.

http://bobaugust.com/bluepackage.jpg

By the time Simpson got to the Salingers driveway there probably wasn’t any blood left on the bottom of his shoes to transfer to the driveway. Besides the fact Simpson could very well have not walked on the driveway. He could have walked on the grass.

Either support your claim that any detective testified that NO ONE jumped the fence or stop posting it. Be sure and include the date of any testimony you post.

You’re the one claiming Simpson ran down the walkway. When Simpson walked from behind Kaelin’s room down the south path to the driveway he could have closed any of the gates he opened just as Kaelin did.

bobaugust


OJS Chain fence was no different than most chain link fences and you have no proof that it was.

See Wagner for photographer standing on fence.

I Have posted vanatter and detectives testimony on walkway

OJ WAS NOT IN THE WALKWAY ON 6/12

[martin II]

The twisted wires on top of a chain link fence are for security. If for some reason a wire was bent during installation, it would have been straightened. Evidently the kind of quality chain link fence that was on Simpson’s property is not part of your life experience.

How many times are you going to continue to repeat your false claims? Anyone who is familiar with photography and looks at the photos of the gloves would be able to clearly see they were not taken by someone standing on top of the fence. Either support your claim or stop repeating it.

http://bobaugust.com/bluepackage.jpg

By the time Simpson got to the Salingers driveway there probably wasn’t any blood left on the bottom of his shoes to transfer to the driveway. Besides the fact Simpson could very well have not walked on the driveway. He could have walked on the grass.

Either support your claim that any detective testified that NO ONE jumped the fence or stop posting it. Be sure and include the date of any testimony you post.

You’re the one claiming Simpson ran down the walkway. When Simpson walked from behind Kaelin’s room down the south path to the driveway he could have closed any of the gates he opened just as Kaelin did.

bobaugust

Why do you continue to advertise your webb site here?

[martin II]

Arnelle testified that she got home that Sunday night around 12.30, 1:00. She said she went right to her room and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30.

Vannatter did not talk on the phone with anyone, and when some of those phone calls were made he had gone to the bar area to speak with Kaelin.

You have yet to support your claim that Kato Kaelin told Vannatter about the noises he heard before Kato and Fuhrman entered Simpson’s house. Either support that claim or stop repeating it.

You are so quick to make up accusations and claims based only on your imagination yet you just can’t seem to grasp the fact that Arnelle was proved to have lied when she said she led two detectives around the house to the front door so she could turn the alarm off before letting them into the house.

In the civil trial Arnelle was asked and said that Vannatter may have also been there when she opened the front door. Arnelle’s story was a complete fabrication.

bobaugust

bob
i think you know this but continue to ignore it

There was no proof that oj called Arnell after she arrived home and before le woke her up.

Period.

[martin II]

Arnelle testified that she got home that Sunday night around 12.30, 1:00. She said she went right to her room and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30.

Vannatter did not talk on the phone with anyone, and when some of those phone calls were made he had gone to the bar area to speak with Kaelin.

You have yet to support your claim that Kato Kaelin told Vannatter about the noises he heard before Kato and Fuhrman entered Simpson’s house. Either support that claim or stop repeating it.

You are so quick to make up accusations and claims based only on your imagination yet you just can’t seem to grasp the fact that Arnelle was proved to have lied when she said she led two detectives around the house to the front door so she could turn the alarm off before letting them into the house.

In the civil trial Arnelle was asked and said that Vannatter may have also been there when she opened the front door. Arnelle’s story was a complete fabrication.

bobaugust

Where are your phone records to prove oj called Arnell in her room and told her to wash the clothes.

[tv]

Your speculation makes is contradicted by the actual evidence in this case. About the only thing it shows is that you understand that Simpson was the killer.

Nothing about Arnelle’s fabricated story makes any sense. The fact is that five witnesses impeached her story proving that she lied. And why would she lie? She lied to cover up the mistake she made of not turning the house alarm back on after she washed hers and her father’s clothing before the police arrived. She was probably so nervous about what she was doing all she could think of was getting back to her room and going back to sleep. But instead of going back the long way by going out the front door and turning the house alarm back on and then walking around the house to get back to her room, she took the short way, the way she always went. She unlocked and left the house through the back door that was only yards from her room and went back to sleep. I doubt if she even considered the possibility that the police would be knocking on her door a short time later, so when it happened she was flustered, nervous, and scared and automatically led the police to the back door and opened it just as she always did.

The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove and I have never seen any evidence that any of the other detectives including the Robbery Homicide detectives believed otherwise.

bobaugust

Thanks, bobaugust. This sums it up very well. :)

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Are you serious? Arnelle knows her father is going to murder Nicole that night. She knows that he is going to use a knife. She knows that he is going to wear dress socks, a black sweat suit and have winter gloves with him. She knows there is going to be a blood bath at Bundy.

She knows her role is to clean up the mess and that she must be diligent in getting rid of the evidence and making sure that she does a load of wash. She knows the timeline of the murders, she knows Nicole must be murdered before 11:00 p.m. that night. She needs to be her father's accomplice because if she isn't, he will take away her lunch money at the very least and ground her for the rest her life and take away her allowance.

If that is the case, then why did she come home so late? How did she know that bodies would not be discovered until after midnight? How did she know that she had at least 6 or 7 hours to kill before the police were going to be at her door?

Since you can't provide a communication link between Simpson and his daughter after the murders, then you have say that Arnelle was in on it from the very beginning.

And there is no way could have gone back to sleep unless she took something to knock her out or she drank until she passed out. Since the detectives did testify that Arnelle looked drugged or was drunk, you are stuck with the "sleepy" look.

Please explain to me how any person over the age 7 would not expect the police after they have been asked to help clean up after a murder? Do you really think Simpson and his daughter did not think the police would not contact them about Nicole's death? That they both forgot about Sydney and Justin?

There was testimony that vannater and lang as lead detectives told fung what evidence to collect. Why didn't they tell fung to collect the sweats if there was any?

[martin II]

Thanks, bobaugust. This sums it up very well. :)

Do you have phone records to prove oj called Arnell after she arrived home?

[martin II]

Martin,

TV may be right on this one. They took Simpson by his kids play area and tried to shield behind the larger structures of the play area. However, I don't think VA was responsible for this, I think the officer who actually cuffed him did this on his own. I think the officer did testify to this in the trial.

However, this does work against the detectives, if the uniform knew the media attention and knew what it would look like cuffing Simpson in plain view the media, VA should have known this as well, IMO.

I think VA and Lange knew, even then, they were going to have do somethings to combat Simpson's public image. I don't think VA and Lange have been given enough credit for being media savvy and knew how to use it to their advantage.

The childrens play area was in the front yard near where the Bently was parked and not too far from the rockingham gate. i don't consider that as a private area.

correction
The childrens play area is west of the front door across the driveway in the front yard. I don't consider that area "private" as the media was at that wall. The picture i saw was from ground level not from up high from a tree. imo

[martin II]

GI

I think the dark clothes some say was in the washing machine was the black house robe Park said oj could have had on when he saw him walk into the house. Otherwise it was nothing but some jeans. But then Clarke said the sweats were in the hamper.

[martin II]

Arnell comes home at 1 am

Goes to her room ,puts on pjs and gets in bed.

There are no phone records of her receiving a phone call from anyone including oj from chicago.

HOW DID OJ TELL ARNELL TO WASH CLOTHES IF HE DID NOT TALK TO HER???????

5;30 am le wakes her up.

TWO Le in ojs house talking to Arnell others some place on property.MF talking to kato

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I think it is unfair for GG to have received criticism for moving the trial to downtown LA. There is no proof, not one shred of proof had the criminal trial been held in Santa Monica the same issues would not have come up and that the verdict would have been different. IMO, it would not have been a different verdict and I also believe had the jury been mostly white, the verdict would have been rendered even quicker.

IMO, there is no proof had the civil trial been held the exact same location as the criminal trial that the verdict would have been any different.

I do believe that media, more then any lawyer on either side played the "race card". I also believe that many people in the media were not kind to Petrocelli during his book tour because they were offended that he did not give them, the media, their fair share of the credit for their role in the civil trial and the verdict.

However, it may be possible that GG figured out very early that moving the trial to downtown was a win-win for his office. If the DA's won the case, then the verdict would have been accepted. If there was an aquittal, he could blame the jury.

I would like to believe that he did it because he believed in his case but I can't forget, he also has to run for office.

I think GG more than anyone knew the case was very weak.

[martin II]

William,

IMO, MF read the court of public opinon better then any other witness in the history of this country. His "stupidity" has been defended with more vigor then the most argued cases in history. His "stupidity" also has earned him millions of dollars.

So I guess I am disagreeing with you. IMO, MF had his own agenda and he was there to promote it and he did just that.

From the bottom of my heart, I don't MF cared who won as long as he was the "winner" in the end and he was. IMO.

When MF was called to the case and he realized who was involved he put in place the exit from lapd he tried to get when he lied to get early retirement.

With the help of people like Geraldo and a publisher he realized his plan of
becomming a crime solver and anti oj TH.
He read the public and the publishing/tv industry correctly. He realized there was some in the public that would like to hear anti oj stuff forever.imo

[martin II]

Your speculation makes is contradicted by the actual evidence in this case. About the only thing it shows is that you understand that Simpson was the killer.

Nothing about Arnelle’s fabricated story makes any sense. The fact is that five witnesses impeached her story proving that she lied. And why would she lie? She lied to cover up the mistake she made of not turning the house alarm back on after she washed hers and her father’s clothing before the police arrived. She was probably so nervous about what she was doing all she could think of was getting back to her room and going back to sleep. But instead of going back the long way by going out the front door and turning the house alarm back on and then walking around the house to get back to her room, she took the short way, the way she always went. She unlocked and left the house through the back door that was only yards from her room and went back to sleep. I doubt if she even considered the possibility that the police would be knocking on her door a short time later, so when it happened she was flustered, nervous, and scared and automatically led the police to the back door and opened it just as she always did.

The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove and I have never seen any evidence that any of the other detectives including the Robbery Homicide detectives believed otherwise.

bobaugust

bob

How does this work.

Arnell testifies.
Detectives testimony supports her testimony
You cancel detectives testimony that does not support your belief and try to use the balance to support your view?

[William Anthony]

Thanks, bobaugust. This sums it up very well. :)

One cannot see what their eyes refuse to behold, IMHO. The though is that Simpson was covered in blood or the so-called camouflage clothing her wore or the murder weapon were dripped blood or blood was dripped from Simpson's cut finger and those items left an alleged blood trail from Bundy to the Bronco, which allegedly was parked in the alley by Bundy, to Rockingham. Folloowing the Blood trail in leads from the Bronco parked on Rockingham straight into Simpson's front door. There is no blood or disturbance placing Simpson behind Kato's quarters. However, there is evidence placing MF, who never denied under oath planting evidence in this case, alone behind Kato's quarters. There is evidence of missing blood. There is evidence of the glove appearing shiny several hours later. There is evidence of MF's bias toward interracial couples and his proclivity to do illegal things when it came to them (pun intended). Pray tell, open your eyes and behold a beautiful summation courtesy of William., Smile, Wink, Cool.

