Random Discussions On The Case

[GreenIce]

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,

Who do you think paid the higher fine:

A) The defense for discovery violations

B) The DA's when they could not use Doug Deedrick's report because of his conduct?

Is it close?

How about this one:

A) The defense for discovery violations

B) The DA's for putting MF on the stand knowing he was going to committ perjury?


And this one:

A) The defense for discovery violations

B) the DA's for putting Vanatter on the stand and him saying, "Mr. Simpson was no more of a suspect then you were Mr. Shapiro!"

Last one,

A) The defense for discovery violations

B) the DA's for putting on that comedy tape of the nurse testifying that he "goofed"?

I think it is also fair to note that Judge Ito always gave the benefit of the doubt to the DA's on their discovery issues. The only one they really got spanked for was Doug Deedrick but in reality, his report was not that damaging as they claimed it to be.

Hertz--aren't they in the rent-a-car business? And did Ford only make and sell one white Bronco with the carpet or do you think they sold a few more?

Any way, who do you really think paid the higher fines?

[weezer]

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.

not sure why there is such confusion over it. :shrug:

seems pretty straight forward to me. Fuhrman lied under oath (;)) so he's charged with perjury :punch:. Fuhrman/LE didn't plant evidence - ergo no charges :patriot:.

[GreenIce]

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.

William,

So basically, if Ito let in any of those incidents on the tapes, they would have had to have been litagated (sp) before they could have been presented to the jury?

The excerpts he did allow did not have the same criteria as the other incidents?

[William Anthony]

not sure why there is such confusion over it. :shrug:

seems pretty straight forward to me. Fuhrman lied under oath (;)) so he's charged with perjury :punch:. Fuhrman/LE didn't plant evidence - ergo no charges :patriot:.

MF wised up and did not let his self-assumed intelligence and arrogance lead him into the pits of self-destruction, as he listened to his lawyer and took the 5th against self-incrimination when asked whether or not he planted evidence in the case. Ergo, no perjury charges could be brought. :);):cool:

[tv]

not sure why there is such confusion over it. :shrug:

seems pretty straight forward to me. Fuhrman lied under oath (;)) so he's charged with perjury :punch:. Fuhrman/LE didn't plant evidence - ergo no charges :patriot:.

Exactly. Planting evidence would be much more serious than lying about something that happened years ago and has nothing to do with the case. They would have gleefully gone after evidence tampering charges if there had been any evidence tampering. The same with Vannatter, Yamauchi and Fung. No charges.

[William Anthony]

William,

So basically, if Ito let in any of those incidents on the tapes, they would have had to have been litagated (sp) before they could have been presented to the jury?

The excerpts he did allow did not have the same criteria as the other incidents?

They were argued/litigated and the decision, according to what I read was that the new 31 additional proffers, IIRC, were to be admitted but MF plead the 5th making it clear that he was not going to answer questions in that regard. His lawyer curtailed the questioning, indicating MF would take the 5th to any and all questions.

[William Anthony]

William,

Who do you think paid the higher fine:

A) The defense for discovery violations

B) The DA's when they could not use Doug Deedrick's report because of his conduct?

Is it close?

How about this one:

A) The defense for discovery violations

B) The DA's for putting MF on the stand knowing he was going to committ perjury?


And this one:

A) The defense for discovery violations

B) the DA's for putting Vanatter on the stand and him saying, "Mr. Simpson was no more of a suspect then you were Mr. Shapiro!"

Last one,

A) The defense for discovery violations

B) the DA's for putting on that comedy tape of the nurse testifying that he "goofed"?

I think it is also fair to note that Judge Ito always gave the benefit of the doubt to the DA's on their discovery issues. The only one they really got spanked for was Doug Deedrick but in reality, his report was not that damaging as they claimed it to be.

Hertz--aren't they in the rent-a-car business? And did Ford only make and sell one white Bronco with the carpet or do you think they sold a few more?

Any way, who do you really think paid the higher fines?

GreenIce,

Nothing close about it. Who won and who loss?

[William Anthony]

Exactly. Planting evidence would be much more serious than lying about something that happened years ago and has nothing to do with the case. They would have gleefully gone after evidence tampering charges if there had been any evidence tampering. The same with Vannatter, Yamauchi and Fung. No charges.

Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. The state brings the charges and MF left the state. Additionally, we have had posts on government officials not wanting to punish other government officials-that good ole boy network.

[martin II]

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?

All detectives have to account for their time and their actions. I believe notes is the best way to accomplish this and should be required.MF agreed with this when he was at Bundy but not at Rockingham.

[weezer]

Exactly. Planting evidence would be much more serious than lying about something that happened years ago and has nothing to do with the case. They would have gleefully gone after evidence tampering charges if there had been any evidence tampering. The same with Vannatter, Yamauchi and Fung. No charges.

yep, yep, yep -- some would argue that Fuhrman not answering ALL of the questions meant he was guilty of everything asked. now does that make sense to anyone? and if the criminal defense really felt that way (we know what a defender of the people against LE cockran was) -- they just let it drop as soon as the trial was over? nonsense. I don't know how many investigations were done of Fuhrman trying to find misdeeds, and guess what? nada, zilch, zero.

I do know from reading the record that the lying done by the criminal defense was the kind that gets your license taken away -- :no:

[martin II]

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?

mf interviewed kato,searched the property found a glove and informed others on his find,went to bundy to verify the match
His actions at Rockingham so he should have made notes of his work.Why not?

[GreenIce]

Mark Fuhrman declined to incriminate himself when he was asked those questions about manufacturing evidence or planting evidence. It was his right to do and I don't think any one can blame him for taking the 5th at the time.

However, what is confusing is that he was given ever opportunity not only fight the perjury charge but also each allegation of planting and manufacturing evidence.

By taking a plea, he declined his day in court. He made the choice to be a convicted felon. His reasons for doing so are hogwash. They had a Mark Fuhrman defense fund and he had the protective league.

However, MF's lawyer, who sued Robert Shapiro and Jeff Toobin, and the magazine drop MF like a bad habit once the tapes were played. The police protective league apparently will protect and defend any cop who is accused of murder or robbery but will not even consider defending a cop who allegedly only "uttered" a very unpopular word.

His lawyer, a former cop, refused to take his case pro bono.

Mark Fuhrman had his chance to fight each and everyone of these allegations and he elected not to. The bottom line is, no one from the LAPD even wanted to be within 50 miles of MF and they truly believed he was a good cop and was just poking fun and bragging, his "brothers" in blue would have rallied around him with a lot of greenage!!! IMO.

[martin II]

Exactly. Planting evidence would be much more serious than lying about something that happened years ago and has nothing to do with the case. They would have gleefully gone after evidence tampering charges if there had been any evidence tampering. The same with Vannatter, Yamauchi and Fung. No charges.

MFS lie had a lot to do with the case as it went to motive to lie in the criminal case about what he did.You must be ignoring the judges instructions about a witness that has lied in testimony.

[martin II]

yep, yep, yep -- some would argue that Fuhrman not answering ALL of the questions meant he was guilty of everything asked. now does that make sense to anyone? and if the criminal defense really felt that way (we know what a defender of the people against LE cockran was) -- they just let it drop as soon as the trial was over? nonsense. I don't know how many investigations were done of Fuhrman trying to find misdeeds, and guess what? nada, zilch, zero.

I do know from reading the record that the lying done by the criminal defense was the kind that gets your license taken away -- :no:

i have posted the allagations against mf by officiual groups. You must be ignoring the Bratton case where the city paid $100,000 to make the case go away.
so it was not nada,zilch.

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman declined to incriminate himself when he was asked those questions about manufacturing evidence or planting evidence. It was his right to do and I don't think any one can blame him for taking the 5th at the time.

However, what is confusing is that he was given ever opportunity not only fight the perjury charge but also each allegation of planting and manufacturing evidence.

By taking a plea, he declined his day in court. He made the choice to be a convicted felon. His reasons for doing so are hogwash. They had a Mark Fuhrman defense fund and he had the protective league.

However, MF's lawyer, who sued Robert Shapiro and Jeff Toobin, and the magazine drop MF like a bad habit once the tapes were played. The police protective league apparently will protect and defend any cop who is accused of murder or robbery but will not even consider defending a cop who allegedly only "uttered" a very unpopular word.

His lawyer, a former cop, refused to take his case pro bono.

Mark Fuhrman had his chance to fight each and everyone of these allegations and he elected not to. The bottom line is, no one from the LAPD even wanted to be within 50 miles of MF and they truly believed he was a good cop and was just poking fun and bragging, his "brothers" in blue would have rallied around him with a lot of greenage!!! IMO.

Everyone deserted mf but a few posters here.

[martin II]

Exactly. Planting evidence would be much more serious than lying about something that happened years ago and has nothing to do with the case. They would have gleefully gone after evidence tampering charges if there had been any evidence tampering. The same with Vannatter, Yamauchi and Fung. No charges.

Both are just as serious. you seem to try to give the impression that the lie about the n word was not that serious. that lie goes to ahow mf would lie.
If he would lie about something he would lie about finding the glove. The judges instructions allowed the jury to ignore all of his testimony. including that he "found" the glove and that is what i believed they did.

[martin II]

yep, yep, yep -- some would argue that Fuhrman not answering ALL of the questions meant he was guilty of everything asked. now does that make sense to anyone? and if the criminal defense really felt that way (we know what a defender of the people against LE cockran was) -- they just let it drop as soon as the trial was over? nonsense. I don't know how many investigations were done of Fuhrman trying to find misdeeds, and guess what? nada, zilch, zero.

I do know from reading the record that the lying done by the criminal defense was the kind that gets your license taken away -- :no:

It is obvious that furhman answered some questions and not others. He had the option to answer the planting question. He decided not to.Maby he as afraid the defense had new proof of him planting but the defense can not be blaimed for mf refusal to answer.

[martin II]

yep, yep, yep -- some would argue that Fuhrman not answering ALL of the questions meant he was guilty of everything asked. now does that make sense to anyone? and if the criminal defense really felt that way (we know what a defender of the people against LE cockran was) -- they just let it drop as soon as the trial was over? nonsense. I don't know how many investigations were done of Fuhrman trying to find misdeeds, and guess what? nada, zilch, zero.

I do know from reading the record that the lying done by the criminal defense was the kind that gets your license taken away -- :no:

I believe mf took the 5th not only to evade questions about the n word but to evade additional questions on what he did on 6/.12

[martin II]

Exactly. Planting evidence would be much more serious than lying about something that happened years ago and has nothing to do with the case. They would have gleefully gone after evidence tampering charges if there had been any evidence tampering. The same with Vannatter, Yamauchi and Fung. No charges.

If mf lied about one issue, the n word,there is reason to believe he would lie about other stuff like finding the glove. motive.
you may not see the lie about the n word as serious but it proverd that he would lie about anything.

[William Anthony]

yep, yep, yep -- some would argue that Fuhrman not answering ALL of the questions meant he was guilty of everything asked. now does that make sense to anyone? and if the criminal defense really felt that way (we know what a defender of the people against LE cockran was) -- they just let it drop as soon as the trial was over? nonsense. I don't know how many investigations were done of Fuhrman trying to find misdeeds, and guess what? nada, zilch, zero.

I do know from reading the record that the lying done by the criminal defense was the kind that gets your license taken away -- :no:

Not quite true. There was one that specifically said that they were not saying MF did nothing wrong but that the statute of limitations had run out on those crimes. This has been posted several times. No one is arguing that he is guilty of anything based on his taking the 5th or, at least, I am not. The question and answer stands, according to the judge.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

mf interviewed kato,searched the property found a glove and informed others on his find,went to bundy to verify the match
His actions at Rockingham so he should have made notes of his work.Why not?

Too busy employing his unique skills, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman declined to incriminate himself when he was asked those questions about manufacturing evidence or planting evidence. It was his right to do and I don't think any one can blame him for taking the 5th at the time.

However, what is confusing is that he was given ever opportunity not only fight the perjury charge but also each allegation of planting and manufacturing evidence.

By taking a plea, he declined his day in court. He made the choice to be a convicted felon. His reasons for doing so are hogwash. They had a Mark Fuhrman defense fund and he had the protective league.

However, MF's lawyer, who sued Robert Shapiro and Jeff Toobin, and the magazine drop MF like a bad habit once the tapes were played. The police protective league apparently will protect and defend any cop who is accused of murder or robbery but will not even consider defending a cop who allegedly only "uttered" a very unpopular word.

His lawyer, a former cop, refused to take his case pro bono.

Mark Fuhrman had his chance to fight each and everyone of these allegations and he elected not to. The bottom line is, no one from the LAPD even wanted to be within 50 miles of MF and they truly believed he was a good cop and was just poking fun and bragging, his "brothers" in blue would have rallied around him with a lot of greenage!!! IMO.

Nothing any MF defender can say changes Ms. Clark's scathing rebuke of MF, IMHO.

[tv]

yep, yep, yep -- some would argue that Fuhrman not answering ALL of the questions meant he was guilty of everything asked. now does that make sense to anyone? and if the criminal defense really felt that way (we know what a defender of the people against LE cockran was) -- they just let it drop as soon as the trial was over? nonsense. I don't know how many investigations were done of Fuhrman trying to find misdeeds, and guess what? nada, zilch, zero.

I do know from reading the record that the lying done by the criminal defense was the kind that gets your license taken away -- :no:

That's my understanding about the criminal defense's lies also. There are some that can't accept the truth -- no matter what Fuhrman's personal feelings were there is just what you said -- nada, zilch, zero evidence that he planted evidence or lied in any way in this case.

The problem that Simpson supporters have is that if they can't make their allegations of Fuhrman being a liar believable that means their guy Simpson is a double-murderer. It's as simple as that.

[William Anthony]

Everyone deserted mf but a few posters here.

Loyal to a fault, imho.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

That's my understanding about the criminal defense's lies also. There are some that can't accept the truth -- no matter what Fuhrman's personal feelings were there is just what you said -- nada, zilch, zero evidence that he planted evidence or lied in any way in this case.

The problem that Simpson supporters have is that if they can't make their allegations of Fuhrman being a liar believable that means their guy Simpson is a double-murderer. It's as simple as that.

WTH? The fact is that the confused-tongued MF was soon to be convicted of perjury, telling a lie under oath about a relevant material issue, and Simpson was found not guilty of double murder, simple as that. Who is trying to rewrite history and why?

[tv]

yep, yep, yep -- some would argue that Fuhrman not answering ALL of the questions meant he was guilty of everything asked. now does that make sense to anyone? and if the criminal defense really felt that way (we know what a defender of the people against LE cockran was) -- they just let it drop as soon as the trial was over? nonsense. I don't know how many investigations were done of Fuhrman trying to find misdeeds, and guess what? nada, zilch, zero.