[William Anthony]

The childrens play area was in the front yard near where the Bently was parked and not too far from the rockingham gate. i don't consider that as a private area.

correction
The childrens play area is west of the front door across the driveway in the front yard. I don't consider that area "private" as the media was at that wall. The picture i saw was from ground level not from up high from a tree. imo

Martin,

even if they tried to keep the arrest private, they did with it what they did to the rest of the case. They flubbed it. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

bob

How does this work.

Arnell testifies.
Detectives testimony supports her testimony
You cancel detectives testimony that does not support your belief and try to use the balance to support your view?

With Bias aforethought, IMHO.:);):cool:

[GreenIce]

The childrens play area was in the front yard near where the Bently was parked and not too far from the rockingham gate. i don't consider that as a private area.

correction
The childrens play area is west of the front door across the driveway in the front yard. I don't consider that area "private" as the media was at that wall. The picture i saw was from ground level not from up high from a tree. imo

Martin,

IMO, from the officer's testimony, he was doing the best he could to give him some privacy. And I think it is important to remember that this officer made the decision. VA gave the order and IMO, he wanted the reporters to see it. Like I posted before, I don't think Lange and VA have been given enough credit for using the media to their advantage, very, very early in the case.

Doesn't it strike you odd that the LAPD used Simpson's fame to their advantage and knew exactly how to inflict hits to it?

Also, they knew what they were going to have to do because of Simpson's fame and his public persona. I have posted before that bascially Lange gave the media several hours to take great shots of Nicole before he decided to do the decent thing. And I have my doubts about this act as well but they are only my opinons.

[GreenIce]

GI

I think the dark clothes some say was in the washing machine was the black house robe Park said oj could have had on when he saw him walk into the house. Otherwise it was nothing but some jeans. But then Clarke said the sweats were in the hamper.

Martin,

I just realized this, was Simpson ever asked about the bathrobe, where he hung it up after wearing it or did he throw it in the hamper.

Also, Park testified he saw Simpson carrying a coat or wearing a black coat, did any one ask Simpson about the coat or did they look for a black coat?

I know they took several pictures of his bedroom and his closet and the bathroom but I don't remember seeing a robe hanging any where.

IMO, it seems you are on to something. I think someone put something in that washer for a reason. Also, as far as we know, all the items in the washing machine could have been placed in the washer by someone other then the maid, the residents of the house. If MF and BR could have taken the socks out of the hamper, they could have also taken other items out and toss in the wash---and to use the washer as an excuse for absence of blood.

[GreenIce]

I think GG more than anyone knew the case was very weak.

Martin,

IMO, I think more then anything, GG was confident they were going to find the murder weapon, the clothes and the shoes. They had Simpson's timeline and they searched accordingly. When they didn't find the items, I think that is when it really hit GG just how weak the case was.

[GreenIce]

The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove and I have never seen any evidence that any of the other detectives including the Robbery Homicide detectives believed otherwise.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You have absolutely no evidence to prove that he did not plant the glove. You have absolutely no evidence to prove that any one, other then MF not only was behind the wall but also on the other side of the fence.

You have absolutely no proof or evidence that would have prevented MF or anyone else from planting that glove. You have absolutely no proof or evidence to support your claims that the detectives are telling the truth.

However, NG's have an abundence of evidence that clealy suggests that the detectives were not telling the truth, when they were half way telling the truth and when they didn't want to know the truth.

There are too many examples when the detectives testifed about not seeing something because they weren't looking for it, they didn't hear the response because they decided to shut off their ears, etc.

Your biggest mistake Mr. August is that you keep changing your position. Every time the detectives tell a different tale, they are "mistaken" but when a defense witness differs with the detectives' story, they are lying.

And tell me, how does Arnelle lying about how many detectives that followed her into the house help her father? What is the purpose of that lie?

[William Anthony]

Martin,

IMO, I think more then anything, GG was confident they were going to find the murder weapon, the clothes and the shoes. They had Simpson's timeline and they searched accordingly. When they didn't find the items, I think that is when it really hit GG just how weak the case was.

GreenICe,

I don't think that it took a week to realize the weakness but GG may not have been the brightest onion in the field.:);):cool:

[GreenIce]

GreenICe,

I don't think that it took a week to realize the weakness but GG may not have been the brightest onion in the field.:);):cool:

William,

You may be right, since, IMO, he allowed the leaks and the tape to be released. There is no way you are going to convince me that he did not know about it or made sure that everyone knew that he did not want to know about it.

However, you got to give him credit, he did try in his case in the only court where he knew he would win, and that was the court of public opinon. We have all heard the mantra, when the defense has no defense, they go after the cops, the evidence collectors, etc.

Well, IMO, it is also fair to say that when the DA's know they will lose in the courtroom, they know how to take it to the court of public opinon. Don't forget, it will be the court of public opinon that will vote him back into office.
He went for the bigger jury, IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

I just realized this, was Simpson ever asked about the bathrobe, where he hung it up after wearing it or did he throw it in the hamper.

Also, Park testified he saw Simpson carrying a coat or wearing a black coat, did any one ask Simpson about the coat or did they look for a black coat?

I know they took several pictures of his bedroom and his closet and the bathroom but I don't remember seeing a robe hanging any where.

IMO, it seems you are on to something. I think someone put something in that washer for a reason. Also, as far as we know, all the items in the washing machine could have been placed in the washer by someone other then the maid, the residents of the house. If MF and BR could have taken the socks out of the hamper, they could have also taken other items out and toss in the wash---and to use the washer as an excuse for absence of blood.


I think most people have bathrobes in the bathroom. if oj had taken a shower it mases sense that he put the bath robe on when he came out of the shower
and would have put it in the bathroom hamper when he returned up stairs from briinging the two bags down stairs.

Clarke said the sweats were looked at in the bathroom and were found in a corner next to or in a hamper.

Le said a sweats were in the washing machine but never showed any sweats in a washing machine.

Park said oj could have had on a black bathrobe when he saw him reenter the house. Then Park said oj had on a black overcoat when he came down stairsa few minutes later to get into the limo. This is another example of park being confused as a result of too much prompting by Clarke and his mother.



The problem with the sweats is. le had access to all of ojs clothes in his clothes room. They were looking for murder clothes, sweats would be a good bet. So if Vannater did not tell fung to collect the sweats some say fung had, then there were no sweats. The dark item in the bottom of the washer did not have to be sweats. If they were why didn fung take them out, hold them up to be photographed so there could be proof that they were sweats. He didn't because they were not sweats. just some dark clothes.

Vannatter and his crew were very seasoned cops. It would not take then long to decide what they had to do to "assist" in evidence being found to help get a convictioon of the person they though killed Nicole.

[William Anthony]

William,

You may be right, since, IMO, he allowed the leaks and the tape to be released. There is no way you are going to convince me that he did not know about it or made sure that everyone knew that he did not want to know about it.

However, you got to give him credit, he did try in his case in the only court where he knew he would win, and that was the court of public opinon. We have all heard the mantra, when the defense has no defense, they go after the cops, the evidence collectors, etc.

Well, IMO, it is also fair to say that when the DA's know they will lose in the courtroom, they know how to take it to the court of public opinon. Don't forget, it will be the court of public opinon that will vote him back into office.
He went for the bigger jury, IMO.

GreenIce,

You have hit on something. His lack of integrity as it pertains to actually doing his job, because he placed his political desires first, may have clouded his judgment, making him appear to be not too knowledgeable legally.

[martin II]

I definitely believe Arnelle is a co-conspirator -- just not a very good one!

Did you find the phone records yet?

[GreenIce]

I think most people have bathrobes in the bathroom. if oj had taken a shower it mases sense that he put the bath robe on when he came out of the shower
and would have put it in the bathroom hamper when he returned up stairs from briinging the two bags down stairs.

Clarke said the sweats were looked at in the bathroom and were found in a corner next to or in a hamper.

Le said a sweats were in the washing machine but never showed any sweats in a washing machine.

Park said oj could have had on a black bathrobe when he saw him reenter the house. Then Park said oj had on a black overcoat when he came down stairsa few minutes later to get into the limo. This is another example of park being confused as a result of too much prompting by Clarke and his mother.



The problem with the sweats is. le had access to all of ojs clothes in his clothes room. They were looking for murder clothes, sweats would be a good bet. So if Vannater did not tell fung to collect the sweats some say fung had, then there were no sweats. The dark item in the bottom of the washer did not have to be sweats. If they were why didn fung take them out, hold them up to be photographed so there could be proof that they were sweats. He didn't because they were not sweats. just some dark clothes.

Vannatter and his crew were very seasoned cops. It would not take then long to decide what they had to do to "assist" in evidence being found to help get a convictioon of the person they though killed Nicole.

Martin,

IMO, we will never know the truth of what was taken and what was tested. Too much evidence has been "lost" or it was not collected. How can so many bloody fingprints be missed? One officer testified to seeing a bloody fingerprint on the Bronco. In Goldberg's book, they say this bloody fingerprint was AC Cowlings! Have you ever seen this bloody fingerprint?

I am convinced that VA knows that MF planted the glove and that he knows that someone put clothes or added dark clothes to the washer. And in their book, never do they describe them as being wet.

What I would really love to know is why Brad Roberts never allowed to testify.

[martin II]

Martin,

even if they tried to keep the arrest private, they did with it what they did to the rest of the case. They flubbed it. :);):cool:

The cop put the handcuffs on oj in plain sight. said vannater told him to cuff oj. vannatter denied this. RK asked vannatter has he been arrested., vannater said no, RK said take the cuffs off.

Saying oj was handcuffed in private is a lame attempt to keep the cops from
looking stupid.The cops refused any help at not looking stupid.

[GreenIce]

The cop put the handcuffs on oj in plain sight. said vannater told him to cuff oj. vannatter denied this. RK asked vannatter has he been arrested., vannater said no, RK said take the cuffs off.

Saying oj was handcuffed in private is a lame attempt to keep the cops from
looking stupid.The cops refused any help at not looking stupid.

Martin,

Again, VA is caught in a tangle of his own lies. IMO, it is obvious that VA wanted Simpson cuffed and wanted it done in full view of the media.

From reading the cop who did handcuff Simpson, it appears to me that he did not agree to the dog and pony show and tried to give Simpson a little dignity.

I would love to know what the other cops said to him after he did this and what VA said to him after this testimony.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, we will never know the truth of what was taken and what was tested. Too much evidence has been "lost" or it was not collected. How can so many bloody fingprints be missed? One officer testified to seeing a bloody fingerprint on the Bronco. In Goldberg's book, they say this bloody fingerprint was AC Cowlings! Have you ever seen this bloody fingerprint?

I am convinced that VA knows that MF planted the glove and that he knows that someone put clothes or added dark clothes to the washer. And in their book, never do they describe them as being wet.

What I would really love to know is why Brad Roberts never allowed to testify.

Some have said B Roberts had something to do with the glove being found in the walkway. MF said something about him finding some evidence but the DA
put him in the closet and it was as if he was never at Rockingham or Bundy.

I would like to know exactly where he was when mf "found" the glove.

[martin II]

Martin,

Again, VA is caught in a tangle of his own lies. IMO, it is obvious that VA wanted Simpson cuffed and wanted it done in full view of the media.

From reading the cop who did handcuff Simpson, it appears to me that he did not agree to the dog and pony show and tried to give Simpson a little dignity.

I would love to know what the other cops said to him after he did this and what VA said to him after this testimony.

I think there were many partol cops that knew of MF and vannaters history.Knew what they had done in other cases and saw then doing it in the oj case and did not agree.

[martin II]

Martin,

Again, VA is caught in a tangle of his own lies. IMO, it is obvious that VA wanted Simpson cuffed and wanted it done in full view of the media. I agree this was his way of telling the public i got the killer.

From reading the cop who did handcuff Simpson, it appears to me that he did not agree to the dog and pony show and tried to give Simpson a little dignity.

I would love to know what the other cops said to him after he did this and what VA said to him after this testimony.

I think the cops name was Thompson.

[GreenIce]

Some have said B Roberts had something to do with the glove being found in the walkway. MF said something about him finding some evidence but the DA
put him in the closet and it was as if he was never at Rockingham or Bundy.

I would like to know exactly where he was when mf "found" the glove.

Martin,

Perhaps MC knew that he would not make a good witness on the stand. May be he told her off the record that if she put him on, he would tell the truth.
It all comes back to what MF said the tape about the case. That if he went down, the glove went down and MC knew it.

Maybe she knew it because VA already told her or Brad Roberts told her. I have my issues with MC but I don't think she is a stupid DA and she is a cop's DA. She knows which one will play ball, which one's won't or which ones really want to play but they are not good enough.

Besides, I believe MC always planned to blame MF for losing the case. I thinks she lined up her scapegoats and MF was the number 1 scapegoat.
If you think about it, there has been no investigation into MC for knowing that MF was going to commit perjury. They all knew he was going to. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, we will never know the truth of what was taken and what was tested. Too much evidence has been "lost" or it was not collected. How can so many bloody fingprints be missed? One officer testified to seeing a bloody fingerprint on the Bronco. In Goldberg's book, they say this bloody fingerprint was AC Cowlings! Have you ever seen this bloody fingerprint?

I am convinced that VA knows that MF planted the glove and that he knows that someone put clothes or added dark clothes to the washer. And in their book, never do they describe them as being wet.

What I would really love to know is why Brad Roberts never allowed to testify.


I will never be able to understand how detectives are investigating a crime scene collecting evidence and not one made any notes for what they did for several hours.

[GreenIce]

I will never be able to understand how detectives are investigating a crime scene collecting evidence and not one made any notes for what they did for several hours.

Martin,

They were smart enough not to commit anything to paper until they knew exactly what they had. They knew something was wrong and they waited. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You need proof that Arnelle was asked to go inside the main house after she got home. You have not established any link and with out this link, there is no evidence to suggest that Arnelle is an accomplice.

What is the big deal if Arnelle did forget to set the alarm? Was OJ going to ground her? Make her move? She had absolutely no reason to lie. I would think if Arnelle was lying, the detectives would have made sure that they wrote this in their book. Not one of them challenged Arnelle's credibility.

I never said that VA spoke anyone on the phone. What I did say is that if VA followed them into the house and into the kitchen and would have known that Simpson's trip was planned. He also would not have wrote the first search warrant the way he did. It is obvious, he was already trying to keep MF out of the trial and distance MF from being the person who found the glove.

I told you what was in Kato's testimony, it is up to you to look it up. However, I will make a deal with you, I will find this testimony again and post it just for you, when you post the testimony of any detective or SID member who testified they saw the sweats in the washing machine and described them as being a man's sweat suit as well as them being wet.

Also, you have not posted why Arnelle would lie about how many detectives followed her into the house. I have always posted that under the circumstances, it was possible that Arnelle was mistaken. However, since she lived on the property off and on for many years, it makes no sense that she would go to any door she knew could not be open from the outside or will nailed shut.

The four detectives' credibility on this issue was shattered the second they allowed Arnelle to open the door, regardless if it was locked, and enter the house first. So keeping this in mind, IMO, the detectives did hear both Kato and Arnelle say that Simpson was in fact out of town and that his trip was planned. It is for that reason they allowed Arnelle to open the door and enter the house first.

Also, MF does not support Kato's claim of when they entered the house. Never does MF say that he knew what door to enter because he saw the others enter the main house. He has consistently said that the only reason why he did not have to ask Kato which door to use because he saw one that was open.

And you totally ignore the fact that the detectives and the DA's should have been playing up Arnelle's front door entry to the hilt. It makes no sense at all that if Simpson was the killer, he would set himself up to be seen by having to enter his house through the front door. It also explains the blood trail from the Bronco to the front door.

Didn't Clark at one time also promote why Simpson had to enter his house through the front door? Didn't she say that all other entries were blocked, like the door in the garage?

You have not produced any reasons, how Arnelle's "lies" help her father. In fact, if she is lying, then the question must be asked how did she fool all 4 of these detectives to the point where they wrote nothing against her in their books?

In fact, Lange and Vanatter shatter the whole sweat suit in the washing machine as well as Clark. The only one who is claiming dark clothes were found in the washing machine is MF. And he never testified to this in the trial.

No one has to provide proof that Arnelle did something you imagine she did. Her testimony is clear that when she got back home Sunday night she went to her room and went to sleep. If you imagine she went to the house for something to drink it’s up to you to support that belief.

Arnelle testified the only time she was in Simpson’s house between Friday and Monday was on Saturday night about 9:00 or 10:00. Kato Kaelin turned on the house alarm on Sunday night at about 11:40 after Simpson gave him the alarm code and instructions. Kaelin testified he followed those instructions and saw the red light come on indicating the alarm was set.

Early Monday morning when Arnelle opened the back door of the house no warning beeps were heard by any of the detectives that they would have heard if the alarm was still on. No one saw Arnelle go to a keypad and turn the alarm off. The evidence is that someone had turned the house alarm off sometime between 11:40 pm Sunday night and about 6:00 am Monday morning when Arnelle opened the back door. She evidently knew it was unlocked.

Vannatter evidently didn’t hear anything in the kitchen before he left to interview Kaelin that changed his assumption that Simpson’s trip was “unexpected.” “Vannatter had based his conclusion on Kato Kaelin deferring to Arnelle Simpson when they first contacted him during the early-morning hours of June 13, asking for Simpson's where-abouts. Arnelle initially said that she believed her father was in his house.”

There was no testimony regarding the freshly washed dark colored sweat suit found in Simpson’s washing machine and I have never read any testimony by Kaelin saying he told Vannatter about the noises he heard before Vannatter interviewed him in Simpson’s house. Support your claim please.

Arnelle’s story was a fabrication. She never led any detectives around the house to the front door after they woke her up. I agree that Arnelle would not go to any door she knew could not be opened, that’s why she led them to the back door that she normally used to enter the house.

Mark Fuhrman testified that he asked Kaelin to come with him to Simpson’s house. Fuhrman said he saw an open door that wasn’t opened before. Fuhrman said that Kaelin might have led him to the door. Fuhrman impeached Arnelle’s story when he testified that he and Kaelin entered the back door of the house.

It makes perfect sense to me that Simpson entered his front door since it was the closest unlocked door to the south path.

How did Arnelle’s lies help her father? They didn’t, they helped her. How did she fool all the detectives and the prosecutors? The police and the prosecutors knew Arnelle was lying but even if they suspected why she lied it didn’t matter, they were prosecuting Simpson, they weren’t going to go after Arnelle. She was lucky.

March 10, 1995 Fuhrman

Q DID YOU ASK FOR HIS ASSISTANCE IN FIGURING OUT HOW TO GET INTO THE HOUSE OR WAS THAT OBVIOUS TO YOU?
A I MIGHT HAVE. BUT I NOTICED THE DOOR -- MR. KAELIN COULD HAVE -- COULD HAVE LED ME THERE. I'M NOT POSITIVE WHICH WAY THAT WENT.
Q SO YOU WALKED IN THROUGH THE REAR DOOR?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS WITH MR. KAELIN?
A YES.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Are you serious? Arnelle knows her father is going to murder Nicole that night. She knows that he is going to use a knife. She knows that he is going to wear dress socks, a black sweat suit and have winter gloves with him. She knows there is going to be a blood bath at Bundy.

She knows her role is to clean up the mess and that she must be diligent in getting rid of the evidence and making sure that she does a load of wash. She knows the timeline of the murders, she knows Nicole must be murdered before 11:00 p.m. that night. She needs to be her father's accomplice because if she isn't, he will take away her lunch money at the very least and ground her for the rest her life and take away her allowance.

If that is the case, then why did she come home so late? How did she know that bodies would not be discovered until after midnight? How did she know that she had at least 6 or 7 hours to kill before the police were going to be at her door?

Since you can't provide a communication link between Simpson and his daughter after the murders, then you have say that Arnelle was in on it from the very beginning.

And there is no way could have gone back to sleep unless she took something to knock her out or she drank until she passed out. Since the detectives did testify that Arnelle looked drugged or was drunk, you are stuck with the "sleepy" look.

Please explain to me how any person over the age 7 would not expect the police after they have been asked to help clean up after a murder? Do you really think Simpson and his daughter did not think the police would not contact them about Nicole's death? That they both forgot about Sydney and Justin?

I have never claimed Arnelle knew anything about the murders until the police told her Nicole was killed.

I believe Arnelle lied to cover up the mistake she made when she left her father’s house to go back to her room, in the early morning hours before the police arrived, by unlocking and exiting the back door leaving the house alarm turned off. I don’t believe she knew anything about the murders at that time but Arnelle Simpson is not stupid, so she had to suspect her father was involved in something bad because of the blood on his clothing but I doubt if she thought the police would be knocking on her door.

Arnelle was not on trial so there was no investigation made into this. Based on the time line Simpson could very well have called Arnelle after his plane landed in Chicago, either from a payphone at the airport or a payphone at his hotel. No one looked for payphone telephone records. The dark colored sweat suit was never collected during the first search since the detectives didn’t know then that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit about an hour before the murders. We know the facts from witness testimony and my beliefs are based on logical inferences and supposition based on those facts.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Four witnesses and the video corroborated the beautiful Ms. Arnelle's truthful testimony, despite your belief, for some reason, otherwise.

No detective ever said Arnelle led them around the house to the front door to let them into the house. No detective ever said Arnelle turned the house alarm off. No detective ever said Arnelle unlocked the front door.

Five witnesses all testified they entered the back door of the house. Three of those five witnesses testified Arnelle opened the back door to let them in. One of those five witnesses testified he saw Arnelle enter the house leading the three detectives. That is the evidence in this case.

The video tape only proves the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door.

Your belief is contradicted by the evidence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

OJS Chain fence was no different than most chain link fences and you have no proof that it was.

See Wagner for photographer standing on fence.

I Have posted vanatter and detectives testimony on walkway

OJ WAS NOT IN THE WALKWAY ON 6/12

There are different gauges of wires used on chain link fences. Heavier gauge chain link fences such as the kind that was on Simpson’s property are more expensive and provide better security.