I do know from reading the record that the lying done by the criminal defense was the kind that gets your license taken away -- :no:

The lie that Fuhrman told about something he said years before the trial has nothing to do with the case...but as you asked why did the defense let it drop? Cochran put on such an act of being incensed at what Fuhrman said on the tapes (never mind that it's the same thing he said and encouraged others to say in his office on a daily basis) why didn't he pursue prosecution on behalf of Fuhrman's alleged victims? Why didn't he bring a lawsuit against the LAPD on behalf of those victims? It would almost make one think that he didn't really believe his own rhetoric. :rolleyes:

[martin II]

The lie that Fuhrman told about something he said years before the trial has nothing to do with the case...but as you asked why did the defense let it drop? Cochran put on such an act of being incensed at what Fuhrman said on the tapes (never mind that it's the same thing he said and encouraged others to say in his office on a daily basis) why didn't he pursue prosecution on behalf of Fuhrman's alleged victims? Why didn't he bring a lawsuit against the LAPD on behalf of those victims? It would almost make one think that he didn't really believe his own rhetoric. :rolleyes:

When furhman was caught he was caught. the defense had everything they needed. they knew the jury would not believe his testimony about finding the glove because he had already lied. His motive to lie about the glove was exposed.

[martin II]

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:

The accuracy of the dates don;t matter to some arguing nonsense position. We saw the tapes. fini

[martin II]

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.

Why post this when you know ito allowed the tapes to be played.

[martin II]

The lie that Fuhrman told about something he said years before the trial has nothing to do with the case...but as you asked why did the defense let it drop? Cochran put on such an act of being incensed at what Fuhrman said on the tapes (never mind that it's the same thing he said and encouraged others to say in his office on a daily basis) why didn't he pursue prosecution on behalf of Fuhrman's alleged victims? Why didn't he bring a lawsuit against the LAPD on behalf of those victims? It would almost make one think that he didn't really believe his own rhetoric. :rolleyes:

Furhman was exposed in the worse way before the world.Cochran had won the trial of the centry.Furhman was convicrted of purjery.
Why would Cocnran waste more time going after MF.He had other more important things to do and he did them. He moved to NY started a tv show and started a career as a civil lawyer.Furhman was old hat.

[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.:);)

I believe you are confused trying to defend an indefensible opinion. Support your claim that the detectives’ lied about seeing a wet sweat suit. Support your claim that the detectives’ said Arnelle washed it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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?

What leads you to believe Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in 1994? Are you saying that that you believe Arnelle’s telephone records would show an incoming call from a payphone?

bobaugust

[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.

No I am not an expert on chain link fences but evidently I know more about them then you do. All you have to do is search for information on the internet and you will learn that there are different gauges of wire that can be used in chain link fences. Simpson’s fence wasn’t made with chicken wire, look at the photographs on Wagner’s web site.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

Unlike you, I rely on the evidence, impeaching testimony, reasonable explanations, and common sense to distinguish whether or not a witness is lying or simply mistaken.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

The fact that no pay phone records were searched for doesn’t change the possibility that Simpson called Arnelle. We know that Simpson made at least one phone call, to Kaelin, just before boarding his plane from a pay phone at the gate. He could very well have made other calls then or when he landed at O’Hare, or when he got to his hotel.

The fact that no pay phone records were searched for doesn’t change the evidence that someone gained access to Simpson’s house and turned off the alarm system when they entered and ran a load of laundry. And in their haste on the way out they forgot to turn the house alarm back on when they unlocked the back door to exit it. The fact that Arnelle was the only witness who lied about this and it was her clothing found in the washing machine and her laundry basket found in the laundry room all points to her as that person.

bobaugust

[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?

I have never read where any of the three detectives said they didn’t actually listen to what Arnelle said. Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter testified that when Arnelle was first asked where her father was she said, “Isn’t he here?”

I see nothing wrong with the detectives allowing Arnelle to open the door and enter first. Their concerns were about the housekeeper. That’s why they asked Arnelle to show them the housekeeper’s room.

By the time Arnelle testified she would have been well aware of the mistake she had made before the police arrived when she left her father’s house by forgetting to turn the house alarm back on when she unlocked and used the back door to go back to her room. So she fabricated the story that after the detectives woke her up she took them around the house to the front door so she could turn the house alarm off before she let them into the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

The chain link fence on Simpson’s property went from the Rockingham wall to the back of his property. There is no evidence that there were any bent wires on top of that fence except the ones directly over where the glove was found, opposite the place on the guest room wall where Kaelin heard the noises.

The photograph showing the glove clearly shows the photographer was standing on the south path when he took that photograph. Not only was he not standing on the foliage covered twisted wires on top of the chain link fence but I doubt that anyone could stand on it with two feet and take a photograph without bending many wires to hold their camera steady when in fact they could take a closer photograph by simply standing near the glove and leaning over it, just as the photo shows was done.

If you can’t understand this reality, then either support your claim that Rokhar was standing on top of the fence to photograph the glove or stop repeating it.

You keep claiming that Vannatter and other detectives said, “No one jumped the fence.” Support that claim please. Post the testimony where any detective said those words, include the date please.

The three people on Simpson’s estate were Allan Park, Kato Kaelin, and Orenthal James Simpson. The evidence is that Simpson was outside his house when Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. There is no evidence that Simpson was in his house then.

bobaugust

[weezer]

The fact that no pay phone records were searched for doesn’t change the possibility that Simpson called Arnelle. We know that Simpson made at least one phone call, to Kaelin, just before boarding his plane from a pay phone at the gate. He could very well have made other calls then or when he landed at O’Hare, or when he got to his hotel.

The fact that no pay phone records were searched for doesn’t change the evidence that someone gained access to Simpson’s house and turned off the alarm system when they entered and ran a load of laundry. And in their haste on the way out they forgot to turn the house alarm back on when they unlocked the back door to exit it. The fact that Arnelle was the only witness who lied about this and it was her clothing found in the washing machine and her laundry basket found in the laundry room all points to her as that person.

bobaugust

do you know if there was anyone who testified they saw orenthal use the pay phone when he called kato?

[GreenIce]

I have never read where any of the three detectives said they didn’t actually listen to what Arnelle said. Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter testified that when Arnelle was first asked where her father was she said, “Isn’t he here?”

I see nothing wrong with the detectives allowing Arnelle to open the door and enter first. Their concerns were about the housekeeper. That’s why they asked Arnelle to show them the housekeeper’s room.

By the time Arnelle testified she would have been well aware of the mistake she had made before the police arrived when she left her father’s house by forgetting to turn the house alarm back on when she unlocked and used the back door to go back to her room. So she fabricated the story that after the detectives woke her up she took them around the house to the front door so she could turn the house alarm off before she let them into the house.

bobaugust

The three detectives denied hearing that Kato told them OJ was in Chicago or that he asked, "Did OJ's plane go down?" They also were vague and clearly gave the impression that they didn't hear what Arnelle had to say exactly only that she pointed toward the house and said "something to the effect"--Isn't he here or in there".

Vanatter also testifed in the prelim hearing that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence, she just happened to come over that night to sleep. We know that is a complete lie on Vanatter's part. Also, if he took the time to listen to that question, how come he didn't hear her exact reply?

Also, Arnelle kept getting the two detectives mixed up. She has been consistent that only two detectives were talking to her about her father and that MF was with Kato and the other detective was by the patio or the pool.

Since Arnelle forgetting to set the alarm is not a federal offense, it is no big deal. She would not have to lie about why it was not set, if that is in fact the case. She would not have to make up any story on which door she entered. In fact, according to you, she already knew what was happening, she had to know all the details before the actual murders, and there is no way she would have done such an outstanding job getting rid of the shoes, clothes and weapons but leave the socks out or make it so obvious that she threw a dark objects in with her whites and washed them.

You have no proof to the contents of the washing machine, you have no proof what the dark clothes were and you have no proof that those dark items were in fact a sweat suit and they were a man's sweat suit. You have Petrocelli's fantasy and trying to play hero and shame the DA's.

If Judge Fujisaki allowed Nancy Ney to testify, surely he would have allowed Brad Roberts and Dennis Fung to testify about the contents of the washing machine.

You see nothing wrong with the Detectives allowing Arnelle into the house first even after expressing their panic that there was a blood bath in the main house? That the maid could be injured and needing medical assistence? You think it was okey doaky that Arnelle would have found the maid with her throat slit and blood every where? You think it was okay that if Simpson was still in house and believed to have also been murdered, Arnelle deserved to find him? Or if had taken his own life?

Bottom line Mr. August, they heard Arnelle but what is more important, they already knew where Simpson was, they already knew when he left and that is the only reason why they declared Rockingham a crime scene.

Their words never matched their actions and their actions never matched their words.

Bottom line, VA was cited for reckless disregard of the truth, not wanting to know the truth is just as bad as lying about it. Also, while VA took the hit for this, Phillips and Lange were just as guilty of it. I will give VA credit, he took the hit and continued to take the hits, he never dragged Lange into it.

[weezer]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Date: 1 March 1995
Department: 103
Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
Deirdre Robertson, Deputy Clerk
People v. Orenthal James Simpson
Case #BA0972

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

"Both Mr. Douglas and Mr. Cochran, clearly and unequivocally, stated to the Court that no tape recording of either of Lopez's statements was in the possession of the defense. This assertion was false. . .

. . .The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court. . .

. . .Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 177.5, defense counsel Carl E. Douglas shall pay a monetary sanction of $950.00. The Court finds this to be a reasonable sanction because Mr. Douglas had the responsibility for discovery compliance and had been the subject of sanctions as noted previously. Defense counsel Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. shall pay a monetary sanction of $950.00. The Court finds this to be a reasonable sanction because not only is Mr. Cochran lead trial counsel responsible for the conduct of the defense team, but he is also the trial counsel presenting the testimony of the witness in question and had made untrue representations to the Court in reckless disregard for the truth. . ."

[martin II]

No I am not an expert on chain link fences but evidently I know more about them then you do. All you have to do is search for information on the internet and you will learn that there are different gauges of wire that can be used in chain link fences. Simpson’s fence wasn’t made with chicken wire, look at the photographs on Wagner’s web site.

bobaugust

NO BOB YOU DON'T. I know chain link fence.

Who installed ojs fence and what guage wire was used in the manufacturing process.?

[fgump2]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Date: 1 March 1995
Department: 103
Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
Deirdre Robertson, Deputy Clerk
People v. Orenthal James Simpson
Case #BA0972

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

"Both Mr. Douglas and Mr. Cochran, clearly and unequivocally, stated to the Court that no tape recording of either of Lopez's statements was in the possession of the defense. This assertion was false. . .

. . .The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court. . .

. . .Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 177.5, defense counsel Carl E. Douglas shall pay a monetary sanction of $950.00. The Court finds this to be a reasonable sanction because Mr. Douglas had the responsibility for discovery compliance and had been the subject of sanctions as noted previously. Defense counsel Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. shall pay a monetary sanction of $950.00. The Court finds this to be a reasonable sanction because not only is Mr. Cochran lead trial counsel responsible for the conduct of the defense team, but he is also the trial counsel presenting the testimony of the witness in question and had made untrue representations to the Court in reckless disregard for the truth. . ."

The fine should have been more than that. It was chicken feed for the offense.

To compare how the prosecution fared with less serious offenses, on July 20, 1995, M. Clark was a few minutes late. She appologized, and explained why. Ito fined her $250.00. Marcia replied:"Excuse me your honor, my I remind you that Shapiro kept the court waiting 20 minues ... when it was his witness on the stand - and suffered no consequences?". Ito replied "Thank you, then fine will be $1,000". Ito later lowered it back to $250.

The funny part is that pro defense people sometimes talk and write about how Ito favored the DAs.

[fgump2]

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:

I believe that you are implying that a reasonable interpretation of this is that MF did plant evidence (a glove). Judge Ito did rule this way, but he later admitted that this interpretation of Fuhrmans use of the 5th ammendment was incorrect.

One of the things I don't like about this board is that posters will sometimes put a long quote on the board without summarizing what the quote is supposed to prove. I don't like to read a long posting and wonder what's the point of the posting. The WA posting that I am answering is an example of this.

[Its just me]

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/home_15.html

Following Simpson's arrest, Grier had been a regular visitor at the Los Angeles County Jail. A giant, African-American former NFL defensive lineman, Grier had become an ordained minister.
On November 13th, 1994, a Sunday afternoon at about 4:30 p.m., he and Simpson were talking by telephone, separated by a glass partition. A deputy called Jeff Stuart was sitting close by and heard Simpson yell, and slam down his telephone, shouting: "I didn't mean to do it. I'm sorry." Grier leaned forward and yelled back: "O.J., you gotta come clean. You gotta tell somebody!"
Simpson then buried his face in his hands, looking distraught. They talked for another few minutes and then Grier left.
Although both Stuart and Grier gave testimony to Judge Ito regarding the overheard conversation, and the judge ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege," he nevertheless disallowed the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.

[William Anthony]

I believe you are confused trying to defend an indefensible opinion. Support your claim that the detectives’ lied about seeing a wet sweat suit. Support your claim that the detectives’ said Arnelle washed it.

bobaugust

There is no claim to support, you failed to see IMHO.

[William Anthony]

What leads you to believe Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in 1994? Are you saying that that you believe Arnelle’s telephone records would show an incoming call from a payphone?

bobaugust

Because she is beautiful and her daddy was rich. Yes, although it may not have said cell phone.

[William Anthony]

Unlike you, I rely on the evidence, impeaching testimony, reasonable explanations, and common sense to distinguish whether or not a witness is lying or simply mistaken.

bobaugust

And what do you rely on that determines what is reasonable and did you listen to the impeachment of mostly all the prosecution witnesses?

[William Anthony]

The fact that no pay phone records were searched for doesn’t change the possibility that Simpson called Arnelle. We know that Simpson made at least one phone call, to Kaelin, just before boarding his plane from a pay phone at the gate. He could very well have made other calls then or when he landed at O’Hare, or when he got to his hotel.

The fact that no pay phone records were searched for doesn’t change the evidence that someone gained access to Simpson’s house and turned off the alarm system when they entered and ran a load of laundry. And in their haste on the way out they forgot to turn the house alarm back on when they unlocked the back door to exit it. The fact that Arnelle was the only witness who lied about this and it was her clothing found in the washing machine and her laundry basket found in the laundry room all points to her as that person.

bobaugust

So, you are relying on no evidence, despite what you previously testified you relied on, to say when someone lied.

[tv]

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/home_15.html

Following Simpson's arrest, Grier had been a regular visitor at the Los Angeles County Jail. A giant, African-American former NFL defensive lineman, Grier had become an ordained minister.
On November 13th, 1994, a Sunday afternoon at about 4:30 p.m., he and Simpson were talking by telephone, separated by a glass partition. A deputy called Jeff Stuart was sitting close by and heard Simpson yell, and slam down his telephone, shouting: "I didn't mean to do it. I'm sorry." Grier leaned forward and yelled back: "O.J., you gotta come clean. You gotta tell somebody!"
Simpson then buried his face in his hands, looking distraught. They talked for another few minutes and then Grier left.
Although both Stuart and Grier gave testimony to Judge Ito regarding the overheard conversation, and the judge ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege," he nevertheless disallowed the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.

"...The Simpson case, of course, is an even more obvious case of waiver, since Simpson shouted out his statement knowing the deputy sheriff, whom he could see, was only a few feet away. On December 19, 1994, Ito ruled, in fact, that Simpson had waived the privilege, but remarkably kept Simpson's statement out on a totally nonlegal ground: "Counsel for Simpson now argue [after Ito held there had been a waiver] Simpson was lulled into a false sense of security in regard to the confidentiality of his communications in the visiting area. "The argument is well taken, " Ito said in his ruling, disallowing the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.

The only problem if there was a waiver, as Ito virtually had to rule there was, there was no legal basis for excluding the statement. If one were to accept Ito's nonlegal justification for excluding the statement, I guess it wouldn't have made any difference how loudly or how often Simpson shouted out his confession or incriminating statement, it would be inadmissable because he been 'lulled into a false sense of security.' "


OUTRAGE: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder

[martin II]

"...The Simpson case, of course, is an even more obvious case of waiver, since Simpson shouted out his statement knowing the deputy sheriff, whom he could see, was only a few feet away. On December 19, 1994, Ito ruled, in fact, that Simpson had waived the privilege, but remarkably kept Simpson's statement out on a totally nonlegal ground: "Counsel for Simpson now argue [after Ito held there had been a waiver] Simpson was lulled into a false sense of security in regard to the confidentiality of his communications in the visiting area. "The argument is well taken, " Ito said in his ruling, disallowing the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.

The only problem if there was a waiver, as Ito virtually had to rule there was, there was no legal basis for excluding the statement. If one were to accept Ito's nonlegal justification for excluding the statement, I guess it wouldn't have made any difference how loudly or how often Simpson shouted out his confession or incriminating statement, it would be inadmissable because he been 'lulled into a false sense of security.' "


OUTRAGE: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder

The guard told a big lie.

[tv]

The fine should have been more than that. It was chicken feed for the offense.

To compare how the prosecution fared with less serious offenses, on July 20, 1995, M. Clark was a few minutes late. She appologized, and explained why. Ito fined her $250.00. Marcia replied:"Excuse me your honor, my I remind you that Shapiro kept the court waiting 20 minues ... when it was his witness on the stand - and suffered no consequences?". Ito replied "Thank you, then fine will be $1,000". Ito later lowered it back to $250.

The funny part is that pro defense people sometimes talk and write about how Ito favored the DAs.

I've always thought Judge Ito leaned toward the defense but I haven't come to a conclusion as to why that was so. I don't believe he thought OJ Simpson was innocent or that there was any planting/tampering of evidence by the police so I'm not sure. I believe his love of the limelight and rubbing elbows with celebrities caused him to do thing that are considered inappropriate for a judge presiding over such a serious matter.

[socaldiva]

I've always thought Judge Ito leaned toward the defense but I haven't come to a conclusion as to why that was so. I don't believe he thought OJ Simpson was innocent or that there was any planting/tampering of evidence by the police so I'm not sure. I believe his love of the limelight and rubbing elbows with celebrities caused him to do thing that are considered inappropriate for a judge presiding over such a serious matter.

I also thought that he leaned towards the defense & got caught up in the celebrity of the trial. Very unprofessional, imo. Perhaps one of the reasons he bent over backwards for the defense is that he didn't want to have the verdict appealed.

[tv]

I also thought that he leaned towards the defense & got caught up in the celebrity of the trial. Very unprofessional, imo. Perhaps one of the reasons he bent over backwards for the defense is that he didn't want to have the verdict appealed.

That could be but it had the opposite effect. He treated the prosecution like two small children instead of giving them the professional respect they deserved. A judge's role is to be impartial. Judge Ito's demeaning treatment of the prosecution in front of the jury was wrong.

[martin II]

The fine should have been more than that. It was chicken feed for the offense.

To compare how the prosecution fared with less serious offenses, on July 20, 1995, M. Clark was a few minutes late. She appologized, and explained why. Ito fined her $250.00. Marcia replied:"Excuse me your honor, my I remind you that Shapiro kept the court waiting 20 minues ... when it was his witness on the stand - and suffered no consequences?". Ito replied "Thank you, then fine will be $1,000". Ito later lowered it back to $250.

The funny part is that pro defense people sometimes talk and write about how Ito favored the DAs.

did you forget this
Fines imposed on defense: $3,000
Fines imposed on prosecution: $850
Fines imposed on others: $1,800

[martin II]

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/home_15.html

Following Simpson's arrest, Grier had been a regular visitor at the Los Angeles County Jail. A giant, African-American former NFL defensive lineman, Grier had become an ordained minister.
On November 13th, 1994, a Sunday afternoon at about 4:30 p.m., he and Simpson were talking by telephone, separated by a glass partition. A deputy called Jeff Stuart was sitting close by and heard Simpson yell, and slam down his telephone, shouting: "I didn't mean to do it. I'm sorry." Grier leaned forward and yelled back: "O.J., you gotta come clean. You gotta tell somebody!"
Simpson then buried his face in his hands, looking distraught. They talked for another few minutes and then Grier left.
Although both Stuart and Grier gave testimony to Judge Ito regarding the overheard conversation, and the judge ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege," he nevertheless disallowed the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.


Why do you believe the guards story? Automatically?

[martin II]

I believe that you are implying that a reasonable interpretation of this is that MF did plant evidence (a glove). Judge Ito did rule this way, but he later admitted that this interpretation of Fuhrmans use of the 5th ammendment was incorrect.

One of the things I don't like about this board is that posters will sometimes put a long quote on the board without summarizing what the quote is supposed to prove. I don't like to read a long posting and wonder what's the point of the posting. The WA posting that I am answering is an example of this.

You should know it is about mf taking the 5th.

[martin II]

I believe that you are implying that a reasonable interpretation of this is that MF did plant evidence (a glove). Judge Ito did rule this way, but he later admitted that this interpretation of Fuhrmans use of the 5th ammendment was incorrect.
can you explain



One of the things I don't like about this board is that posters will sometimes put a long quote on the board without summarizing what the quote is supposed to prove. I don't like to read a long posting and wonder what's the point of the posting. The WA posting that I am answering is an example of this.


martin

[Its just me]

Why do you believe the guards story? Automatically?


The better question would be why do you believe the deputy is lying since I never posted my feelings one way or another and you did. :shrug:

I posted the snip to show the judge ruling in favor of the defense.

Sometimes it's better to read before making a post. IMHOO

[weezer]

I've always thought Judge Ito leaned toward the defense but I haven't come to a conclusion as to why that was so. I don't believe he thought OJ Simpson was innocent or that there was any planting/tampering of evidence by the police so I'm not sure. I believe his love of the limelight and rubbing elbows with celebrities caused him to do thing that are considered inappropriate for a judge presiding over such a serious matter.

I believe that he was star struck and then got really pi$$ed over his wife and the screenplay tapes. Sometimes little people get big jobs and don't have the 'whatevers' to act within that role. I've just always thought he was so not professional --:shrug:

[weezer]

The better question would be why do you believe the deputy is lying since I never posted my feelings one way or another and you did. :shrug:

I posted the snip to show the judge ruling in favor of the defense.

Sometimes it's better to read before making a post. IMHOO

so, if the guard was lying, why didn't Rosie just say that? IIRC, Rosie never denied the statement by the guard.

[tv]

I believe that he was star struck and then got really pi$$ed over his wife and the screenplay tapes. Sometimes little people get big jobs and don't have the 'whatevers' to act within that role. I've just always thought he was so not professional --:shrug:

I definitely think he was trying to get back at Det. Fuhrman. He should have recused himself from the case. Imo, his wife lied about her relationship with Det. Fuhrman -- pretending she barely remembered him just so her husband could remain the sitting judge. She signed a declaration, under oath and penalty of perjury, that she couldn't recall any problems between Det. Fuhrman and herself. Their problems were well-known which convinces me that Capt. Peggy York lied.

[tv]

so, if the guard was lying, why didn't Rosie just say that? IIRC, Rosie never denied the statement by the guard.

I don't recall him ever saying that the guard lied. I read somewhere that Rosie broke off his friendship with Simpson after testifying.

[tv]

I believe that he was star struck and then got really pi$$ed over his wife and the screenplay tapes. Sometimes little people get big jobs and don't have the 'whatevers' to act within that role. I've just always thought he was so not professional --:shrug:

Very unprofessional. Enter the Dancing Ito's...:punch:

[Its just me]

so, if the guard was lying, why didn't Rosie just say that? IIRC, Rosie never denied the statement by the guard.


I agree. If there was ever a time to come to a friends defense in a court room...Rosie should have and I think he would have if he could have.

For anyone to think every single LE officer who testified against Simpson is lying is a stretch for any imagination. IMHOO

[martin II]

I also thought that he leaned towards the defense & got caught up in the celebrity of the trial. Very unprofessional, imo. Perhaps one of the reasons he bent over backwards for the defense is that he didn't want to have the verdict appealed.

legally ito should have tossed the evidence collected as a result of the illegal search warrant. HE DIDN'T

He should have allowed all the mf tapes. HE DIDN'T

Seems to me he favored the DA

[martin II]

I agree. If there was ever a time to come to a friends defense in a court room...Rosie should have and I think he would have if he could have.

For anyone to think every single LE officer who testified against Simpson is lying is a stretch for any imagination. IMHOO

Guards lie on inmates all the time. This one obviously to get some attention.
i believe there are only a small % of bad le.maby 2-3 % but those give everyone else a bad name.Example i don't think any other good cop would have said what mf said on the tapes even for a screen play.most care about their reputation.MF DIDN'T.

The detectives that lied in the oj case proved they lied by testimony.

Obviously the guards story didn't jive with Rosies.imo

[martin II]

I don't recall him ever saying that the guard lied. I read somewhere that Rosie broke off his friendship with Simpson after testifying.

link to this please

[martin II]

The better question would be why do you believe the deputy is lying since I never posted my feelings one way or another and you did. :shrug:

I posted the snip to show the judge ruling in favor of the defense.

Sometimes it's better to read before making a post. IMHOO

ok
my mistake

i assumed you made the post because you wanted to make a point that oj said something that the gurad heard and that the judge should have ruled in favor of the guard and punished oj.:cool:

[weezer]

I agree. If there was ever a time to come to a friends defense in a court room...Rosie should have and I think he would have if he could have.

For anyone to think every single LE officer who testified against Simpson is lying is a stretch for any imagination. IMHOO

". . .In court, Grier declined to reveal what he and his old friend Simpson discussed beyond religious matters.

Grier said his role as a minister included giving absolution or taking confession.

He testified he typically visited Simpson twice a week. "We would go over the scripture," he said. "We pray, we discuss various people in the Bible--problems they had."

Grier said he too once felt desperate and therefore thought he could counsel Simpson. "I told him I knew there was hope. There was a reason to live.". . .

[martin II]

". . .In court, Grier declined to reveal what he and his old friend Simpson discussed beyond religious matters.

Grier said his role as a minister included giving absolution or taking confession.

He testified he typically visited Simpson twice a week. "We would go over the scripture," he said. "We pray, we discuss various people in the Bible--problems they had."

Grier said he too once felt desperate and therefore thought he could counsel Simpson. "I told him I knew there was hope. There was a reason to live.". . .

This sounds like what most pastors would do/say.
The problem here is no one verified what the Guard said.ito could not just take the guards word. OJ never said he told Rosie anything about nicoles killing and neither did Rosie.

[Its just me]

Guards lie on inmates all the time. This one obviously to get some attention.
i believe there are only a small % of bad le.maby 2-3 % but those give everyone else a bad name.Example i don't think any other good cop would have said what mf said on the tapes even for a screen play.most care about their reputation.MF DIDN'T.

The detectives that lied in the oj case proved they lied by testimony.

Obviously the guards story didn't jive with Rosies.imo

I think it is a matter of opinion....and I disagree it was proved the detectives lied and if there is no public record of what Rosie told the judge nothing can be obvious. imhoo

[Its just me]

This sounds like what most pastors would do/say.
The problem here is no one verified what the Guard said.ito could not just take the guards word. OJ never said he told Rosie anything about nicoles killing and neither did Rosie.

It wasn't Ito's place to take the deputy's word or Rosie's word....it should have been left up to the jury. IMHOO Both Rosie and the deputy should have been called as witnesses.

[Hipcheck]

The better question would be why do you believe the deputy is lying since I never posted my feelings one way or another and you did. :shrug:

I posted the snip to show the judge ruling in favor of the defense.

Sometimes it's better to read before making a post. IMHOO

The "NG's" have to believe that this deputy sheriff is lying oterwise they would have to believe he's guilty. I for one don't believe this deputy sheriff is lying.

Christine Prody knows that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.

Justin Simspon believes that his father murdered his mother.

O.J.'s former agent knows he murdered Nicole and Ron and even wrote a book entitled "How I helped O.J. get away with murder".

O.J. wrote a book and tells us exactly how he murdered Nicole and Ron.

Yet we have only three posters here who believe he's innocent and defend him no matter what he does and one poster who is spending most of his life on this forum.

[martin II]

It wasn't Ito's place to take the deputy's word or Rosie's word....it should have been left up to the jury. IMHOO Both Rosie and the deputy should have been called as witnesses.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

The JUDGE decides what goes before the jury.It is not autamatic based on a guards claim of something otherwise anyone making a claim can have their claiim interjected into the case as evidence.
Under what basis in law would the guards claim cause his claim to go before the jury.???????????

Remember how the civil judge would not allow the defence to argue certain issues because he didn't like the issues.

[martin II]

The "NG's" have to believe that this deputy sheriff is lying oterwise they would have to believe he's guilty. I for one don't believe this deputy sheriff is lying.

Christine Prody knows that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.

Justin Simspon believes that his father murdered his mother.

O.J.'s former agent knows he murdered Nicole and Ron and even wrote a book entitled "How I helped O.J. get away with murder".

O.J. wrote a book and tells us exactly how he murdered Nicole and Ron.

Yet we have only three posters here who believe he's innocent and defend him no matter what he does and one poster who is spending most of his life on this forum.

I am not sure you know the following so i will post it to increase your knowledge of the case. Hopefully it will help.

The prosecution in a 9 mo trial made claims that oj Murdered two people.
The jury of 12 citizens listened to all the claims /testimonies and evidence.

The jury then decided that the prosecution had not met their burden as required by law.
The jury issued the only verdict possible and that was oj simpson was not guilty of murder.