The photograph I provided a link to was from Wagner’s web site and clearly shows the photographer was standing on the ground leaning over the glove, not standing on top of the chain link fence. To think that Rokahr would try and stand on top of a chain link fence covered with hanging foliage to take this photograph is completely ridiculous and contradicted by the photograph that was taken.

You may have posted Vannatter and other detectives’ testimony but the fact is that no detective ever testified that “No one jumped the fence.” Your claim is false.

The blood and fiber evidence found on the glove contradicts your belief. The evidence that both Kaelin and Simpson were seen for the first time at the same time at the front of the house only minutes after the noises on the back wall were heard contradicts your belief. The fact that at the time Kaelin heard someone behind his room there were only three people on Simpson’s estate contradicts your belief.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why do you continue to advertise your webb site here?

Providing a link to a photograph is not advertising.

[bobaugust]

bob
i think you know this but continue to ignore it

There was no proof that oj called Arnell after she arrived home and before le woke her up.

Period.

No proof, only a logical supposition based on the evidence.

[bobaugust]

bob

How does this work.

Arnell testifies.
Detectives testimony supports her testimony
You cancel detectives testimony that does not support your belief and try to use the balance to support your view?

The evidence is that the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door before she opened it and I offered a reasonable explanation why they were mistaken. No detective supported Arnelle’s fabricated story that she led two detectives around the house to the front door to turn the house alarm off to let them in.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You have absolutely no evidence to prove that he did not plant the glove. You have absolutely no evidence to prove that any one, other then MF not only was behind the wall but also on the other side of the fence.

You have absolutely no proof or evidence that would have prevented MF or anyone else from planting that glove. You have absolutely no proof or evidence to support your claims that the detectives are telling the truth.

However, NG's have an abundence of evidence that clealy suggests that the detectives were not telling the truth, when they were half way telling the truth and when they didn't want to know the truth.

There are too many examples when the detectives testifed about not seeing something because they weren't looking for it, they didn't hear the response because they decided to shut off their ears, etc.

Your biggest mistake Mr. August is that you keep changing your position. Every time the detectives tell a different tale, they are "mistaken" but when a defense witness differs with the detectives' story, they are lying.

And tell me, how does Arnelle lying about how many detectives that followed her into the house help her father? What is the purpose of that lie?

There is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived. There is absolutely no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove he discovered on the south path behind Kaelin’s room.

You are incorrect. I’m not the one accusing witnesses of lying because they contradict my beliefs, I leave that to others such as Martin and William. I have accused only three witness of lying under oath, Orenthal James Simpson, Arnelle Simpson, and Skip Taft.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Did you find the phone records yet?

Oh, that missing link!!! Why let something like that bother you when you want to think negatively of someone?

[William Anthony]

The cop put the handcuffs on oj in plain sight. said vannater told him to cuff oj. vannatter denied this. RK asked vannatter has he been arrested., vannater said no, RK said take the cuffs off.

Saying oj was handcuffed in private is a lame attempt to keep the cops from
looking stupid.The cops refused any help at not looking stupid.

When someone is handcuffed they are arrested.

[William Anthony]

Some have said B Roberts had something to do with the glove being found in the walkway. MF said something about him finding some evidence but the DA
put him in the closet and it was as if he was never at Rockingham or Bundy.

I would like to know exactly where he was when mf "found" the glove.

Do you think he was standing lookout when MF claimed to have found the glove?

[William Anthony]

I will never be able to understand how detectives are investigating a crime scene collecting evidence and not one made any notes for what they did for several hours.

Lack of documentation makes it easy to testilie.

[Hotwater]

Why do you continue to advertise your webb site here?

We no longer have that rule here. Posting a link to blogs is also allowed.
What isn't allowed is advertisements for products/porn etc...

[William Anthony]

No detective ever said Arnelle led them around the house to the front door to let them into the house. No detective ever said Arnelle turned the house alarm off. No detective ever said Arnelle unlocked the front door.

Five witnesses all testified they entered the back door of the house. Three of those five witnesses testified Arnelle opened the back door to let them in. One of those five witnesses testified he saw Arnelle enter the house leading the three detectives. That is the evidence in this case.

The video tape only proves the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door.

Your belief is contradicted by the evidence.

bobaugust

They testified that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door and let them in. Ms. Arnelle testified she unlocked the front door. The video showed that the only door with a lock is the front door. IMHO, the detectives lied about seeing a wet sweat suit, so in order to cover their lie, they had to say that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle washed it. Therefore, IMHO, they got their detective (didn't want to use the slang word) heads together and lied.:);)

[William Anthony]

No proof, only a logical supposition based on the evidence.

I have asked for the phone records to support your alleged "logical supposition". Is it your contention that there would not be a record of a phone call to the beautiful Ms. Arnelle's cell phone record, if the call came from a payphone?

[tv]

Providing a link to a photograph is not advertising.

Hotwater's clarification has made it clear that there's no difference in linking to your website or linking to Wagner or Walraven. If I haven't told you -- great site. :)

[William Anthony]

Hotwater's clarification has made it clear that there's no difference in linking to your website or linking to Wagner or Walraven. If I haven't told you -- great site. :)

I guess that greatness is like beauty. I prefer Walraven's for the transcripts and Wagner's for an unbiased look at the evidence. I would call them the greatest.

[weezer]

Hotwater's clarification has made it clear that there's no difference in linking to your website or linking to Wagner or Walraven. If I haven't told you -- great site. :)

:beer::beer::patriot: to bobaugust's site

I really like walraven's site for transcripts.

I think wagner's site is good for photos etc as long as you don't read the parallel universe theories -- LOL

[tv]

:beer::beer::patriot: to bobaugust's site

I really like walraven's site for transcripts.

I think wagner's site is good for photos etc as long as you don't read the parallel universe theories -- LOL

Totally agree about Wagner and Walraven. As far as Wagner's parallel universe -- sometimes you just have to ignore the wackos! :tongue:

[martin II]

There are different gauges of wires used on chain link fences. Heavier gauge chain link fences such as the kind that was on Simpson’s property are more expensive and provide better security.

The photograph I provided a link to was from Wagner’s web site and clearly shows the photographer was standing on the ground leaning over the glove, not standing on top of the chain link fence. To think that Rokahr would try and stand on top of a chain link fence covered with hanging foliage to take this photograph is completely ridiculous and contradicted by the photograph that was taken.

You may have posted Vannatter and other detectives’ testimony but the fact is that no detective ever testified that “No one jumped the fence.” Your claim is false.

The blood and fiber evidence found on the glove contradicts your belief. The evidence that both Kaelin and Simpson were seen for the first time at the same time at the front of the house only minutes after the noises on the back wall were heard contradicts your belief. The fact that at the time Kaelin heard someone behind his room there were only three people on Simpson’s estate contradicts your belief.

bobaugust


bob
are you now a chain link fence expert.
i think not.

What company made this extra fence and why extra security for a back yard fence that was in a walkway never used by anyone. hahaha
nonsense.

[martin II]

Do you think he was standing lookout when MF claimed to have found the glove?

YES between the kitchen and the garage.

[martin II]

When someone is handcuffed they are arrested.
aGREED

So that must have been a false arrest.

[martin II]

Totally agree about Wagner and Walraven. As far as Wagner's parallel universe -- sometimes you just have to ignore the wackos! :tongue:

Or one can ignore truth and call it wacko.

[martin II]

The evidence is that the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door before she opened it and I offered a reasonable explanation why they were mistaken. No detective supported Arnelle’s fabricated story that she led two detectives around the house to the front door to turn the house alarm off to let them in.

bobaugust

How is it that you get to say who lied and who was mistaken
??

[martin II]

No proof, only a logical supposition based on the evidence.

Without phonevrecords it is just nonsense and a truly false accusation that should be ignored.

[William Anthony]

Or one can ignore truth and call it wacko.

I have a problem with anyone that says could have, may have, maybe and then say it is a fact.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

aGREED

So that must have been a false arrest.

No, just a false statement, IMHO, by Vannnatter that he never told the officer to arrest Simpson.

[William Anthony]

How is it that you get to say who lied and who was mistaken
??

What, don't you know about the site unseen?:);)cool:

[martin II]

Totally agree about Wagner and Walraven. As far as Wagner's parallel universe -- sometimes you just have to ignore the wackos! :tongue:

Can you prove that there were not two killers in nicoles front yard on 6/12?

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived. There is absolutely no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove he discovered on the south path behind Kaelin’s room.

You are incorrect. I’m not the one accusing witnesses of lying because they contradict my beliefs, I leave that to others such as Martin and William. I have accused only three witness of lying under oath, Orenthal James Simpson, Arnelle Simpson, and Skip Taft.

bobaugust

I had responded to this post but could not find my response, which means that I don't know why it is not posted. However, the importance of the post was to ask you to stop making false posts about me, since the only person who I have called a liar is the person the court found to be a liar but you have called many people liars and when I pointed out to you that you called them liars and the fact that you had never called certain others liars, you came up with one but you still haven't claimed and I do believe that you are correct in what you claim that the only witnesses you call liars are Simpson, Ms. Arnelle and Taft and you will not call the confused-tongued convicted perjurer a liar. If you have a post where I called anyone a liar other than MF post it, as I followed the moderator's advisement and said IMHO. If not, then I respectfully ask you to stop making false accusations against me as I believe that is a rule.

[GreenIce]

The evidence is that the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door before she opened it and I offered a reasonable explanation why they were mistaken. No detective supported Arnelle’s fabricated story that she led two detectives around the house to the front door to turn the house alarm off to let them in.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Three detectives claim they did not actually listen to Arnelle's reply about where he father was. They all were vague and they testified that Arnelle's gesture and the words they did overhear led them to believe Simpson was inside the house.

However, by allowing not only Arnelle to unlock the house as well as enter it first, they also allowed Kato Kalin into the house without checking first. IMO, that is proof they did hear Arnelle's response, they did hear her answer that she knew her father was out of town but did not know exactly where he was but she knew who to call to find out.

Why would Arnelle lie about how many detectives followed her into the house? What did she have to gain with this lie?

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

I reading a response from the author of VA and Lange's book to MF's. In it, it says some very interesting things.

MF was livid that his notes weren't read and apparently, it still bothers him to this day. At least that is the impression I got from his book.

However, MF got several things wrong on his notes. Like the wrong type of menu, said the killer was bitten by a dog or could have been, that they could have been killed by GSW, etc.

However, none of this makes sense because MF wrote those notes after observing the evidence and actually sat down to write them in Nicole's living room. I guess I am asking, how or why would MF deliberately write false details in his notes and leave them in there when he discovered that he was wrong?

Also, the response says that he did not document the two drops of blood on the fence rail.

Keeping in mind that MF turned in notes that had false information on them, why did VA also include false statements when he wrote the search warrant, knowing that what he wrote was false?

[martin II]

The detectives lied about what Arnell said. All three were standing next to her.

They needede to try to have a excuse for illegally enterring ojs property.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

I reading a response from the author of VA and Lange's book to MF's. In it, it says some very interesting things.

MF was livid that his notes weren't read and apparently, it still bothers him to this day. At least that is the impression I got from his book.