That tops the nonsense and untruths in your post imo

[Hipcheck]

It wasn't Ito's place to take the deputy's word or Rosie's word....it should have been left up to the jury. IMHOO Both Rosie and the deputy should have been called as witnesses.

ITA. The deputy sheriff over heard O.J. confess to Rosie that he murdered Nicole and Ron so he should have been allowed to testify.

The defense could have called Rosie to testify if O.J. never confessed to him.

[martin II]

It wasn't Ito's place to take the deputy's word or Rosie's word....it should have been left up to the jury. IMHOO Both Rosie and the deputy should have been called as witnesses.

Under what law would Rosie and the deputy be called befory the jury to testify? no testimony goes before the jury without the judges approval.

[Hipcheck]

I am not sure you know the following so i will post it to increase your knowledge of the case. Hopefully it will help.

The prosecution in a 9 mo trial made claims that oj Murdered two people.
The jury of 12 citizens listened to all the claims /testimonies and evidence.

The jury then decided that the prosecution had not met their burden as required by law.
The jury issued the only verdict possible and that was oj simpson was not guilty of murder.

That tops the nonsense and untruths in your post imo

The simple fact is this jury never deliberated. Jeffrey Tobin tells us all about it in his book which maybe you should read. He tells us how O.J.got away with murder.

Right after the verdict a black female juror said "we have to take care of our own".

[martin II]

ITA. The deputy sheriff over heard O.J. confess to Rosie that he murdered Nicole and Ron so he should have been allowed to testify.Do you have proof to this statement
? if so please post it. if this is just your opinion proof is not required.

The defense could have called Rosie to testify if O.J. never confessed to him.

martin ii

[martin II]

The simple fact is this jury never deliberated. Jeffrey Tobin tells us all about it in his book which maybe you should read. He tells us how O.J.got away with murder.

Right after the verdict a black female juror said "we have to take care of our own".

The jury deliberated according to the law. not to what some think they should have done as no one here was in the deliberation room.The judge approved of the deliberations as it was done aqccording to law and the judge accepted the verdict.
J Toobin was just another fool looking to make money off of the trial as he was not on the jury.

[martin II]

I think it is a matter of opinion....and I disagree it was proved the detectives lied and if there is no public record of what Rosie told the judge nothing can be obvious. imhoo

So we don't know what was said and therefore it is a non issue.

[martin II]

The simple fact is this jury never deliberated. Jeffrey Tobin tells us all about it in his book which maybe you should read. He tells us how O.J.got away with murder.

Right after the verdict a black female juror said "we have to take care of our own".

What you said is not a simple fact it is a untruth.The jury deliberated. most know this and i am surprised you don't.

[martin II]

ITA. The deputy sheriff over heard O.J. confess to Rosie that he murdered Nicole and Ron so he should have been allowed to testify.

The defense could have called Rosie to testify if O.J. never confessed to him.

No one can call anyone unless under the judges direction in the court room.

It is possible for a person to be called in a bar or park without the judges approval but not in the judges courtroom.

[Hipcheck]

No one can call anyone unless under the judges direction in the court room.


Your joking right.

Just because the jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty doesn't mean they got it rightm and I beleve they got it wrong.

[Hipcheck]

The deputy sheriff said that he heard O.J. Simpson confess to these murders.

That is not my opinion. That is a fact.

[martin II]

No I am not an expert on chain link fences but evidently I know more about them then you do. All you have to do is search for information on the internet and you will learn that there are different gauges of wire that can be used in chain link fences. Simpson’s fence wasn’t made with chicken wire, look at the photographs on Wagner’s web site.

bobaugust

oj fence looks like regular 11 ga aluminum wire. Same as used by most. if as you say the fence was extra foir security it would have had razzor wire on top but i didn't because it was just a regular fence not used by anyone.
The photograper that stood on top of the fence to take the picture of the glove BENT THAT ONE LITTLE.VERY LITTLE WIRE OF ABOUT1/4 INCH.

[martin II]

The deputy sheriff said that he heard O.J. Simpson confess to these murders.

That is not my opinion. That is a fact.

Don't you realize he was telling a lie to get into the spotlight like JS and the others.
please post a link to what you call a fact so all can see if it is true.

[Its just me]

Under what law would Rosie and the deputy be called befory the jury to testify? no testimony goes before the jury without the judges approval.


Martin what was the "subject" (topic) that started this discussion. Things done by Judge Ito...if that will help you. According to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...n/home_15.html (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...n/home_15.html)

Ito ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege, but for some reason he still did not allow the DA to call the deputy to the stand to testify to what he heard Simpson tell Rosie. Judge Ito made a mistake imhoo and many people smarter than I am believes the same thing FWIW.

[Its just me]

Don't you realize he was telling a lie to get into the spotlight like JS and the others.
please post a link to what you call a fact so all can see if it is true.

Do you have anything other than your opinion to prove the deputy told a lie.

[weezer]

ITA. The deputy sheriff over heard O.J. confess to Rosie that he murdered Nicole and Ron so he should have been allowed to testify.

The defense could have called Rosie to testify if O.J. never confessed to him.

Grier did testify -- that's when he said his 'role as a minister included giving absolution or taking confession.' In the years since, Grier has never said orenthal was innocent and has never said the guard lied.

Rosie never denied the guard's statement so considering what he did testify to, I think he did tell us what orenthal said: "I didn't mean to do it. I'm sorry." ;)

[Hipcheck]

Don't you realize he was telling a lie to get into the spotlight like JS and the others.
please post a link to what you call a fact so all can see if it is true.

I do not realize that this deputy was telling a lie.

FACT: Deputy Sheriff said he heard O.J. Simpson confess to the murders of Nicole and Ron while talking to Rosie Grier.

FACT: Rosier Grier has NEVER said that his deputy was lying.

[martin II]

Your joking right.

Just because the jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty doesn't mean they got it rightm and I beleve they got it wrong.

i will give you a chabce

HOW DOES A PERSON MAKING A WILD CLAIM GET TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY WITHOUT THE JUDGES APPROVAL.

[socaldiva]

Very unprofessional. Enter the Dancing Ito's...:punch:

I have jury duty beginning October 5th in that courthouse. I wonder if Ito is still there? :tongue:

[martin II]

I do not realize that this deputy was telling a lie.

FACT: Deputy Sheriff said he heard O.J. Simpson confess to the murders of Nicole and Ron while talking to Rosie Grier.

FACT: Rosier Grier has NEVER said that his deputy was lying.

The prtoblem with what you think is Rosie never testified to oj saying what the deputy said he heard oj say, so you are left with what the deputy think he heard someone say.nonsense.
What causes you to believe the deputy so strongly. just because he is a jailer?

[martin II]

Yea and if you hit two of 'em too hard they get all cocky about the "law of the land". ;)

What law would allow a person makling a claim get to testify before the jury without the judges approval.

Some ignore the law of the land when it conflicts with what they think.

[martin II]

Do you have anything other than your opinion to prove the deputy told a lie.

no

can you prove that he didn't lie other than your opinion?

[Its just me]

The "NG's" have to believe that this deputy sheriff is lying oterwise they would have to believe he's guilty. I for one don't believe this deputy sheriff is lying.

Christine Prody knows that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.

Justin Simspon believes that his father murdered his mother.

O.J.'s former agent knows he murdered Nicole and Ron and even wrote a book entitled "How I helped O.J. get away with murder".

O.J. wrote a book and tells us exactly how he murdered Nicole and Ron.

Yet we have only three posters here who believe he's innocent and defend him no matter what he does and one poster who is spending most of his life on this forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
In 2008, Mike Gilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gilbert_(sports_agent)) released his book How I Helped O.J. Get Away with Murder which details O.J. confessing to the killings to Gilbert.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#cite_note-42) Gilbert, a memorabilia dealer, is a former agent and friend of Simpson. He states that Simpson had smoked marijuana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana), taken a sleeping pill and was drinking beer when he confided at his Brentwood home weeks after his trial what happened the night of the murders. Simpson allegedly said, "If she hadn't opened that door with a knife in her hand... she'd still be alive." This, Gilbert said, confirmed his belief that Simpson had confessed.

[Its just me]

no

can you prove that he didn't lie other than your opinion?

Nope but the fact that he did state it and because Rosie kept his mouth shut and didn't speak out in defense of his friend OJ leads me to believe it is true.

[Its just me]

Among others, crime author Jay Robert Nash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Robert_Nash) disliked Ito's handling of the Simpson case because they felt he allowed his courtroom to be turned into part of the media circus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_circus) to the point where Ito would invite attorneys and courtroom staff into his chambers to watch the previous night's Jay Leno footage; however, Ito and others present in the courtroom[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] dispute this characterization, challenging critics to identify a proceeding that was not under control. Because the jury was sequestered, an attorney gag order would not have been supported by any appellate court, leading to often chaotic scenes outside the courthouse. Ito allowed a jury field trip through O.J. Simpson's home after it had been stage dressed by the defense team, in one case replacing an artistic nude painting of Simpson's girlfriend with a reproduction of Norman Rockwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Rockwell)'s painting of Ruby Bridges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges) being escorted to school in the Little Rock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock) desegregation struggle. Ito was also criticized for the way that the jury was handled, bowing to defense team pressure to dismiss juror Francine Florio-Bunten late in the trial. Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi) illustrates a broad range of judicial incompetence attributed to Ito. For his part Judge Ito notes that his demeanor in his trials was a result of the Japanese way of shikata ga nai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikata_ga_nai), or "it can't be helped".
Ito was the subject of parody with comedian Jay Leno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Leno)'s "Dancing Itos" sketch, a regular part of The Tonight Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tonight_Show) during the Simpson trial and has remained regular fodder for crossword puzzles.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Ito#cite_note-4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Ito

Ha....Ito sure got suckered by the defense stage dressing OJ's house for the jury tour. Deception at it's best.

[martin II]

Martin what was the "subject" (topic) that started this discussion. Things done by Judge Ito...if that will help you. According to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...n/home_15.html (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...n/home_15.html)

Ito ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege, but for some reason he still did not allow the DA to call the deputy to the stand to testify to what he heard Simpson tell Rosie. Judge Ito made a mistake imhoo and many people smarter than I am believes the same thing FWIW.

The reason was ITO had to follow rules of evidence and he did. That should not be difficult to understand.

can you direct me to court records where ITO ruled as you say he did. I cannot find it. The judges rulings should be a part of the record.

[martin II]

Martin what was the "subject" (topic) that started this discussion. Things done by Judge Ito...if that will help you. According to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...n/home_15.html (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...n/home_15.html)

Ito ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege, but for some reason he still did not allow the DA to call the deputy to the stand to testify to what he heard Simpson tell Rosie. Judge Ito made a mistake imhoo and many people smarter than I am believes the same thing FWIW.

LOS ANGELES - O.J. Simpson said he didn't confess to murder or any other sins in jailhouse conversations with Rosie Grier that Simpson suspected were secretly being recorded, deposition transcripts show.

"I assumed that they were bugging us," Simpson said in the transcript, obtained yesterday by The Associated Press.

The testimony was from the eighth day of Simpson's 10-day deposition in a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson. Simpson, 48, was acquitted Oct. 3 in the June 1994 slayings.

The reference to Simpson's jailhouse conversations with Grier, a minister and former football star, came during questioning by Michael Brewer, a lawyer representing Goldman's mother, Sharon Rufo.

Simpson told Brewer that Grier did not hold a Roman Catholic-like confessional for him during their frequent conversations.

"The only thing we talked about was our belief in the Lord Jesus Christ," Simpson said.

Grier was a frequent visitor to the downtown Men's Central Jail during Simpson's yearlong trial. Their conversations became an issue when a deputy at the jail testified that Simpson made a loud, tearful remark to Grier in a visiting room.

Superior Court Judge Lance Ito denied the prosecutions' request to find out what Simpson said in the Nov. 13, 1994, exchange.

Copyright (c) 1996 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.

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

NANCY GRACE TV

This seems to be in conflict what you posted on what ito ruled.



(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: For 45 minutes.

And Willie Stern, with the "Nashville Scene," is with us. Mr. Stern, we remember when O.J. Simpson met with his friend, Rosie Greer, and the sheriffs heard an incriminating comment regarding the double murder of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, but then Judge Ito, in all of his wisdom, said Rosie Greer was there in capacity of a priest or preacher and did not allow the incriminating statement to come in?

[martin II]

Nope but the fact that he did state it and because Rosie kept his mouth shut and didn't speak out in defense of his friend OJ leads me to believe it is true.

Considering how many jailers have been arrested for criminal activity on the job from brutaliyu to selling inmastes drugs. and considering how many cases the DA has set up inmates to get false confessions by other inmates and jailers i have no reason to believe a jailer looking for his 15 minutes.

LOS ANGELES - O.J. Simpson said he didn't confess to murder or any other sins in jailhouse conversations with Rosie Grier that Simpson suspected were secretly being recorded, deposition transcripts show.

"I assumed that they were bugging us," Simpson said in the transcript, obtained yesterday by The Associated Press.

The testimony was from the eighth day of Simpson's 10-day deposition in a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson. Simpson, 48, was acquitted Oct. 3 in the June 1994 slayings.

The reference to Simpson's jailhouse conversations with Grier, a minister and former football star, came during questioning by Michael Brewer, a lawyer representing Goldman's mother, Sharon Rufo.

Simpson told Brewer that Grier did not hold a Roman Catholic-like confessional for him during their frequent conversations.

"The only thing we talked about was our belief in the Lord Jesus Christ," Simpson said.

Grier was a frequent visitor to the downtown Men's Central Jail during Simpson's yearlong trial. Their conversations became an issue when a deputy at the jail testified that Simpson made a loud, tearful remark to Grier in a visiting room.

Superior Court Judge Lance Ito denied the prosecutions' request to find out what Simpson said in the Nov. 13, 1994, exchange.

Copyright (c) 1996 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.

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

NANCY GRACE TV

This seems to be in conflict what you posted.



(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: For 45 minutes.

And Willie Stern, with the "Nashville Scene," is with us. Mr. Stern, we remember when O.J. Simpson met with his friend, Rosie Greer, and the sheriffs heard an incriminating comment regarding the double murder of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, but then Judge Ito, in all of his wisdom, said Rosie Greer was there in capacity of a priest or preacher and did not allow the incriminating statement to come in?

It was also discovered that the jailer was not in ear shot to be able to even hear the conversation.