However, MF got several things wrong on his notes. Like the wrong type of menu, said the killer was bitten by a dog or could have been, that they could have been killed by GSW, etc.

However, none of this makes sense because MF wrote those notes after observing the evidence and actually sat down to write them in Nicole's living room. I guess I am asking, how or why would MF deliberately write false details in his notes and leave them in there when he discovered that he was wrong?

Also, the response says that he did not document the two drops of blood on the fence rail.

Keeping in mind that MF turned in notes that had false information on them, why did VA also include false statements when he wrote the search warrant, knowing that what he wrote was false?

IF MF was upset about his bundy notes why didn't he make any at Rockingham. Not one line.


vannatter did what many cops do to get search warrants they 'ASSIST' the facts and lie.

[GreenIce]

The detectives lied about what Arnell said. All three were standing next to her.

They needede to try to have a excuse for illegally enterring ojs property.

Martin,

According to Arnelle, not all three were standing there. She has always said that only two detectives came to her door and talked to her and that another one was by the patio door or something and where MF was, with Kato.

Which makes perfect sense that Arnelle would have only thought two detectives were following, could VA joined the Arnelle Conga Line and not know that had, I think that is very possible.

Also, I confirmed in VA's prelim testimony that he said that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary resident and that she happened to just spend the night there. If that is true, why wasn't Petro yelling this from his tree top?

[GreenIce]

IF MF was upset about his bundy notes why didn't he make any at Rockingham. Not one line.


vannatter did what many cops do to get search warrants they 'ASSIST' the facts and lie.

Martin,

Isn't it fair to say that MF knew once he "found" the glove, there was no need for him to write any? That he knew there was no way they could keep him off the witness stand?

What bothers me about VA is that the lies were so obvious and the issues were so important, why would even take the slightest chance?

Also, they through Kato into the mix saying that he did not know where Simpson was either. Again, this contradicts Kato's testimony. He told them where he was and made it clear that Simpson was not home.

But they never ask Kato about a maid.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I reading a response from the author of VA and Lange's book to MF's. In it, it says some very interesting things.

MF was livid that his notes weren't read and apparently, it still bothers him to this day. At least that is the impression I got from his book.

However, MF got several things wrong on his notes. Like the wrong type of menu, said the killer was bitten by a dog or could have been, that they could have been killed by GSW, etc.

However, none of this makes sense because MF wrote those notes after observing the evidence and actually sat down to write them in Nicole's living room. I guess I am asking, how or why would MF deliberately write false details in his notes and leave them in there when he discovered that he was wrong?

Also, the response says that he did not document the two drops of blood on the fence rail.

Keeping in mind that MF turned in notes that had false information on them, why did VA also include false statements when he wrote the search warrant, knowing that what he wrote was false?

I truly don't think that they expected the intense scrutiny they would subsequently be placed under by the dream team. I think that they thought that it would just be business as usual and the evidence they produced by whatever means would not be questioned to the degree it was, including their notes. However, the dream team did not bow to them and made them prove their case by a sufficiency of the evidence to show Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which they failed to do. :);):cool:

[martin II]

There are different gauges of wires used on chain link fences. Heavier gauge chain link fences such as the kind that was on Simpson’s property are more expensive and provide better securityOJS FENCE WAS A CHAIN LINK FENCE IN HIS SIDE YARD NO SECURITY NEEDED THERE. THERE IS NO PERFECT FENCE MADE SO YOU NEED ANOTHER EXCUSE

The photograph I provided a link to was from Wagner’s web site and clearly shows the photographer was standing on the ground leaning over the glove, not standing on top of the chain link fence. To think that Rokahr would try and stand on top of a chain link fence covered with hanging foliage to take this photograph is completely ridiculous and contradicted by the photograph that was taken.tHAT PICTURE WAS TAKEN BY SOMEONE STANDING ON THE FENCE.

You may have posted Vannatter and other detectives’ testimony but the fact is that no detective ever testified that “No one jumped the fence.” Your claim is false.VANNATER SAID FROM HIS INVESTIGATION OF THE FENCE AND THE WALKWAY NO ONE JUMPED THE FENCE. TWO OTHER DETECTIVES TESTIFIED TO THE SAME. VANNATER BELIEVED OJ LEFT THE BRONCO AND WALKED UP HIS FRONT DRIVEWAY TO HIS FRONT DOOR. MF DID NOT BELIEVE OJ JUMPED THE FENCE EITHER SO THAT LEAVES YOU AND CLARKE THAT BELIEVED HE DID.

The blood and fiber evidence found on the glove contradicts your belief. The evidence that both Kaelin and Simpson were seen for the first time at the same time at the front of the house only minutes after the noises on the back wall were heard contradicts your belief. The fact that at the time Kaelin heard someone behind his room there were only three people on Simpson’s estate contradicts your belief.aT THE TIME KATO HEARD THE NOISE HE WAS IN HIS ROOM AND OJ WAS IN HIS HOUSE.

bobaugust


I don't know who the third person was you speak of

[GreenIce]

I think the cops name was Thompson.

Martin,

Do you agree that Phillips and VA have not been given enough credit for their media savvy as well as knowing very early on they were going to have to deal with Simpson's public persona and that is why, IMO, they gave the media a free show?

[martin II]

I truly don't think that they expected the intense scrutiny they would subsequently be placed under by the dream team. I think that they thought that it would just be business as usual and the evidence they produced by whatever means would not be questioned to the degree it was, including their notes. However, the dream team did not bow to them and made them prove their case by a sufficiency of the evidence to show Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which they failed to do. :);):cool:

I Agree

I think the prosecution had set their case in stone and developed stratergy
when Shaperio was lead lawyer. i am not sure the complete dream team had been assembeled. So they may not have been aware of the makeup of the complete defense team. When the dream team was complete the prosecution had to stay with their stated claims.
Another thing was B Pevelic had good connections inside the lapd. he definately informed the defense about mf and Cochran knew how lapd covered up bad deeds.

[Kate Sachel]

William and Martin,

I reading a response from the author of VA and Lange's book to MF's. In it, it says some very interesting things.

MF was livid that his notes weren't read and apparently, it still bothers him to this day. At least that is the impression I got from his book.

However, MF got several things wrong on his notes. Like the wrong type of menu, said the killer was bitten by a dog or could have been, that they could have been killed by GSW, etc.

However, none of this makes sense because MF wrote those notes after observing the evidence and actually sat down to write them in Nicole's living room. I guess I am asking, how or why would MF deliberately write false details in his notes and leave them in there when he discovered that he was wrong?

Also, the response says that he did not document the two drops of blood on the fence rail.

Keeping in mind that MF turned in notes that had false information on them, why did VA also include false statements when he wrote the search warrant, knowing that what he wrote was false?

I believe that the notes Fuhrman made in Nicole's living room were initial notations as he was not allowed to fully observe, photograph, or touch anything at that point. However, I am not certain and would have to research to confirm.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I believe that the notes Fuhrman made in Nicole's living room were initial notations as he was not allowed to fully observe, photograph, or touch anything at that point. However, I am not certain and would have to research to confirm.

Kate

Kate,

It is good to see you posting again. I don't think, judging by his statements on the infamous Mckinny tapes, that MF would let a little thing like rules stop him from tampering/investigating, for lack of a better word, with a crime scene. :)

[martin II]

GI

I agree that GG thought le would find the shoes and knife as they had lots of cadets looking at every possible place oj could have been in brentwood and Chicago.
They found nothing.
Even though they knew oj did not leave his hotel room they looked in the neighborhood outside the hotel.

[GreenIce]

I Agree

I think the prosecution had set their case in stone and developed stratergy
when Shaperio was lead lawyer. i am not sure the complete dream team had been assembeled. So they may not have been aware of the makeup of the complete defense team. When the dream team was complete the prosecution had to stay with their stated claims.
Another thing was B Pevelic had good connections inside the lapd. he definately informed the defense about mf and Cochran knew how lapd covered up bad deeds.

Martin,

To post about JC's hiring and transfer to first chair does deal with a subject that we are no longer able to post about so I am just going to leave this alone.

I am not impressed with BP all that much. His treatment of the other private investigators and some of his other comments that had been made public seemed to me that he wanted to be the sole investigator and that he didn't need any help.

However, he did give Simpson great advice, he did tell him that all the lawyers were going to have their own agendas and that he needed to know his case better then his lawyers. He need to know the evidence, he needed to know how certain witnesses were going to answer certain questions.

Have you read his web site yet? He feels that Simpson is guilty but the LAPD did frame a guilty man. He also really gets into MF and his alleged relationship with Nicole. Some thing about e-mails and phone calls. Not exactly sure what he meant.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

There seems to be another rather questionable part of your post where you say that you accused Skip Taft of lying. I just did a quick check of the witness list and saw that Mr. Taft and Petrocelli had a dispute as to how many cuts Taft saw on Simpson's hands. Petrocelli employed Taft's deposition testimony to attempt to impeach him. You have claimed that Allan Park's memory improved with time, despite his testimonies in prior proceedings. You seem to be true to form in who you brand as liars and who you will defend. :);):cool: Would you explain this rather curious position as to whom you call liars and those you claim are mistaken and made human error?

[martin II]

Kate,

It is good to see you posting again. I don't think, judging by his statements on the infamous Mckinny tapes, that MF would let a little thing like rules stop him from tampering, for lack of a better word, with a crime scene. :)

I think mf was closer to the glove than anyone else and there were photos
of him in the middle of the crime scene. I think he had every opportunity to see all the blood,shoe prints. He may have done a better job if he had not directed vannaters thinking that oj was involved and they should go get him.
I think it was Riske that told them he thought oj was involved just because he saw some letter/bill at nicoles house.imo

[GreenIce]

I believe that the notes Fuhrman made in Nicole's living room were initial notations as he was not allowed to fully observe, photograph, or touch anything at that point. However, I am not certain and would have to research to confirm.

Kate

Kate,

According to Lange, in his book, the only evidence that could not be touched was any evidence on the body. This evidence could only be collected with a ME respresentative present. Lange talks about how he helped Claudine Ratcliff with, I think Nicole's body. He was helping her with the measurements and preparing her for transport to the ME office.

Because of how VA did everything he could not to mention MF in any of his reports in search warrants, perhaps MF's details were correct and Lange and Vanatter were trying to take a little shine off of his star?

[GreenIce]

I think mf was closer to the glove than anyone else and there were photos
of him in the middle of the crime scene. I think he had every opportunity to see all the blood,shoe prints. He may have done a better job if he had not directed vannaters thinking that oj was involved and they should go get him.
I think it was Riske that told them he thought oj was involved just because he saw some letter/bill at nicoles house.imo

Martin,

Apparently in the civil trial, Riske testified that he believed that Simpson was actually involved in the murders and the person who he told this to, I can't remember who it was, Spangler maybe--he did not remember being told that.

What people refuse to understand is that MF was the first or second investigator at the scene. He knew exactly what the other officers had seen but more importantly, what they didn't see. He had plenty of time of find out if any one had seen a second glove.

As I posted before, I think the gloves were left there on purpose. I can't see why Simpson would do this and think it was a good idea!!!!