[Its just me]

Martin....Lets just be honest. Who told more lies than OJ Simpson. OJ denying it and Rosie saying it isn't true are totally two different things.
IMHOO

[Its just me]

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/home_15.html

Following Simpson's arrest, Grier had been a regular visitor at the Los Angeles County Jail. A giant, African-American former NFL defensive lineman, Grier had become an ordained minister.
On November 13th, 1994, a Sunday afternoon at about 4:30 p.m., he and Simpson were talking by telephone, separated by a glass partition. A deputy called Jeff Stuart was sitting close by and heard Simpson yell, and slam down his telephone, shouting: "I didn't mean to do it. I'm sorry." Grier leaned forward and yelled back: "O.J., you gotta come clean. You gotta tell somebody!"
Simpson then buried his face in his hands, looking distraught. They talked for another few minutes and then Grier left.
Although both Stuart and Grier gave testimony to Judge Ito regarding the overheard conversation, and the judge ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege," he nevertheless disallowed the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.

The reason was ITO had to follow rules of evidence and he did. That should not be difficult to understand.

can you direct me to court records where ITO ruled as you say he did. I cannot find it. The judges rulings should be a part of the record.

Can you find where it's stated it played out in a different way....The link to my information is in my orginial post. If you had read it you would have known where I got my information.

If TruTV/CrimeLibrary is supplying wrong information maybe you need to correct them. ;)

[Hipcheck]

Martin....Lets just be honest. Who told more lies than OJ Simpson. OJ denying it and Rosie saying it isn't true are totally two different things.
IMHOO

I agree with you that O.J. Simpson has told a lot of lies.

I wonder if this sheriff deputy took a polygraph test to determine if he was indeed telling the truth.

We know O.J. took a polygraph test and flunked it badly.

[martin II]

Among others, crime author Jay Robert Nash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Robert_Nash) disliked Ito's handling of the Simpson case because they felt he allowed his courtroom to be turned into part of the media circus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_circus) to the point where Ito would invite attorneys and courtroom staff into his chambers to watch the previous night's Jay Leno footage; however, Ito and others present in the courtroom[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] dispute this characterization, challenging critics to identify a proceeding that was not under control. Because the jury was sequestered, an attorney gag order would not have been supported by any appellate court, leading to often chaotic scenes outside the courthouse. Ito allowed a jury field trip through O.J. Simpson's home after it had been stage dressed by the defense team, in one case replacing an artistic nude painting of Simpson's girlfriend with a reproduction of Norman Rockwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Rockwell)'s painting of Ruby Bridges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges) being escorted to school in the Little Rock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock) desegregation struggle. Ito was also criticized for the way that the jury was handled, bowing to defense team pressure to dismiss juror Francine Florio-Bunten late in the trial. Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi) illustrates a broad range of judicial incompetence attributed to Ito. For his part Judge Ito notes that his demeanor in his trials was a result of the Japanese way of shikata ga nai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikata_ga_nai), or "it can't be helped".
Ito was the subject of parody with comedian Jay Leno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Leno)'s "Dancing Itos" sketch, a regular part of The Tonight Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tonight_Show) during the Simpson trial and has remained regular fodder for crossword puzzles.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Ito#cite_note-4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Ito

Ha....Ito sure got suckered by the defense stage dressing OJ's house for the jury tour. Deception at it's best.

One thing for sure everyone had a opinion based on their bias. Or what they believed was wrong with the case. Those ideas did not deal with the important issue in the case murder.Changing pictures in a house does not mean oj killed anyone and we know what VB motive was. It means very little.

[martin II]

I agree with you that O.J. Simpson has told a lot of lies.

I wonder if this sheriff deputy took a polygraph test to determine if he was indeed telling the truth.

We know O.J. took a polygraph test and flunked it badly.

The deputy could not stand a frisk imo

[martin II]

Martin....Lets just be honest. Who told more lies than OJ Simpson. OJ denying it and Rosie saying it isn't true are totally two different things.
IMHOO

i posted what i found from cnn and nancy grace. if you can post a link to ito decision please do so as the Grace link does not appear to agree what you said about itos ruling.

[martin II]

Can you find where it's stated it played out in a different way....The link to my information is in my orginial post. If you had read it you would have known where I got my information.

If TruTV/CrimeLibrary is supplying wrong information maybe you need to correct them. ;)

Tru tv makes mistakes like many other media.
maby you should correct Nancy Grace.
Since the conversations were never made public i would agree with what was reported on the Grace site.That gives you the reason for ITO decision.

[rovaan]

This is what Grier had to say about things, from a 4/29/05 interview in Westside Today: "You later became known for having counseled OJ Simpson during his murder trial n tell us how that came about............. I didn't know OJ personally, but I was watching when all the trouble started, and I never saw anyone around him giving him spiritual advice. So I called the chaplain of the jail and I took my ordination papers down there and said I'd like to meet with OJ. Then one day I went over there and they brought him over, all handcuffed. I asked him how he was doing, and he said "OK, considering the circumstances." I said "I came here because I believe I can help you, but the only way is through this book", and I showed him the Bible. He said "I want you to help me because you are considering my soul". And I said "that's right, I'm here to talk about your soul". That's when we started talking about the Bible. That's all we talked about. I was there at least once a week, maybe twice until there was an allegation that OJ had confessed to me, and they had it in the newspapers, but it was a lie............. Where did the story about the alleged confession come from?................. It came from one of the guards. He said he had heard something. At the time it was when OJ was very depressed about what was going on. I was yelling at him saying "this is an attack on you by the devil to destroy you. You have to be strong". And then they just told a lie about that............ Do you still have contact with OJ?.......... I just talked to him last week. I'm always wanting to know how he's doing and how the kids are doing."

He clearly says that it was a lie.

[Its just me]

Tru tv makes mistakes like many other media.
maby you should correct Nancy Grace.
Since the conversations were never made public i would agree with what was reported on the Grace site.That gives you the reason for ITO decision.

LOL...I doubt there is a person in the world that could correct NG... Bless her heart. NG came to my area to do a couple of shows on a missing teacher and I know for a fact she gets things confussed. Crime Library also did quite a few articles and lets just say...I'm sticking with TruTV/CrimeLibrary. TruTV is not the only place I've read about Ito decision but I'm not wasting my time to look for them....I'm satisified with my opinion and I'm aware I could never convience you of anything.

[Its just me]

One thing for sure everyone had a opinion based on their bias. Or what they believed was wrong with the case. Those ideas did not deal with the important issue in the case murder.Changing pictures in a house does not mean oj killed anyone and we know what VB motive was. It means very little.

Martin the one thing it does prove is deception. Just like I commented in my first post....deception at its best.

[weezer]

This is what Grier had to say about things, from a 4/29/05 interview in Westside Today: "You later became known for having counseled OJ Simpson during his murder trial n tell us how that came about............. I didn't know OJ personally, but I was watching when all the trouble started, and I never saw anyone around him giving him spiritual advice. So I called the chaplain of the jail and I took my ordination papers down there and said I'd like to meet with OJ. Then one day I went over there and they brought him over, all handcuffed. I asked him how he was doing, and he said "OK, considering the circumstances." I said "I came here because I believe I can help you, but the only way is through this book", and I showed him the Bible. He said "I want you to help me because you are considering my soul". And I said "that's right, I'm here to talk about your soul". That's when we started talking about the Bible. That's all we talked about. I was there at least once a week, maybe twice until there was an allegation that OJ had confessed to me, and they had it in the newspapers, but it was a lie............. Where did the story about the alleged confession come from?................. It came from one of the guards. He said he had heard something. At the time it was when OJ was very depressed about what was going on. I was yelling at him saying "this is an attack on you by the devil to destroy you. You have to be strong". And then they just told a lie about that............ Do you still have contact with OJ?.......... I just talked to him last week. I'm always wanting to know how he's doing and how the kids are doing."

He clearly says that it was a lie.

I've never read this -- please supply a link.

[weezer]

". . .Take his involvement with O.J., whom, Grier says, he had never met before visiting him in jail last June. About 17 years ago Grier was in a psychic jam himself, a former athlete in the process of divorce who was paralyzed by his own ineffectualness. He never actually considered suicide, but then again, he wasn't really handling the alternative. So he knew depression. And it occurred to him that Simpson, in jail accused of two murders, might be going through the same thing.

"I watched on TV." Grier says, "and I didn't sec any minister come down there." And so his own ministry was in motion, simple as that.

That was enough to put Grier in our laps again. The Bible-toting Grier—that's what he and Simpson do, study the Bible—suddenly began appearing on Headline News as he passed on his way to the jail. And then Grier, with his invisible talent for fame, headed into Hard Copy country when a deputy sheriff at the jail claimed to have overheard Simpson yelling something loudly enough for it to become evidence, or so the prosecution thought. And so there was Grier, sitting alongside Judge Lance Ito, arguing for the confidentiality of a little "penitential communication." The judge eventually agreed, and the hulking Grier was then handed over to the talk shows, and he was famous for a while more. . ."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006347/1/index.htm

[rovaan]

I've never read this -- please supply a link.

The article is no longer on the internet. Westside Today only has archives back to 2007. I read the article back in 2005 and the information was saved from the article at the time.

[martin II]

This is what Grier had to say about things, from a 4/29/05 interview in Westside Today: "You later became known for having counseled OJ Simpson during his murder trial n tell us how that came about............. I didn't know OJ personally, but I was watching when all the trouble started, and I never saw anyone around him giving him spiritual advice. So I called the chaplain of the jail and I took my ordination papers down there and said I'd like to meet with OJ. Then one day I went over there and they brought him over, all handcuffed. I asked him how he was doing, and he said "OK, considering the circumstances." I said "I came here because I believe I can help you, but the only way is through this book", and I showed him the Bible. He said "I want you to help me because you are considering my soul". And I said "that's right, I'm here to talk about your soul". That's when we started talking about the Bible. That's all we talked about. I was there at least once a week, maybe twice until there was an allegation that OJ had confessed to me, and they had it in the newspapers, but it was a lie............. Where did the story about the alleged confession come from?................. It came from one of the guards. He said he had heard something. At the time it was when OJ was very depressed about what was going on. I was yelling at him saying "this is an attack on you by the devil to destroy you. You have to be strong". And then they just told a lie about that............ Do you still have contact with OJ?.......... I just talked to him last week. I'm always wanting to know how he's doing and how the kids are doing."

He clearly says that it was a lie.


i have become accustomed to you bringing THE TRUTH TO THE THREAD.
THANKS

Martin.

[weezer]

The article is no longer on the internet. Westside Today only has archives back to 2007. I read the article back in 2005 and the information was saved from the article at the time.

and no other media picked that up? really? well, I don't want to say that your claim to an article that doesn't exist is BS but. . . .:seeya:

[martin II]

Martin the one thing it does prove is deception. Just like I commented in my first post....deception at its best.

I think it was a mark of respect to take down a naked picture of PB. Like some would do when their parents come to visit them.

[martin II]

and no other media picked that up? really? well, I don't want to say that your claim to an article that doesn't exist is BS but. . . .:seeya:


It not true that no other media did not pick it up. it can be because you did not see other media reports.
obvioudly the major media knew it was a lie and saw no reason to make a big deal of it.
Attacking the messenger is what i call bs.

[rovaan]

and no other media picked that up? really? well, I don't want to say that your claim to an article that doesn't exist is BS but. . . .:seeya:

Just because you did not see something, does not mean that it did not exist. You are free to contact Westside Today to see if they have a copy. I gave you the date of the article.

Many of the articles that were favorable to OJ were not picked up by the main press and many of them of been removed from the internet.

[fgump2]

It wasn't Ito's place to take the deputy's word or Rosie's word....it should have been left up to the jury. IMHOO Both Rosie and the deputy should have been called as witnesses.

I feel we can be reasonably sure that the deputy was telling the truth for the following reasons:
- Rosie Grier never accused the guard of lying. He said afterwards that he couldn’t talk about what Simpson told him because that would violate Simpson’s confidentiality. If Simpson never confessed, then he (Simpson) should have given Rosie permission to admit that no confession took place. If there was no confession then Rosie was incorrectly protecting a lying guard.
- Johnnie Cochran talked about this and never accused the guard of lying. Cochran said that maybe Simpson said something like “people think I did it” and the guard only heard the part of “I did it “. This is fairly close to what the guard claimed he heard, but in that version the guard heard enough that there was no doubt that it was a real confession.
- I believe that the guard later passed a lie detector test, and of course Simpson flunked a lie detector test.
I am willing to give Martin credit for being audacious in accusing the guard of lying when Grier, ITo, and Cochran never made that claim.

Ito also never said the guard lied or was not trustworthy. He said that Simpson had been lulled into a false sense of security, something that there was no legal provision for.

Incidentally the fact that the defense was fined so much doesn't prove that Ito was biased. I think the defense should have been fined more. There is no rule saying that the defense and DAs should be fined equally.

One of the defense dirty tricks that Bugilosi wrote about is that during one of the final summation speeches, Scheck was constantly making objections, almost all of which were rejected by Ito. Ito should have fined and rebuked Scheck on this.

[martin II]

Just because you did not see something, does not mean that it did not exist. You are free to contact Westside Today to see if they have a copy. I gave you the date of the article.

Many of the articles that were favorable to OJ were not picked up by the main press and many of them of been removed from the internet.

I would not worry about attacks from the uninformed.
Thanks again. your article supports why ITO tossed the whole issue in the trash basket.

[martin II]

I feel we can be reasonably sure that the deputy was telling the truth for the following reasons:
- Rosie Grier never accused the guard of lying. He said afterwards that he couldn’t talk about what Simpson told him because that would violate Simpson’s confidentiality. If Simpson never confessed, then he (Simpson) should have given Rosie permission to admit that no confession took place. If there was no confession then Rosie was incorrectly protecting a lying guard.
- Johnnie Cochran talked about this and never accused the guard of lying. Cochran said that maybe Simpson said something like “people think I did it” and the guard only heard the part of “I did it “. This is fairly close to what the guard claimed he heard, but in that version the guard heard enough that there was no doubt that it was a real confession.
- I believe that the guard later passed a lie detector test, and of course Simpson flunked a lie detector test.
I am willing to give Martin credit for being audacious in accusing the guard of lying when Grier, ITo, and Cochran never made that claim.

Ito also never said the guard lied or was not trustworthy. He said that Simpson had been lulled into a false sense of security, something that there was no legal provision for.

Incidentally the fact that the defense was fined so much doesn't prove that Ito was biased. I think the defense should have been fined more. There is no rule saying that the defense and DAs should be fined equally.

One of the defense dirty tricks that Bugilosi wrote about is that during one of the final summation speeches, Scheck was constantly making objections, almost all of which were rejected by Ito. Ito should have fined and rebuked Scheck on this.

fgump2
with respect. post 17366 brings the Rosie Grier and the guard issue to a close.We now know what Grier said about the issue.

[Its just me]

I think it was a mark of respect to take down a naked picture of PB. Like some would do when their parents come to visit them.

What ever you choose to think Martin....it's still deception even when you are trying to fool mama and papa and it should never be acceptable during a criminal jury trial.

[William Anthony]

I believe that you are implying that a reasonable interpretation of this is that MF did plant evidence (a glove). Judge Ito did rule this way, but he later admitted that this interpretation of Fuhrmans use of the 5th ammendment was incorrect.