[William Anthony]

I think mf was closer to the glove than anyone else and there were photos
of him in the middle of the crime scene. I think he had every opportunity to see all the blood,shoe prints. He may have done a better job if he had not directed vannaters thinking that oj was involved and they should go get him.
I think it was Riske that told them he thought oj was involved just because he saw some letter/bill at nicoles house.imo

He was certainly closer to the glove he allegedly found where there was no blood on the leaves and no visible disturbance of the area around it, leading to all types of questions as to how that glove got there.

[martin II]

Martin,

To post about JC's hiring and transfer to first chair does deal with a subject that we are no longer able to post about so I am just going to leave this alone.

I am not impressed with BP all that much. His treatment of the other private investigators and some of his other comments that had been made public seemed to me that he wanted to be the sole investigator and that he didn't need any help.

However, he did give Simpson great advice, he did tell him that all the lawyers were going to have their own agendas and that he needed to know his case better then his lawyers. He need to know the evidence, he needed to know how certain witnesses were going to answer certain questions.

Have you read his web site yet? He feels that Simpson is guilty but the LAPD did frame a guilty man. He also really gets into MF and his alleged relationship with Nicole. Some thing about e-mails and phone calls. Not exactly sure what he meant.


i posted on his webb site until he closed it down just before he wrote his book. Some posters provided good information that i did not know. One pooster nailed B Roberts as the lookout for mf when he went to the walkway and "found" the glove then dissapeared. He also gave the defense valuable info about MF history.

e-mails
MF had posted on BP site for a while and had sent some intimate e-mails to a lady outside the site . She decided to expose him and she posted mf e-mails to her on the site with proof that they came from Furhman.
They were kinda kinky and BP gave some legal reason and closed the site. all from memory.

[GreenIce]

i posted on his webb site until he closed it down just before he wrote his book. Some posters provided good information that i did not know. One pooster nailed B Roberts as the lookout for mf when he went to the walkway and "found" the glove then dissapeared. He also gave the defense valuable info about MF history.

e-mails
MF had posted on BP site for a while and had sent some intimate e-mails to a lady outside the site . She decided to expose him and she posted mf e-mails to her on the site with proof that they came from Furhman.
They were kinda kinky and BP gave some legal reason and closed the site. all from memory.

Martin,

When I saw MF with BR by his side in some interviews or heard MF talk about BR, it always struck that he was using BR both as a weapon and a shield to the DA's and to the LAPD.

[martin II]

He was certainly closer to the glove he allegedly found where there was no blood on the leaves and no visible disturbance of the area around it, leading to all types of questions as to how that glove got there.

Since there was no proof from leaves being moved all around the walkway glove and no indication that anyone was running out of the walkway and the fact that katos testimony proved that no one moved the gates it is my opinion that the glove got where it was found by someone walking up to the first gate and tossed the glove to where it was found.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

When I saw MF with BR by his side in some interviews or heard MF talk about BR, it always struck that he was using BR both as a weapon and a shield to the DA's and to the LAPD.

I never understood why mf said BR found most of the evidense and then the prosecution did not call BR to testify to what he found.

What did he find?

[GreenIce]

He was certainly closer to the glove he allegedly found where there was no blood on the leaves and no visible disturbance of the area around it, leading to all types of questions as to how that glove got there.

William,

This is what gets me about the glove. I think three detectives testified they did not get any closer to the glove then 6 feet. They basically saw the lump and that was enough for them to declare Rockingham a crime scene.

However, this makes no sense to me. Vanatter knew about the thumps before he went to see the glove---so how come these very experienced detectives, did no detecting on how or what made the thumps? They did not scour that area looking for evidence that someone was back there before MF was?

MF testified at one point he saw no evidence of anyone being back there but then again he wasn't looking but then he later goes on to say that he walked past the AC unit and because it was so dirty and cob webs were still in tact that no one was back there.

Also, from 6 feet out, how could they see the details of the glove and then send MF and RP back to Bundy to find it's mate? None of this makes sense. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

Apparently in the civil trial, Riske testified that he believed that Simpson was actually involved in the murders and the person who he told this to, I can't remember who it was, Spangler maybe--he did not remember being told that.

What people refuse to understand is that MF was the first or second investigator at the scene. He knew exactly what the other officers had seen but more importantly, what they didn't see. He had plenty of time of find out if any one had seen a second glove.

As I posted before, I think the gloves were left there on purpose. I can't see why Simpson would do this and think it was a good idea!!!!

I think Riske told his boss oj was involved by phone from nicoles kitchen.

[martin II]

Riske was in nicoles kitchen using her phone to communicate with his boss. Next to the phone was a list that said "daddy" with ojs phone number.
Why didn't Riske call ojs number to make contact with him.Did Riske show vannatter ojs phone number and if he did why didn't vannatter dial it.

If some had dialed the number they would have heard ojs answering machine say this is oj i am not home. what would they have done then?

[GreenIce]

I never understood why mf said BR found most of the evidense and then the prosecution did not call BR to testify to what he found.

What did he find?

Martin,

MF told us why BR would never testify. Remember, he was the star witness and if he went down, the glove went down and MC knew it? I am pretty sure he is dead on about the situation.

IMO, if the 3 other lead detectives were willing to cover for MF and Clark knew this, putting MF's partner on the stand was not going to change that.
However, what I found interesting is that I never even knew that RP was not MF's partner that night. What is odd is that the identity of Ron Phillips partner that night, to the best of my knowledge has never been revealed.

At least I don't think so.

[martin II]

William,

This is what gets me about the glove. I think three detectives testified they did not get any closer to the glove then 6 feet. They basically saw the lump and that was enough for them to declare Rockingham a crime scene.

However, this makes no sense to me. Vanatter knew about the thumps before he went to see the glove---so how come these very experienced detectives, did no detecting on how or what made the thumps? They did not scour that area looking for evidence that someone was back there before MF was?

MF testified at one point he saw no evidence of anyone being back there but then again he wasn't looking but then he later goes on to say that he walked past the AC unit and because it was so dirty and cob webs were still in tact that no one was back there.

Also, from 6 feet out, how could they see the details of the glove and then send MF and RP back to Bundy to find it's mate? None of this makes sense. IMO.

If mf walked from the garage to the air conditioner he stepped over the glove to do so.

[GreenIce]

Riske was in nicoles kitchen using her phone to communicate with his boss. Next to the phone was a list that said "daddy" with ojs phone number.
Why didn't Riske call ojs number to make contact with him.Did Riske show vannatter ojs phone number and if he did why didn't vannatter dial it.

If some had dialed the number they would have heard ojs answering machine say this is oj i am not home. what would they have done then?

Martin,

Riske was using common sense. Can you explain how a young rather inexperienced patrol cop had the common sense to consider the strong possibility that OJ Simpson was involved with the murders and 4 detectives with over 100 years of experience between them did not? I will take any answer you give me:)

Can you also explain to me how this same patrol cop had the common sense to know the media was going to be all over this and he should not use radio and try to strave off the media until they, the LAPD could at least get control over the scene?

And we don't know if Riske or any other cop pressed the button and got Simpson's answering machine. IMO, this was done and that is why a trip was made to Rockingham long before the official time given.

[GreenIce]

If mf walked from the garage to the air conditioner he stepped over the glove to do so.

Martin,

I just find odd that not one detective even gave it second thought on how the glove could have gotten back there. It is like Kato heard the thumps, thumps equal glove, mystery solved.

I think this is another classic example of the detectives just stopping short of preforming their duties. Their stories just don't add up---even after all these years. It smells just as bad now as it did then, IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

MF told us why BR would never testify. Remember, he was the star witness and if he went down, the glove went down and MC knew it? I am pretty sure he is dead on about the situation.

IMO, if the 3 other lead detectives were willing to cover for MF and Clark knew this, putting MF's partner on the stand was not going to change that.
However, what I found interesting is that I never even knew that RP was not MF's partner that night. What is odd is that the identity of Ron Phillips partner that night, to the best of my knowledge has never been revealed.

At least I don't think so.

When the detectives were making the decision to go to Rockingham testimony was MF and Phillips were paired and then again it was MF and BR.

Did mf say it was BR that first pointed out the brown spot on the bronco to him?

BR seemed to be the ghost person in the group. He is there but just standing around. No one talks to him and he does not say much.He is not mentioned in testimony that i remember.

[GreenIce]

When the detectives were making the decision to go to Rockingham testimony was MF and Phillips were paired and then again it was MF and BR.

Did mf say it was BR that first pointed out the brown spot on the bronco to him?

BR seemed to be the ghost person in the group. He is there but just standing around. No one talks to him and he does not say much.He is not mentioned in testimony that i remember.

Martin,

But, according to MF, he did fill out a report. He also heard some reaction from Simpson when told about a blood trail leading to his front door and MF insisted that he make this known.

However, who was Phillip's partner? Phillips is protrayed as MF's babysitter or second skin. Where is Phillilps' partner?

[martin II]

Martin,

I just find odd that not one detective even gave it second thought on how the glove could have gotten back there. It is like Kato heard the thumps, thumps equal glove, mystery solved.

I think this is another classic example of the detectives just stopping short of preforming their duties. Their stories just don't add up---even after all these years. It smells just as bad now as it did then, IMO.

The fact that they had no proof that anyone had walked in the walkway was a problem. It was too difficult to create evidence of someone begin there so clarke just made the claim and they left it as that.
Vannatter created a problem for clarke by saying no one jumped the fence and the other two detectives backed him up.Then MF said oj did not jump the fense but just walked in the walkway.

Obviously Clarke could not get vannatter and the other detectives to agree with her. So that is something where she made the claim and made no effort to give the jury proof of her claim. The jury had to have been waiting on her to give proof of her claim but it never came.

This is where some that say oj jumped the fense and dropped the glove are left with no proof.

[GreenIce]

I truly don't think that they expected the intense scrutiny they would subsequently be placed under by the dream team. I think that they thought that it would just be business as usual and the evidence they produced by whatever means would not be questioned to the degree it was, including their notes. However, the dream team did not bow to them and made them prove their case by a sufficiency of the evidence to show Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which they failed to do. :);):cool:

William,

I have to disagree. Lange and VA were much aware of the media scrutiny on the morning after the murders. Also, in several interviews they made it clear that when a defense doesn't have a defense, they go after the cops.

If they had any doubts about the intensity of the defense, they understood it when Shapiro challenged the number of hairs needed from Simpson, when he turned Dr. Golden into a credibility mush sandwich.

Also, I posted this to Martin awhile ago while you gone but it appears to me that VA stepped to the plate and fell in the media trap by carrying Simpson's blood. IMO, he made some pretty stupid moves but that got me thinking, why would he do this stuff when he knows he is not only going to get hammered by the DA's but the media as well? It was like he was wearing a sign around his neck, "look at me, I have Simpson's reference sample", look at me, I lied on the search warrant, look at me, I called MC before I called for a search warrant.

It was like he wanted all the negative press focused on him and away from MF. I think both VA and Lange have been severly underestimated. I really do.

[martin II]

Martin,

But, according to MF, he did fill out a report. He also heard some reaction from Simpson when told about a blood trail leading to his front door and MF insisted that he make this known.