One of the things I don't like about this board is that posters will sometimes put a long quote on the board without summarizing what the quote is supposed to prove. I don't like to read a long posting and wonder what's the point of the posting. The WA posting that I am answering is an example of this.

I apologize as I am one who likes to think for himself after seeing the evidence .
I thought the post was obvious in that the so-called final ruling was not in fact the final ruling and, since you claim Ito admitted his interpretation of MF taking the 5th was wrong, please post it?

[William Anthony]

"...The Simpson case, of course, is an even more obvious case of waiver, since Simpson shouted out his statement knowing the deputy sheriff, whom he could see, was only a few feet away. On December 19, 1994, Ito ruled, in fact, that Simpson had waived the privilege, but remarkably kept Simpson's statement out on a totally nonlegal ground: "Counsel for Simpson now argue [after Ito held there had been a waiver] Simpson was lulled into a false sense of security in regard to the confidentiality of his communications in the visiting area. "The argument is well taken, " Ito said in his ruling, disallowing the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.

The only problem if there was a waiver, as Ito virtually had to rule there was, there was no legal basis for excluding the statement. If one were to accept Ito's nonlegal justification for excluding the statement, I guess it wouldn't have made any difference how loudly or how often Simpson shouted out his confession or incriminating statement, it would be inadmissable because he been 'lulled into a false sense of security.' "


OUTRAGE: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder

I suggest that the author read about waiver being required to be knowing and voluntary, IIRC.

[martin II]

Martin the one thing it does prove is deception. Just like I commented in my first post....deception at its best.

What the visit to ojs property produced that was important was that the jury REALIZED that Park could not have seen what he said he saw on 6/12.
That was the most important finding by the jury of the visit. Not the interiors.

[William Anthony]

That could be but it had the opposite effect. He treated the prosecution like two small children instead of giving them the professional respect they deserved. A judge's role is to be impartial. Judge Ito's demeaning treatment of the prosecution in front of the jury was wrong.

He only treated those as children that pouted and threw temper tantrums, acting like children, IMHO.

[Its just me]

fgump2
with respect. post 17366 brings the Rosie Grier and the guard issue to a close.We now know what Grier said about the issue.

And naturally you would choose to believe Rosie over the guard. Like I posted before.....believing all the LE with testimony against OJ are "all" liars is a stretch for any imagination.

[Its just me]

What the visit to ojs property produced that was important was that the jury REALIZED that Park could not have seen what he said he saw on 6/12.
That was the most important finding by the jury of the visit. Not the interiors.

Didn't the jury make the visit in the day time and Park testified it was at night time when he went to pick up OJ. I guess Park is also a liar. :shrug:
Do you have a link to the jury saying what you claim they realized.

[martin II]

What ever you choose to think Martin....it's still deception even when you are trying to fool mama and papa and it should never be acceptable during a criminal jury trial.

What would a naked picture of PB tell the jury about oj. That his girl took a private naked picture for him?

[weezer]

And naturally you would choose to believe Rosie over the guard. Like I posted before.....believing all the LE with testimony against OJ are "all" liars is a stretch for any imagination.

I'm having to laugh out loud that someone posting what they claim is from an article that they can't produce or link AND the NG's proclaiming that it must be true. I believe Rosie -- he said he was there as a minister and any confession he heard was confidential. He never said the guard lied or that orenthal didn't confess.

[William Anthony]

That could be but it had the opposite effect. He treated the prosecution like two small children instead of giving them the professional respect they deserved. A judge's role is to be impartial. Judge Ito's demeaning treatment of the prosecution in front of the jury was wrong.

He only treated those as children that pouted and threw temper tantrums, acting like children, IMHO. IMHO, Ito may become annoyed after he saw that the prosecution incorrectly and repeatedly claimed there was a mountain of evidence.

[William Anthony]

so, if the guard was lying, why didn't Rosie just say that? IIRC, Rosie never denied the statement by the guard.

He denied that Simpson confessed, IIRC.

[Its just me]

What would a naked picture of PB tell the jury about oj. That his girl took a private naked picture for him?

Martin, I don't know what a naked picture and other things changed would have told OJ's jury and you don't either. The fact remains that the defense changed OJ's house on purpose before the visit from the jury and that is deception. Period.

[weezer]

Didn't the jury make the visit in the day time and Park testified it was at night time when he went to pick up OJ. I guess Park is also a liar. :shrug:
Do you have a link to the jury saying what you claim they realized.

surely you realize by now that the only people who didn't lie were orenthal and arnelle?!!! ;)

the prosecution argued for the jury to visit rockingham at night when circumstances would be closer to how it was on the night of the murders. maybe ito was as star struck getting to go thru orenthal's house as the jury. ;)

[William Anthony]

It wasn't Ito's place to take the deputy's word or Rosie's word....it should have been left up to the jury. IMHOO Both Rosie and the deputy should have been called as witnesses.

For what reason?:)

[William Anthony]

The "NG's" have to believe that this deputy sheriff is lying oterwise they would have to believe he's guilty. I for one don't believe this deputy sheriff is lying.

Christine Prody knows that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.

Justin Simspon believes that his father murdered his mother.

O.J.'s former agent knows he murdered Nicole and Ron and even wrote a book entitled "How I helped O.J. get away with murder".

O.J. wrote a book and tells us exactly how he murdered Nicole and Ron.

Yet we have only three posters here who believe he's innocent and defend him no matter what he does and one poster who is spending most of his life on this forum.

There is no need to defend only to remind that Simpson is and will forever remain not guilty.

[weezer]

Martin, I don't know what a naked picture and other things changed would have told OJ's jury and you don't either. The fact remains that the defense changed OJ's house on purpose before the visit from the jury and that is deception. Period.

of course it is. just like the fresh flowers and the fire lit in the fireplace. must have really impressed the jury --

[William Anthony]

ITA. The deputy sheriff over heard O.J. confess to Rosie that he murdered Nicole and Ron so he should have been allowed to testify.

The defense could have called Rosie to testify if O.J. never confessed to him.

Link to what Simpson exactly confessed to which the deputy overheard, please?

[Its just me]

For what reason?:)

:read:

[Its just me]

surely you realize by now that the only people who didn't lie were orenthal and arnelle?!!! ;)

the prosecution argued for the jury to visit rockingham at night when circumstances would be closer to how it was on the night of the murders. maybe ito was as star struck getting to go thru orenthal's house as the jury. ;)

Or maybe Ito was afraid he would miss Jay Leno if they went at night. sneaker

[martin II]

Didn't the jury make the visit in the day time and Park testified it was at night time when he went to pick up OJ. I guess Park is also a liar. :shrug:
Do you have a link to the jury saying what you claim they realized.

I don't know if it was the same day or not and don't see any importance if it was. They knew what he testified to.
i have posted several comments by the jury including a descriptioon of what happened in deliberations. it is there.

In deliberations the only question left by jurors was Parks testimony.They asked for a readback of his testimony. They continued more descussions on his testimony and decided to take a vote as there were no more questions. they voted not guilty.

I don't think Park lied as some others did but i do know he was confused on much of his testimony which is why he gave different testimony at different times on the same issue. I think this was caused by overpreperation by Clarke and maby his mama and a effort to suppoort the prosecutions case.
Seeing two cars, oj wearing a black overcoat, oj could have had on a dark bathrobe, being able to see through all the heavy trees and bush in front of ojs house. Not seeing the address oner time and not looking for it another time. Not seeing the bronco parked at the Rockingham gate another.

The jury had his testimony and saw him testify. They did not believe him.

[weezer]

Or maybe Ito was afraid he would miss Jay Leno if they went at night. sneaker

LOL -- I started to post the same thing. :beer:

[William Anthony]

This is what Grier had to say about things, from a 4/29/05 interview in Westside Today: "You later became known for having counseled OJ Simpson during his murder trial n tell us how that came about............. I didn't know OJ personally, but I was watching when all the trouble started, and I never saw anyone around him giving him spiritual advice. So I called the chaplain of the jail and I took my ordination papers down there and said I'd like to meet with OJ. Then one day I went over there and they brought him over, all handcuffed. I asked him how he was doing, and he said "OK, considering the circumstances." I said "I came here because I believe I can help you, but the only way is through this book", and I showed him the Bible. He said "I want you to help me because you are considering my soul". And I said "that's right, I'm here to talk about your soul". That's when we started talking about the Bible. That's all we talked about. I was there at least once a week, maybe twice until there was an allegation that OJ had confessed to me, and they had it in the newspapers, but it was a lie............. Where did the story about the alleged confession come from?................. It came from one of the guards. He said he had heard something. At the time it was when OJ was very depressed about what was going on. I was yelling at him saying "this is an attack on you by the devil to destroy you. You have to be strong". And then they just told a lie about that............ Do you still have contact with OJ?.......... I just talked to him last week. I'm always wanting to know how he's doing and how the kids are doing."

He clearly says that it was a lie.

Thanks.

[martin II]

Or maybe Ito was afraid he would miss Jay Leno if they went at night. sneaker

i guess there are many scheduling and logistic reasons for a judge to consider for a field trip.i think a night visit would have been worse for the prosecution.

[Its just me]

I don't know if it was the same day or not and don't see any importance if it was. They knew what he testified to.
i have posted several comments by the jury including a descriptioon of what happened in deliberations. it is there.

In deliberations the only question left by jurors was Parks testimony.They asked for a readback of his testimony. They continued more descussions on his testimony and decided to take a vote as there were no more questions. they voted not guilty.

I don't think Park lied as some others did but i do know he was confused on much of his testimony which is why he gave different testimony at different times on the same issue. I think this was caused by overpreperation by Clarke and maby his mama and a effort to suppoort the prosecutions case.
Seeing two cars, oj wearing a black overcoat, oj could have had on a dark bathrobe, being able to see through all the heavy trees and bush in front of ojs house. Not seeing the address oner time and not looking for it another time. Not seeing the bronco parked at the Rockingham gate another.

The jury had his testimony and saw him testify. They did not believe him.

And them not believing Park is a mystery to me. He was a very credible witness IMO. What reason did he have to lie, be untruthfull, or confussed. Surely he knew what he did and what he saw.

As far as deliberations.... short as it was for a 9 month trial ....I'll not comment.

[martin II]

Or maybe Ito was afraid he would miss Jay Leno if they went at night. sneaker

Or maby clarke and Darden had another night dinner date.:cool:

[martin II]

And them not believing Park is a mystery to me. He was a very credible witness IMO. What reason did he have to lie, be untruthfull, or confussed. Surely he knew what he did and what he saw.

As far as deliberations.... short as it was for a 9 month trial ....I'll not comment.

He did look like a All American guy. His testimony is what caused them not to believe him.

[Its just me]

i guess there are many scheduling and logistic reasons for a judge to consider for a field trip.i think a night visit would have been worse for the prosecution.

If the field trip as a whole was anything like the staging of the house....it would have been unless imhoo at anytime but common sense tells me the trip should have been as close to what was witnessed as possible.

[martin II]

And them not believing Park is a mystery to me. He was a very credible witness IMO. What reason did he have to lie, be untruthfull, or confussed. Surely he knew what he did and what he saw.

As far as deliberations.... short as it was for a 9 month trial ....I'll not comment.

please see post 17366

[martin II]

If the field trip as a whole was anything like the staging of the house....it would have been unless imhoo at anytime but common sense tells me the trip should have been as close to what was witnessed as possible.

As far as the jury and the judge was concerned the trip was very useful. The prosecution did nothing to stop it.

[Its just me]

As far as the jury and the judge was concerned the trip was very useful. The prosecution did nothing to stop it.

Like they could stop it. IIRC it's posted that the prosecution asked for the tour to be done at night. Common sense for it to be and if a staged scene was useful for the jury and judge no wonder there were problems.

[tv]

And naturally you would choose to believe Rosie over the guard. Like I posted before.....believing all the LE with testimony against OJ are "all" liars is a stretch for any imagination.

Fortunately for us martin doesn't get to say when we stop discussing something. I see he's moderating again. :rolleyes:

[martin II]

Like they could stop it. IIRC it's posted that the prosecution asked for the tour to be done at night. Common sense for it to be and if a staged scene was useful for the jury and judge no wonder there were problems.

Common sense tells me the interiors of the house did not go to the subject of muder.What park said he saw and what the jury believed he could not have seen goes to the murder charge. Even with the changing of some pictures ojs house was still quite impressive.

[martin II]

Like they could stop it. IIRC it's posted that the prosecution asked for the tour to be done at night. Common sense for it to be and if a staged scene was useful for the jury and judge no wonder there were problems.

Just like ito allowed the illegal search warrant he got to say when the trip would be scheduled.

[tv]

If the field trip as a whole was anything like the staging of the house....it would have been unless imhoo at anytime but common sense tells me the trip should have been as close to what was witnessed as possible.

I think the defense just wanted to get the jury to the house to see Simpson's warm, inviting home in order to further prejudice them in his favor. Nicole's condo had been stripped of anything that reflected her personality or her life. Very unfair for the prosecution.

[tv]

I'm having to laugh out loud that someone posting what they claim is from an article that they can't produce or link AND the NG's proclaiming that it must be true. I believe Rosie -- he said he was there as a minister and any confession he heard was confidential. He never said the guard lied or that orenthal didn't confess.

Not letting the guard testify was another example of Judge Ito bowing to Cochran. We saw it over and over during the trial. I hope Judge Ito has slept well these past 15 years over the results of some of his defense pandering.

[tv]

Like they could stop it. IIRC it's posted that the prosecution asked for the tour to be done at night. Common sense for it to be and if a staged scene was useful for the jury and judge no wonder there were problems.

The prosecution asked that the jury not be allowed in the trophy room but IIRC that request was shot down. Just relying on memory with that.

[martin II]

Rosie is quoted in the article what he told ito. ito heasring that knew the guard lied.

Rosie is a man of god. He told the truth and ITO believed him.

[weezer]

". . .MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION. THE GREEN CHAIN LINK FENCING THAT IS AROUND ROCKINGHAM, THE JURORS NEED TO BE TOLD AT SOME POINT THAT THAT WAS NOT PRESENT ON JUNE 12TH. AND IF YOU WILL RECALL, IT EXTENDS TO AROUND THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

THE COURT: WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT LATER. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE CAN HANDLE DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR CASE IN CHIEF BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT DO NOT HAVE THAT. THEIR VIEW DOES. YOU CAN ASK THE DETECTIVES WAS THAT THERE AT THE TIME.

MS. LEWIS: THE COURT --

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT TO INSTRUCT. THAT IS THE POINT I'M MAKING.

MS. LEWIS: I WASN'T GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO DO THAT. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BAILIFF TO BREAK THE CODE OF SILENCE FOR THAT ONE PURPOSE.

THE COURT: NO, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. AND IN ANY EVENT, THAT OUTSIDE AROUND THE ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY IS REALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE NOBODY TALKS ABOUT ANYTHING GOING ON THE LAWN THERE.

MS. LEWIS: THE ACCESS TO THE SIDE OF THE WALKWAY OF MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY HOWEVER IS GOING TO BE VIEWED AND WHICH DOES HAVE THAT RESTRICTED ACCESS SOMEWHAT.

THE COURT: IT'S A NON-ISSUE AT THIS POINT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE TALK WITH THE JURORS? . . ."

sounds like ito didn't think what park or could not see was considered a problem by him. hmmmm

[tv]

Martin the one thing it does prove is deception. Just like I commented in my first post....deception at its best.

Taking down a picture of a nude Paula Barbieri would be one thing but to replace it with a picture of Eunice Simpson is another even though I think taking down the picture at all deceives the jury as to how the house looked on the night of the murders. Putting up a picture depicting a historical scene, which wasn't there before, is nothing short of a lie, imo.

[martin II]

The prosecution asked that the jury not be allowed in the trophy room but IIRC that request was shot down. Just relying on memory with that.

Thats funny. The prosecution wanted to pick the rooms the jury could visit.Thats just plain silly. i don't believe they asked for that.

[weezer]

". . .ms. Lewis: There are a few things to resolve i believe, your honor, based on my meeting with mr. Douglas yesterday out at both scenes. It was my understanding with regard to the defendant's trophy room that the court's order was that the jurors be taken through in a straight line from the entrance to the family room, they be allowed to remain there, do a 360 so to speak and continue on, and that was the one perhaps exception to the notion or to the idea that the jurors are allowed to remain in any one location as long as they want basically. I believe mr. Douglas' position yesterday was that he felt they could remain as long as they wanted. That seemed to be a compromise ruling on the court's part, and i wanted to clarify that because you know how strenuously we have objected and did object in chambers i believe on friday to having them view the defendant's trophy room at all because it's a shrine to the defendant, it does have obvious potential of appealing to sympathy and pity for the defendant, which california law says the jurors must not do in evaluating the evidence in a case. So it is our position that trophy room is highly prejudicial to the people. And i respect the court's ruling and i'm not asking the court to reconsider that ruling. I just need a clarification because i believe that was the court's ruling, that they are not to linger in that area.

The court: Mr. Douglas, you want to address that issue?

Mr. Douglas: Your honor, the court had made it clear throughout the entire tour, the jurors will be allowed to walk and to view for as long as they feel appropriate. I did not discern --

the court: Within reason.

Mr. Douglas: Correct. I did not discern any distinction with either location. And miss lewis seems to believe that there is in fact an unspoken understanding that jurors should be pushed through the trophy room, which i did not gather from our conversation in chambers on friday. Certainly, they cannot linger inordinately, but i did not think that there was going to be any specific direction that they be hurried through that portion of the tour.

The court: All right. It was the court's intention in making that ruling that the jurors would not be allowed to go directly into the trophy room. It was my intention that they walk from the kitchen door in a straight line to the french door which leads out to the pool area so that they could then go to kato kaelin's room and see its relationship to arnelle simpson's room. I am not going to place a time limit or require them to be hurried along. However, there's only three relevant things in that room, the family room; the t.v. Setup, the bar setup and the proximity to the trophy room. They are entitled to see the trophy room since mr. Shipp did testify as to the magnetism of that particular room. They are not going to be allowed to go down into it. They are not going to be allowed to take a tour of it. The sheriff's department will allow them to stay there a reasonable amount of time. They will not be forced to march through. They will be allowed to stop, do a 360, look and see what's there. But the bailiffs will be under directions from the court to move them along at a reasonable pace at all locations, not just this location. . ."

[tv]

". . .MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION. THE GREEN CHAIN LINK FENCING THAT IS AROUND ROCKINGHAM, THE JURORS NEED TO BE TOLD AT SOME POINT THAT THAT WAS NOT PRESENT ON JUNE 12TH. AND IF YOU WILL RECALL, IT EXTENDS TO AROUND THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

THE COURT: WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT LATER. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE CAN HANDLE DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR CASE IN CHIEF BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT DO NOT HAVE THAT. THEIR VIEW DOES. YOU CAN ASK THE DETECTIVES WAS THAT THERE AT THE TIME.

MS. LEWIS: THE COURT --

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT TO INSTRUCT. THAT IS THE POINT I'M MAKING.

MS. LEWIS: I WASN'T GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO DO THAT. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BAILIFF TO BREAK THE CODE OF SILENCE FOR THAT ONE PURPOSE.

THE COURT: NO, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. AND IN ANY EVENT, THAT OUTSIDE AROUND THE ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY IS REALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE NOBODY TALKS ABOUT ANYTHING GOING ON THE LAWN THERE.

MS. LEWIS: THE ACCESS TO THE SIDE OF THE WALKWAY OF MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY HOWEVER IS GOING TO BE VIEWED AND WHICH DOES HAVE THAT RESTRICTED ACCESS SOMEWHAT.

THE COURT: IT'S A NON-ISSUE AT THIS POINT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE TALK WITH THE JURORS? . . ."

sounds like ito didn't think what park or could not see was considered a problem by him. hmmmm

The field trip was pointless unless conditions were as close as possible to the conditions of that night. All it did was enhance the defense's case.

[martin II]

". . .ms. Lewis: There are a few things to resolve i believe, your honor, based on my meeting with mr. Douglas yesterday out at both scenes. It was my understanding with regard to the defendant's trophy room that the court's order was that the jurors be taken through in a straight line from the entrance to the family room, they be allowed to remain there, do a 360 so to speak and continue on, and that was the one perhaps exception to the notion or to the idea that the jurors are allowed to remain in any one location as long as they want basically. I believe mr. Douglas' position yesterday was that he felt they could remain as long as they wanted. That seemed to be a compromise ruling on the court's part, and i wanted to clarify that because you know how strenuously we have objected and did object in chambers i believe on friday to having them view the defendant's trophy room at all because it's a shrine to the defendant, it does have obvious potential of appealing to sympathy and pity for the defendant, which california law says the jurors must not do in evaluating the evidence in a case. So it is our position that trophy room is highly prejudicial to the people. And i respect the court's ruling and i'm not asking the court to reconsider that ruling. I just need a clarification because i believe that was the court's ruling, that they are not to linger in that area.

The court: Mr. Douglas, you want to address that issue?

Mr. Douglas: Your honor, the court had made it clear throughout the entire tour, the jurors will be allowed to walk and to view for as long as they feel appropriate. I did not discern --

the court: Within reason.

Mr. Douglas: Correct. I did not discern any distinction with either location. And miss lewis seems to believe that there is in fact an unspoken understanding that jurors should be pushed through the trophy room, which i did not gather from our conversation in chambers on friday. Certainly, they cannot linger inordinately, but i did not think that there was going to be any specific direction that they be hurried through that portion of the tour.

The court: All right. It was the court's intention in making that ruling that the jurors would not be allowed to go directly into the trophy room. It was my intention that they walk from the kitchen door in a straight line to the french door which leads out to the pool area so that they could then go to kato kaelin's room and see its relationship to arnelle simpson's room. I am not going to place a time limit or require them to be hurried along. However, there's only three relevant things in that room, the family room; the t.v. Setup, the bar setup and the proximity to the trophy room. They are entitled to see the trophy room since mr. Shipp did testify as to the magnetism of that particular room. They are not going to be allowed to go down into it. They are not going to be allowed to take a tour of it. The sheriff's department will allow them to stay there a reasonable amount of time. They will not be forced to march through. They will be allowed to stop, do a 360, look and see what's there. But the bailiffs will be under directions from the court to move them along at a reasonable pace at all locations, not just this location. . ."


great ruling.

[tv]

". . .ms. Lewis: There are a few things to resolve i believe, your honor, based on my meeting with mr. Douglas yesterday out at both scenes. It was my understanding with regard to the defendant's trophy room that the court's order was that the jurors be taken through in a straight line from the entrance to the family room, they be allowed to remain there, do a 360 so to speak and continue on, and that was the one perhaps exception to the notion or to the idea that the jurors are allowed to remain in any one location as long as they want basically. I believe mr. Douglas' position yesterday was that he felt they could remain as long as they wanted. That seemed to be a compromise ruling on the court's part, and i wanted to clarify that because you know how strenuously we have objected and did object in chambers i believe on friday to having them view the defendant's trophy room at all because it's a shrine to the defendant, it does have obvious potential of appealing to sympathy and pity for the defendant, which california law says the jurors must not do in evaluating the evidence in a case. So it is our position that trophy room is highly prejudicial to the people. And i respect the court's ruling and i'm not asking the court to reconsider that ruling. I just need a clarification because i believe that was the court's ruling, that they are not to linger in that area.

The court: Mr. Douglas, you want to address that issue?

Mr. Douglas: Your honor, the court had made it clear throughout the entire tour, the jurors will be allowed to walk and to view for as long as they feel appropriate. I did not discern --

the court: Within reason.

Mr. Douglas: Correct. I did not discern any distinction with either location. And miss lewis seems to believe that there is in fact an unspoken understanding that jurors should be pushed through the trophy room, which i did not gather from our conversation in chambers on friday. Certainly, they cannot linger inordinately, but i did not think that there was going to be any specific direction that they be hurried through that portion of the tour.

The court: All right. It was the court's intention in making that ruling that the jurors would not be allowed to go directly into the trophy room. It was my intention that they walk from the kitchen door in a straight line to the french door which leads out to the pool area so that they could then go to kato kaelin's room and see its relationship to arnelle simpson's room. I am not going to place a time limit or require them to be hurried along. However, there's only three relevant things in that room, the family room; the t.v. Setup, the bar setup and the proximity to the trophy room. They are entitled to see the trophy room since mr. Shipp did testify as to the magnetism of that particular room. They are not going to be allowed to go down into it. They are not going to be allowed to take a tour of it. The sheriff's department will allow them to stay there a reasonable amount of time. They will not be forced to march through. They will be allowed to stop, do a 360, look and see what's there. But the bailiffs will be under directions from the court to move them along at a reasonable pace at all locations, not just this location. . ."

Thank you, weezer. I just couldn't remember the details regarding the trophy room. Looks like the jury got to see the it even if they didn't go into it. I'm sure they got a better look at it during the victory party...:punch:

[martin II]

I don't see the problem with the jury seeing the throphy room.

[weezer]

". . .ms. Lewis: The bundy crime scene is not only pristine, it's sterile. Because being a vacant house, the interior having been apparently repainted and so forth because the property is on the market, it is absolutely sterile. And we have that sterile location in contrast to the defendant's home at rockingham which has these various sympathy-inducing photographs throughout the house as well as of course the trophy room we already talked about. So this already sterile and pristine crime scene certainly would not be made any less so by having simply the names of the victims and locations where they were found.

The court: Isn't it equally as stunning for the jury to see a completely vacant home knowing that that had once been the home of a vibrant person and children? I mean isn't that stunning as well?

Ms. Lewis: Well, not unless your honor puts nicole's name somewhere in the house and children. That has a much more subtle effect on a person than to see a fully, you know, embellished house with all the photographs. That's much more effective for that purpose, for generating sympathy than the vacant bundy house is.

The court: The court's purpose in going here is to allow the jurors to see the scene as close to reality as is possible without any interpretation put on it by either party, and i will trust the expertise and experience of trial counsel on both sides to explain to the jury during their presentation of the case to make whatever it is they feel needs to be made clear clearer. However, i would ask that, mr. Goldberg, if you would -- do you have those photographs that we talked about, discussed in chambers?

Mr. Goldberg: I have some of them done right now.

The court: Why don't you bring them with us to the scene in case there's an interpretation issue that arises while we are at the scene. All right. I have a motion from francis pizzulli representing one of the news helicopter organizations. All right. No appearance. The matter is off calendar. Miss ford, you had some comment? . . ."

[martin II]

thank you, weezer. I just couldn't remember the details regarding the trophy room. Looks like the jury got to see the it even if they didn't go into it. I'm sure they got a better look at it during the victory party...:punch:

i think they did go into the room.

[weezer]

". . .the jury: Good morning.

The court: Glad to see that you all dressed comfortably. Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you the purpose of our court session here today. We are going to go out to four locations that are relevant to the facts and issues of this case. The reason we are doing this on a sunday is because of the disruption of traffic in the area that is necessary for us to conduct a court session out in the field. We will have to actually block streets to allow us and you to have a view of these locations without any interference, with any outside influences, and it's easiest to do this on a sunday because of the lesser amount of traffic that's involved and the fewest number of people that we will have to inconvenience. And please understand that we are inconveniencing a number of people. So we need to get through our view of the scenes as expeditiously as possible. We are going to four locations. Our first stop will be at 11663 gorham avenue. And the testimony so far has been that that is the apartment that was occupied by ronald goldman in june of 1994. Our purpose is to allow you to see where it is physically, that that apartment house is located. We will then go to the mezzaluna restaurant at 11750 san vicente boulevard. And the purpose is so you will be able to judge the proximity of mr. Goldman's apartment to the mezzaluna restaurant. At both the gorham address, mr. Goldman's apartment, and at the mezzaluna restaurant, we will stop the bus for approximately one minute. That will give the opportunity for people sitting on opposite besides of the bus to walk over to view the location. However, we will not get out of the bus to look at those locations since the issue is where it's located in relationship to the other locations in the case. Merely to show you the location. We will then go from the mezzaluna restaurant to 875 south bundy. When we get to south bundy, obviously we will have you look at the exterior, where the bodies were found, where some of the blood evidence was found. We will allow you to go into the alleyway there up and back, and you will be escorted by the bailiffs and they will take you along the itinerary we planned on the outside. We will also have a viewing of the interior, the basement, main floor, top floor of where the bedrooms are so you can understand the floor plan that's there. From the bundy scene, we will go to the defendant's residence on rockingham in brentwood. This is to allow you to view the relevant areas, the bedroom, the outside walkway, along the fence, other things that have been or will be testified to during the course of this trial. Please note that we will be in a formal court session the entire time that we are on this trip. And that means that there will be no talking during the course of this trip unless i decide to address you or give you further instructions while we're out in the field. There will be no questions asked. No witnesses will testify. You will be asked not to touch anything that you see along the way. You may take your notebooks with you. However, you will return them to the bailiff at the conclusion of our court session in the field. This is going to be a rather long day. We will be taking probably most of the day. You should expect some delay when we get to each of the locations, and let me tell you why. When we get to the bundy address and rockingham address, i need to accompany the attorneys to take one last walk through our planned tour to make sure that we all agree as to what it is we will be showing to you. So that will probably take us about 10 or 15 minutes to do before we actually get started with bringing you off the bus. We will also, because of the small areas that are involved in this tour, break you up into groups of four and five that i randomly selected to take you through. Keep in mind when you view each of these locations that we are now eight months to the day from june the 12th, 1994 and obviously there are some changes that have occurred giving the passage of time, and you should keep that in mind. Now, i want to warn you of one particular thing. I have been advised by persons already out at the scenes that there may be some attempt by persons in the public to communicate with you, to express their opinions to you, to somehow try to influence you on this case. We are -- the court is in a very difficult position. We will be in a formal court session. And obviously if we were in the courtroom and somebody tried to communicate to you either verbally or by signs or by gestures, that person would be removed from the courtroom and i would admonish you to ignore whatever it is they said or done. The problem is, we will be out -- literally out in brentwood. We cannot interfere with individual persons' right to write whatever they want on placards or banners. If they're on their own property, obviously they're entitled to do what they want to do. A man or woman's house is their castle and the court cannot interfere with that unless that person deliberately tries to disrupt our court proceeding. I am ordering you now to ignore any attempt to communicate anything to you while we are out in the field. And i'm sure you understand the difficulty we have in doing this. But if you see something like that, bring it to the attention of the bailiff and so that i can take whatever remedial measures are appropriate. And then please remember that i am ordering you as part of our standard admonition not to allow anybody to attempt to communicate with you as to any of the facts and circumstances of this case. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now adjourn to the transportation buses and we will next see you at the bundy location. All right. Madam clerk, would you please swear the bailiff. . ."