However, who was Phillip's partner? Phillips is protrayed as MF's babysitter or second skin. Where is Phillilps' partner?

i had thought that mf and phillips were called to bundy at the same time. or was it phillips that called mf to the case. if phillips called mf to the case who told him to do this. It seems that the commander would have assigned everyone.

[GreenIce]

The fact that they had no proof that anyone had walked in the walkway was a problem. It was too difficult to create evidence of someone begin there so clarke just made the claim and they left it as that.
Vannatter created a problem for clarke by saying no one jumped the fence and the other two detectives backed him up.Then MF said oj did not jump the fense but just walked in the walkway.

Obviously Clarke could not get vannatter and the other detectives to agree with her. So that is something where she made the claim and made no effort to give the jury proof of her claim. The jury had to have been waiting on her to give proof of her claim but it never came.

This is where some that say oj jumped the fense and dropped the glove are left with no proof.

Martin,

Vanatter did not create a problem for MC when he said that no one jumped the fence. He just pointed another finger at MF, there number 1 scape goat for a case they knew they were going to lose.

If Clark could drill VA on his saying that Simpson was never suspect, don't you think she would have grilled him on how he thought the glove got back there? How could there be a blood trail from the Bronco to the front door and not a blood trail or other evidence on how the glove got back there?

Also, MC and Vanatter worked together before, she was known as a cop's DA and was very creative regarding search warrants and stuff. IMO, it is very possible that VA told her he believed that the glove was planted and that his suspect was MF.

In many ways, I think MC was kind of like the parent role in this. How many times have you told your children that you can't help them out of a mess unless you know the whole truth? That they can come to you with anything and you be there to help but the only way to help is by knowing the truth?

We know the grand jury questioned how the glove got back there, we know they were not happy with VA's vague answers. If it is true that they were not going to bring down an indictment, then, IMO, several people inside the LAPD, DA's and grand jury believed the glove was planted. Maybe not by who but knew it had to be planted. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I have to disagree. Lange and VA were much aware of the media scrutiny on the morning after the murders. Also, in several interviews they made it clear that when a defense doesn't have a defense, they go after the cops.

If they had any doubts about the intensity of the defense, they understood it when Shapiro challenged the number of hairs needed from Simpson, when he turned Dr. Golden into a credibility mush sandwich.

Also, I posted this to Martin awhile ago while you gone but it appears to me that VA stepped to the plate and fell in the media trap by carrying Simpson's blood. IMO, he made some pretty stupid moves but that got me thinking, why would he do this stuff when he knows he is not only going to get hammered by the DA's but the media as well? It was like he was wearing a sign around his neck, "look at me, I have Simpson's reference sample", look at me, I lied on the search warrant, look at me, I called MC before I called for a search warrant.

It was like he wanted all the negative press focused on him and away from MF. I think both VA and Lange have been severly underestimated. I really do.

GreenIce.

I don't think we are disagreeing. I said under scrutiny from the dream team. I don't know if Blasier was from California and Uelemen hadn't practiced in years but they were aware of the magnificent one, who came late in the game and added a different meaning to the expression, Johnny come lately. I think they thought they would be able to skate as they had in the past. However, they did commit some first time blunders in this case.

[GreenIce]

i had thought that mf and phillips were called to bundy at the same time. or was it phillips that called mf to the case. if phillips called mf to the case who told him to do this. It seems that the commander would have assigned everyone.

Martin,

Phillips called MF to the scene. MF made it clear he was off duty, he was not on call but if Ron called him, he was needed. I don't know who called Roberts.

Phillips testified that he a list of names to call and some of these names were moreless OJT names. If they could come in, great, if they couldn't, no problem either. IIFC, only MF and I think maybe Tom Nolan agreed to come in. I can't remember.

Also, I think MF was senior to BR. Wouldn't MF have been response to call BR to see if he wanted in on this case? Or that he had to respond because of the nature of the case?

[martin II]

Martin,

Phillips called MF to the scene. MF made it clear he was off duty, he was not on call but if Ron called him, he was needed. I don't know who called Roberts.

Phillips testified that he a list of names to call and some of these names were moreless OJT names. If they could come in, great, if they couldn't, no problem either. IIFC, only MF and I think maybe Tom Nolan agreed to come in. I can't remember.

Also, I think MF was senior to BR. Wouldn't MF have been response to call BR to see if he wanted in on this case? Or that he had to respond because of the nature of the case?

Why would mf be better than any other detective that was on call. it seems strange that the commander would not call detectives from his list of available detectives and make the assignments.

[martin II]

Martin,

Vanatter did not create a problem for MC when he said that no one jumped the fence. He just pointed another finger at MF, there number 1 scape goat for a case they knew they were going to lose.

If Clark could drill VA on his saying that Simpson was never suspect, don't you think she would have grilled him on how he thought the glove got back there? How could there be a blood trail from the Bronco to the front door and not a blood trail or other evidence on how the glove got back there?

Also, MC and Vanatter worked together before, she was known as a cop's DA and was very creative regarding search warrants and stuff. IMO, it is very possible that VA told her he believed that the glove was planted and that his suspect was MF.

In many ways, I think MC was kind of like the parent role in this. How many times have you told your children that you can't help them out of a mess unless you know the whole truth? That they can come to you with anything and you be there to help but the only way to help is by knowing the truth?

We know the grand jury questioned how the glove got back there, we know they were not happy with VA's vague answers. If it is true that they were not going to bring down an indictment, then, IMO, several people inside the LAPD, DA's and grand jury believed the glove was planted. Maybe not by who but knew it had to be planted. IMO.

With no evidence that oj jumped the fence or that anyone jumped the fence what could le offer as proof of how the glove got there. Of all the claims of what oj did i think vannatters made more sense.Clarke was wrong and mf was wrong. I have no idea as to why no one offered any proof of how the glove got there other than to say there was no proof. Clarke told the jury to believe what she said because she said it. i guess that was her proof.

[GreenIce]

Why would mf be better than any other detective that was on call. it seems strange that the commander would not call detectives from his list of available detectives and make the assignments.

Martin,

My understanding of this is that Ron Phillips was either on duty already or was on call. It makes perfect sense that Phillips would call MF because he knows the history between MF and at least Nicole Simpson. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem that it was never explained why Phillips did in fact call MF.

To be honest with you, we have no clue what happened that night. The only thing we know is that a lot of brass showed up, there were mega pissing contests between different stations, it was mass confusion at Bundy. However, I think it is clear that is that the stations and the commanders involved were told to get their stuff together and they better appear to be unified and any petty differences were to stop.

In MF's book, he keeps saying how Clark praised him and how she wished that RP and MF were never taken off of the case, yadda, yadda, yadda. If this is true, isn't Clark creating a friction that just isn't necessary?

[GreenIce]

With no evidence that oj jumped the fence or that anyone jumped the fence what could le offer as proof of how the glove got there. Of all the claims of what oj did i think vannatters made more sense.Clarke was wrong and mf was wrong. I have no idea as to why no one offered any proof of how the glove got there other than to say there was no proof. Clarke told the jury to believe what she said because she said it. i guess that was her proof.

Martin,

Clark's closing statements about MF were very telling. She, IMO, does concede that the glove was planted and she asks the jury to disregard MF and his glove and to focus on the other evidence.

However, she should have realized that the other evidence, such as the socks and the key blood evidence was even more shaky then the glove was.

Clark never says that MF did not plant the glove because she couldn't prove how it got back there.

I agree with you that Clark used "evidence nullification" as well as personally vouching for the evidence. However, that was another mistake because she treated MF like a choir boy on the stand and now she was beating him worse then a red-headed step child.

I remember the flap over JC and his comments about Hitler. JC never said that he did not want MF on his planet, he never said that he wished MF was never even born. MC did. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Why would mf be better than any other detective that was on call. it seems strange that the commander would not call detectives from his list of available detectives and make the assignments.

I think that the evidence is clear on this by MF's statements on the infamous tapes. He was uniquely qualified to do certain things.:);):cool:

[weezer]

I believe that the notes Fuhrman made in Nicole's living room were initial notations as he was not allowed to fully observe, photograph, or touch anything at that point. However, I am not certain and would have to research to confirm.

Kate

I believe you are right Kate -- I don't think anything was done until the assigned detectives got there. why do you think someone would expect Fuhrman to make notes at Rockingham when he was not a detective handling the case?

[William Anthony]

I believe you are right Kate -- I don't think anything was done until the assigned detectives got there. why do you think someone would expect Fuhrman to make notes at Rockingham when he was not a detective handling the case?

"May I read something to the court my counsel just shared with me, your Honor? This has to do with--let me just read this and I think it puts it in perspective about lying and covering up. This is describing--there was our no. 10 describing the necessity of police officers to be willing to lie. "Well, I really love being a policeman when I can be a policeman. It is like my partner now. He is so hung up with the rules and stuff"--

THE COURT: "He has more morals than he has got hair."

MR. COCHRAN: Remember that? "You just don't f***ing even understand. The job is not rules. This is a feeling. F**k the rules. We will make them up later."

Why write down something that would stifle your creative juices? Regardless of whether he was assigned to the case he was still making observations, allegedly finding evidence and investigating and should have known that he would be called as a witness.

[weezer]

time for a reality check I think:

Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:

As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, 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 and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.

[William Anthony]

time for a reality check I think:

Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:

As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, 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 and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.

Date of alleged final ruling-August 31, 1995

This from September 6, 1995

"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.
*
*
MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, further questions don't serve any purpose since my client has already answered that he will not answer any question and will assert his 5th amendment privilege. Anything further can only be a show.

MR. UELMEN: I only have one other question, your Honor.

THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Uelmen?

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Based upon the witness' answers, the representation by his counsel, Mr. Mounger--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People make an objection to the last question and ask the court to strike it as being improper and does nothing but headline.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. All right. Miss Clark, do you have any questions of this witness?

MS. CLARK: No questions."

Reality check, the judge obviously reconsidered his prior ruling based even though Mounger tried to point to it and allowed the question to be put to MF as to whether or not he planted evidence in this case, to which MF took the plea against self-incrimination.:);):cool:

[tv]

time for a reality check I think:

Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:

As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, 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 and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.

Thanks for posting the final ruling once again. It's always timely. :)

There was a lot of leaping going on in that courtroom by the defense -- not just my opinion but also Judge Ito's.

[William Anthony]

Thanks for posting the final ruling once again. It's always timely. :)

There was a lot of leaping going on in that courtroom by the defense -- not just my opinion but also Judge Ito's.

August 1, 1995

"That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record."

September 6, 1995

A portion of the argument,

"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. And I think it's fair to call the court's attention to the fact that there were only two detectives who testified on the motion to suppress, Detective Vannatter and Detective Fuhrman. And your Honor will recall that in the context of a number of misrepresentations made by Detective Vannatter in the affidavit for the search warrant, this court made a finding that Detective Vannatter had a reckless disregard for the truth, so that the credibility of Detective Fuhrman becomes a very, very important aspect of the determination of the Defendant's motion to suppress. Do we or should we put any faith in the testimony of Detective Fuhrman with respect to the circumstances that led up to the warrantless search of the Defendant's premises on the morning of June 13th? Now, we have essentially--well, let me identify each of the issues where we believe the credibility of Detective Fuhrman is in issue."

So, we that have eyes know that an additional proffer was offered and after presenting the additional proffer, the following occurred,

"MR. UELMEN: I only have one other question, your Honor.

THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Uelmen?

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Based upon the witness' answers, the representation by his counsel, Mr. Mounger--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People make an objection to the last question and ask the court to strike it as being improper and does nothing but headline.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. All right. Miss Clark, do you have any questions of this witness?

MS. CLARK: No questions."

Ergo, based on an additional proffer made after the one considered by the judge in his alleged final ruling of August 31st , the judge reconsidered his prior ruling and allowed the defense to ask the soon to be convicted perjurer if he planted evidence in this case, to which the soon to be convicted confused-tongued perjurer plead the 5th. IMHO, it seems that Judge ITo, after listening to logic and reason, is a lot more flexible in his conclusions than are some others

[GreenIce]

Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:

As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, 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 and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.


The Real Reality Check,

The defense never claimed that MF or any member of the LAPD framed Mr. Simpson. For the LAPD to have framed Mr. Simpson, they would have had to have proof of his innocence. You can't frame a guilty man. The defense was always clear that the 4 lead detectives, knowing what they knew and because of their training believed Mr. Simpson was guilty of the crimes or had some involvement in them.

The Fuhrman Tapes basically declare open season on every cop who is mentioned on the tapes or who could be associated with certain incidents. MF was speaking the truth of many of these incidents, yes he may have embellished them, he may not have even been there but is just re-telling the story but the bottom line, he is implicating others. Judge Ito had to take that into consideration.

Judge Ito allowed several witness to take the stand regarding their encounters with MF. In fact, when Chris Darden asked LHM about the tapes, she testified about coverups, planting evidence, etc.. Judge Ito allowed this testimony to remain on record. He did not strike her comments.

There is more then enough evidence to fully support the motive as being of a junior detective, who is sick of sitting in the minors and sees his opportunties to finally make the big league. This has been documented about MF through out his career as a member of the LAPD. Always looking for the "big" bust that would make his career.

There is more then enough evidence to also fully support that MF's prior knowledge of the Simpson relationship as well as his personal knowledge of Nicole could have the been the motive.

A fair arguement can be made that MF was so upset with himself that he actually blamed himself for Nicole's death by Simpson's hand. He made it very clear in his book how he view this incident, the warning he gave her and the attitude he had because she would not help herself.

Judge Ito's ruling only covers, IMO, two possible motives for the glove to be planted. As you can see, there were more motives and they all were supported by evidence.

However, this ruling only pertains to the admission of the tapes. Not what other witnesses were going to testify to.

That is the reality check of Judge Ito's ruling. It was a very narrow ruling that did not cover all the bases.

[tv]

time for a reality check I think:

Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:

As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, 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 and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.

I meant to add this -- a portion of Judge Ito's statement to the jury --

"Defense counsel [Cochran] mentioned witnesses who had previously not been disclosed to the prosecution, or whose written statements were not given to the prosecution before trial as required by the law. This was a violation of the law."

[GreenIce]

August 1, 1995

"That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record."

September 6, 1995

A portion of the argument,

"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. And I think it's fair to call the court's attention to the fact that there were only two detectives who testified on the motion to suppress, Detective Vannatter and Detective Fuhrman. And your Honor will recall that in the context of a number of misrepresentations made by Detective Vannatter in the affidavit for the search warrant, this court made a finding that Detective Vannatter had a reckless disregard for the truth, so that the credibility of Detective Fuhrman becomes a very, very important aspect of the determination of the Defendant's motion to suppress. Do we or should we put any faith in the testimony of Detective Fuhrman with respect to the circumstances that led up to the warrantless search of the Defendant's premises on the morning of June 13th? Now, we have essentially--well, let me identify each of the issues where we believe the credibility of Detective Fuhrman is in issue."

So, we that have eyes know that an additional proffer was offered and after presenting the additional proffer, the following occurred,

"MR. UELMEN: I only have one other question, your Honor.

THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Uelmen?

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Based upon the witness' answers, the representation by his counsel, Mr. Mounger--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People make an objection to the last question and ask the court to strike it as being improper and does nothing but headline.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. All right. Miss Clark, do you have any questions of this witness?

MS. CLARK: No questions."

Ergo, based on an additional proffer made after the one considered by the judge in his alleged final ruling of August 31st , the judge reconsidered his prior ruling and allowed the defense to ask the soon to be convicted perjurer if he planted evidence in this case, to which the soon to be convicted confused-tongued perjurer plead the 5th.

William,

IMO, you a being led down a slippery slope in regards to this issue. Since we are no longer allowed to post about it, I think this is an excellent time to focus on the other problems of evidence.

In regards to MF, I think you can have field day with his shrink reports and not even have to go into the forbidden subject. I think this man is evil and capable of anything. I don not believe that all of his victims had the same thing in common. IMO, anyone who dared to breathe the same air he did, was fair game.

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:

As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, 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 and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.


The Real Reality Check,

The defense never claimed that MF or any member of the LAPD framed Mr. Simpson. For the LAPD to have framed Mr. Simpson, they would have had to have proof of his innocence. You can't frame a guilty man. The defense was always clear that the 4 lead detectives, knowing what they knew and because of their training believed Mr. Simpson was guilty of the crimes or had some involvement in them.

The Fuhrman Tapes basically declare open season on every cop who is mentioned on the tapes or who could be associated with certain incidents. MF was speaking the truth of many of these incidents, yes he may have embellished them, he may not have even been there but is just re-telling the story but the bottom line, he is implicating others. Judge Ito had to take that into consideration.

Judge Ito allowed several witness to take the stand regarding their encounters with MF. In fact, when Chris Darden asked LHM about the tapes, she testified about coverups, planting evidence, etc.. Judge Ito allowed this testimony to remain on record. He did not strike her comments.

There is more then enough evidence to fully support the motive as being of a junior detective, who is sick of sitting in the minors and sees his opportunties to finally make the big league. This has been documented about MF through out his career as a member of the LAPD. Always looking for the "big" bust that would make his career.

There is more then enough evidence to also fully support that MF's prior knowledge of the Simpson relationship as well as his personal knowledge of Nicole could have the been the motive.

A fair arguement can be made that MF was so upset with himself that he actually blamed himself for Nicole's death by Simpson's hand. He made it very clear in his book how he view this incident, the warning he gave her and the attitude he had because she would not help herself.

Judge Ito's ruling only covers, IMO, two possible motives for the glove to be planted. As you can see, there were more motives and they all were supported by evidence.

However, this ruling only pertains to the admission of the tapes. Not what other witnesses were going to testify to.

That is the reality check of Judge Ito's ruling. It was a very narrow ruling that did not cover all the bases.

GreenIce.

Judge Ito changed his ruling on September 6th and I have given the reasons therefore many, many times previously. There are those that will not believe what is written even thought they see it. I do no know if this denial is just a cry for attention or a sincere inability to understand. I am deciding, although not fully decided, that it is not worth my time to keep arguing the obvious to those determined not to see it. :);):cool:

[GreenIce]

GreenIce.

Judge Ito changed his ruling on September 6th and I have given the reasons therefore many, many times previously. There are those that will not believe what is written even thought they see it. I do no know if this denial is just a cry for attention or a sincere inability to understand. I am deciding, although not fully decided, that it is not worth my time to keep arguing the obvious to those determined not to see it. :);):cool:

William,

IMO, you are being baited into to the forbidden subject because they only have the forbidden subject to work with. There is no forbidden subject in regards to MF ego and his desire to be the star witness in the trial of the century.

There is no forbidden subject when MF warned Nicole and how he treated her when she refused to listen to her warning, therefore was refusing to help herself.

And I know you have posted the reasons many times before and I will be you a whole quarter, not one of them read it because they are stuck in the forbidden subject. That is all they have. We have more then just the forbidden subject. In fact, I think our strongest evidence has nothing to do with the forbidden subject.

They are helpless without their crutch of the forbidden subject, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, you a being led down a slippery slope in regards to this issue. Since we are no longer allowed to post about it, I think this is an excellent time to focus on the other problems of evidence.

In regards to MF, I think you can have field day with his shrink reports and not even have to go into the forbidden subject. I think this man is evil and capable of anything. I don not believe that all of his victims had the same thing in common. IMO, anyone who dared to breathe the same air he did, was fair game.

GreenIce,

Thank you for your concern and it is duly noted and truly appreciated. I do not intend to mention any room in the house. :) Seriously, I have not mentioned the unmentionable nor do I intend to so do. The discussion is about Judge Ito changing his ruling and allowing MF to be questioned and those incidents on the tape relating to MF's credibility specifically in knowing how to testify and his disregard for the rules.

[tv]

Previously posted by weezer -- worth reposting:

". . .The amount of the fines imposed on Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas was only $50 below the threshold that would have required Judge Ito to report both offenders to the state bar. But more stinging than the fines themselves was the judge's language.

By repeatedly assuring prosecutors and the court that the defense had handed over everything that California's reciprocal discovery law requires, he wrote, Mr. Cochran, responsible for the defense team's conduct, "made untrue representations in reckless disregard of the truth."

And Mr. Douglas, he noted, not only was in charge of discovery matters for the defense but also is now a repeat offender, having been punished for discovery violations earlier in the Simpson case. . ."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/04/us...pagewanted=all

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

Thank you for your concern and it is duly noted and truly appreciated. I do not intend to mention any room in the house. :) Seriously, I have not mentioned the unmentionable nor do I intend to so do. The discussion is about Judge Ito changing his ruling and allowing MF to be questioned and those incidents on the tape relating to MF's credibility specifically in knowing how to testify and his disregard for the rules.

William,

You are welcome.

However, didn't Ito also have to consider who MF was implicating on those tapes? IMO, it appears to me that Ito is saying one of two things. One, MF is capable of doing everything he said on those tapes or he is such a liar, even when asked for the truth, he can't deliver it.

LHM was clear what she wanted from him and to a certain degree he delivered. She wanted the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and, IMO, she got it.

[William Anthony]

IMHO, in light of my experience and training, I would consider discovery violations a thousand times less severe than showing a reckless disregard for the truth is affidavits designed to allow LE to bypass a citizens rights to be protected from illegal searches and seizures and to have privacy.

[William Anthony]

William,

You are welcome.

However, didn't Ito also have to consider who MF was implicating on those tapes? IMO, it appears to me that Ito is saying one of two things. One, MF is capable of doing everything he said on those tapes or he is such a liar, even when asked for the truth, he can't deliver it.

LHM was clear what she wanted from him and to a certain degree he delivered. She wanted the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and, IMO, she got it.

GreenICe,

I read it as judge Ito was saying there was a certain presumption of truth on the incidents related to the tapes, as MF did not expect them to become public at that juncture, or that the defense would be allowed to question him as to the truthfulness of those statements and the testimony he gave in regard to the suppression hearing. It was MF's credibility that was at issue and the decision had to made as to which point, if any, the confused-tongued, soon to be convicted perjurer spoke the truth.