[weezer]

". . .the court: We're at the simpson residence, 360 north rockingham avenue, city of los angeles, to conduct a scene view. We have just finished with the attorneys doing a walk through and placing the signs on the various rooms pointing out for the jury the various locations. And, miss clark, you had some objections you wanted to make?

Ms. Clark: Yes, your honor. If the point is to have the jury see the house as it was at the relevant time, then we are not going to see that. All of the photos on the walls have changed. The photograph in the foyer of the defendant and paula barbieri was not there at all. The master bathroom has a little poster from the children that was not there at the time. The photographs that are on his bedroom nightstand were not there at the time. There's a large framed picture that is not a photograph, a picture that was not there at the time at the top of the staircase. And additionally, fireplaces being lit -- fires being lit in the fireplaces, which i thought the court had expressly instructed the defense not to do, i would ask those be extinguished. They're not representative. I would ask that the photographs -- the correct ones are not present -- that the photographs be removed and that the poster on the master bathroom door be removed. May i have a moment, your honor?

(discussion held off the record between the deputy district attorneys.)

ms. Clark: I would like to also renew our objection to the tour of the house. There is no relevance to it. The only relevant interior portion that we will have in testimony is kato's room, and the interior of the defendant's house is irrelevant to any issue in this case. There was no issue --

the court: So you are going -- are the people by that argument not going to offer the socks, are not going to offer the blood drops inside the residence? If you are withdrawing that evidence, then i'll strike the scene view.

Ms. Clark: I don't understand why photographs of the socks found at the foot of the bed in the master bedroom need to be supported by an on-scene viewing by the jury, why photographs cannot adequately depict what you are attempting to show. There's only one small aspect of testimony that even goes to it. We have photographs that accurately document it. There's no distortion of those photographs. There's nothing that the jury can gain in terms of understanding that testimony better by seeing that bedroom. The bedroom itself totally -- the photographs are totally representative of what was seen there and the position in which the socks were found is fully represented by photographs. They gain nothing by walking into the bedroom. The same thing with the drops in the foyer. We have photographs that accurately depict it. The reason we needed the view at bundy, as the court can see very well, is the whole area in which ron goldman was found was very small that you couldn't appreciate in the photographs. The photographs were therefore not sufficiently representative of the scene, unlike here. Photographs that the court has referred to accurately depict everything. There's nothing to be gained by the jury going inside except for what the defense wants to do, which is twist them to see how wonderful this defendant lived. This is a sympathy play on their part. That's all it is. There's no evidentiary value to it, nothing that the photographs don't depict.

The court: Mr. Cochran. I am concerned with some of the photographs.

Mr. Cochran: First, i would like to say one thing. As to the photographs, mr. Douglas is in charge of that.

The court: You have to keep your voice up.

Mr. Cochran: I don't want to respond to her argument. I just want to say, we just came from bundy. We had no objections. This is preposterous. As to the court's specific concern, mr. Douglas will respond, as to the photographs.

The court: Mr. Douglas. . ."

[weezer]

". . .mr. Douglas: Your honor, mr. Simpson tells me that the poster on the bathroom door has always been there. I was not here on june the 13th. So i am unable to adequately respond specifically to what pictures were up and where they were. I don't know for a fact. I think that it's very important that the jury be able to see the family room area for issues that we dealt with on friday. Certainly there were arguments and objections similar to those that are being raised now lodged at that point. The court considered both arguments of counsel and the court ruled that the jury view was appropriate. I still think the jury view is appropriate. If in fact there are specific pictures to which there may be some objection, i will leave it to the court's discretion. You will have to ask for specific --

ms. Clark: Your honor, i was here on the 13th and i know --

mr. Cochran: I would not ask miss clark to tell you anything. Gigi, the housekeeper, she would be the one to tell you. I have no objection to your honor talking to her.

The court: All right. I am also concerned about the fire in the fireplace. Hey, nice homey touch, but not necessary today.

Mr. Cochran: I have no problem, your honor. They can be extinguished.

Ms. Clark: Your honor, i really want to renew this objection. The fact that the jurors would like to see kato kaelin's room, that makes a lot of sense. There's testimony as to that. There's an issue as to that. The south walkway, i think there are issues to what can be seen from there. That can be adequately depicted in photographs. But to go into the defendant's house is totally unnecessary. It has no evidentiary value to any testimony that we are going to be taking in the case. There is nothing in contention. The defense is not going to be telling the jury we didn't find the socks in the bedroom. That's not going to be an issue. And the photographs depicted completely inside the house have no evidentiary value in this case, your honor.

The court: Let me ask the housekeeper. Can you tell me with some accuracy what photographs have been placed in the residence since mr. Simpson's arrest?

The housekeeper: What photograph?

The court: Which photographs have been -- were placed in the residence after mr. Simpson's arrest; for example, the ones by his bed?

The housekeeper: There's some picture already on his bed before, you know. There is picture there on his bed.

The court: Do you know what the pictures were?

The housekeeper: Just add his mother picture there.

The court: That's the only one that's been added?

The housekeeper: Yes. And his mother picture, the one in the back.

The court: Okay. No other pictures have been added to the bedroom?

The housekeeper: No.

Ms. Clark: Your honor, why don't we have the detective who is here --

mr. Cochran: The housekeeper would know. Gigi is not going to misrepresent anything.

Ms. Clark: You are asking her for specific memory of specific things she wouldn't necessarily pay attention to. She's not a detective. She's a housekeeper.

The court: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Clark: I'm talking about the walls as well.

The court: Thank you. I understand that. I'm going to direct that the picture of the defendant and his mother be removed during the course of the jury view. I am going to direct that the fires be extinguished. I'm going to instruct the jurors to ignore any photographs that they see. Anything else before we get started?

Ms. Clark: The people's objection stands.

The court: Noted. . ."

[weezer]

". . .mr. Darden: What about the statute?

The court: The statue is now where it was. It's out of the garage.

(the following proceedings were held on the bus, in the presence of the jury:)

the court: We're on the record in the bus with the jurors and the alternate jurors. Can everyone hear me? All right. When we go into the residence, there are certain photographs on walls and places by the beds and things. You are to disregard, ignore anything you see in the photographs that are inside the residence. The reason for that is, we don't know when those photographs were there. We don't know if it accurately depicts what was there on june the 12th, and it may have content that's completely irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of this case. You are to ignore any of the photographs that you see in the residence. All right. Okay. We have a few logistical things we need to take care of. So unfortunately, you will be here a little bit more. But i hope the lunch is okay, the bus is okay.

(the following proceedings were held at 360 north rockingham avenue, los angeles, out of the presence of the jury:)

the court: Back on the record at the simpson residence. Miss clark, you had something you wanted to mention for the record?

Ms. Clark: Yes, your honor. I was informed by mr. Gordon that he -- directly after the court issued its admonition not to look at the photographs and not to consider them, mr. Gordon accompanied a group of jurors on tour through the house and juror number i believe it was 620 he indicated to me studied each and every photograph very carefully in direct violation of the court's orders. I would ask for permission from the court to have mr. Gordon address the issue of his observations directly if he may.

The court: Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Gordon: Judge, i was noticing both down in the foyer before going up the hallway, the juror was studying the photographs on the wall as we went up and then within the master bedroom itself.

Mr. Cochran: May i indicate something? I was in that group and i saw no. 602 look at some photographs too. But i thought the admonition was not to pay any attention to them, treat them as though they weren't there. I don't think -- i thought by the court's curative admonition -- i'm sure every lawyer that went with one of the groups saw some jurors looking at the walls. The question is -- the court had already told them to disregard them, that they're not part of the evidence. So that's my response. I saw 602 seemed very quizzitive looking at pictures downstairs and on the way up on the wall. I didn't make a big thing of it because you told them to disregard that staff.

Ms. Clark: I think that when a juror makes a deliberate effort to pay very close attention to an item that the court has told them to disregard, it sounds to me like a direct violation of the court's admonition. Mr. Gordon informed me he seemed to study each and every photograph very carefully. I mean right after he got the admonition, he walked in the foyer and immediately started staring at the pictures in the foyer, walked upstairs and stared at each and every picture up the stairs and in the bedroom. It's one thing to glance because it's hard to miss. But it's another to stare as mr. Gordon indicated he saw this juror, correct? Is that correct?

Mr. Gordon: That's correct. And that's the reason i brought it to miss clark's attention. It wasn't just someone looking in passing. It was someone taking the effort to, before he went up the stairs, to look at each one, and then as we went up, look at each one, and within the bedroom, go around each side, each end table, study the photographs that were on the end tables.

Mr. Cochran: As i said, i was not in that group. Mr. Shapiro was. I went on the first two groups, and i saw jurors looking at the walls but didn't -- was of no moment because i was on the bus when you told them to disregard it, whatever. Like everything else, when you strike something, we assume they will in good faith. I see this as no moment. The court made it very clear.

The court: Does anyone else have any observations they would like to make?

Mr. Cochran: I would like to say something from our standpoint. I would like to compliment the sheriff's department and the lapd and the court staff for putting this together in record time. And from my standpoint, everything went very smoothly and someone deserves a lot of credit for that. I thought i would say that for the record.

The court: All right. Anything else? Then, counsel, if there are no objections, i am going to take one counsel from each party to come on the bus with the court reporter. I'm going to excuse the jurors and admonish them and order them to reconvene on tuesday morning. All right. Then after i accomplish that, counsel will be excused and the court staff will return to the courthouse.

(the following proceedings were held in the bus, in the presence of the jury:)

the court: We're back on the record with the jury in the bus. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to excuse the jury for the day. We are not going to go back in session at the courthouse. Please remember my admonition to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions, conduct any deliberations on the case, don't allow anybody to talk to you about the case. So far, things have gone pretty smoothly according to public opinion. So far, we've been lucky, although we're not home. So please, if you see anything, again, bring it to the attention of the bailiff. Also, you will have a visitation tonight. As you know, monday is a court holiday. See you back in session on tuesday. All right. Have a nice weekend. . ."

[tv]

Thanks, weezer. The deck was stacked against the prosecution when it came to the tour of Rockingham. Imo, the jury was already star-struck and this just added to that especially with the defense enhancements of Simpson's house -- the phony pictures, the lit fireplace and the fresh flowers.

[martin II]

". . .MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION. THE GREEN CHAIN LINK FENCING THAT IS AROUND ROCKINGHAM, THE JURORS NEED TO BE TOLD AT SOME POINT THAT THAT WAS NOT PRESENT ON JUNE 12TH. AND IF YOU WILL RECALL, IT EXTENDS TO AROUND THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

THE COURT: WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT LATER. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE CAN HANDLE DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR CASE IN CHIEF BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT DO NOT HAVE THAT. THEIR VIEW DOES. YOU CAN ASK THE DETECTIVES WAS THAT THERE AT THE TIME.

MS. LEWIS: THE COURT --

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT TO INSTRUCT. THAT IS THE POINT I'M MAKING.

MS. LEWIS: I WASN'T GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO DO THAT. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BAILIFF TO BREAK THE CODE OF SILENCE FOR THAT ONE PURPOSE.

THE COURT: NO, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. AND IN ANY EVENT, THAT OUTSIDE AROUND THE ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY IS REALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE NOBODY TALKS ABOUT ANYTHING GOING ON THE LAWN THERE.

MS. LEWIS: THE ACCESS TO THE SIDE OF THE WALKWAY OF MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY HOWEVER IS GOING TO BE VIEWED AND WHICH DOES HAVE THAT RESTRICTED ACCESS SOMEWHAT.

THE COURT: IT'S A NON-ISSUE AT THIS POINT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE TALK WITH THE JURORS? . . ."

sounds like ito didn't think what park or could not see was considered a problem by him. hmmmm

It was for the jury to decide what park could and could see. not ito.

[GreenIce]

The fine should have been more than that. It was chicken feed for the offense.

To compare how the prosecution fared with less serious offenses, on July 20, 1995, M. Clark was a few minutes late. She appologized, and explained why. Ito fined her $250.00. Marcia replied:"Excuse me your honor, my I remind you that Shapiro kept the court waiting 20 minues ... when it was his witness on the stand - and suffered no consequences?". Ito replied "Thank you, then fine will be $1,000". Ito later lowered it back to $250.

The funny part is that pro defense people sometimes talk and write about how Ito favored the DAs.

fgump2,

Please remember that MC was late on several times and it was a pattern. Granted, it had to do with child care issues, however, she is the same woman who declared in court papers she needed more money from her soon to ex because she needed to have new clothes because she was on TV.

Judge Ito also leveled fines for attorneys talking to loud and other conduct he felt was disrespectful to the court. I am sure you remember the famous standoff between Ito and Darden.

No doubt lawyers from both sides acted like children and they paid for it. However, it is significant to understand why Ito lowered the fines.

Mr. Douglas did fall in his sword and it should have been Shapiro, however, he did man up. Clark and Darden never manned up to anything. Rock Harmon was cited several times because he went after defense witnesses' private lives and was threatening them. MC told one defense witness she was going to go after his personal life and tell a story about him having an affair with a student like 20 years ago if dared to take the stand for the defense.

I suppose that is okay in your book? Look at what Darden did the dog walker and Lopez? He did what he said he was going to do, he was going to mop the floor with Lopez's blood. In his book, he claimed he was happy about having to do it. How hard is it to mop the floor with an uneducated immigrant? Darden got two bites of the apple on this one.

And when it comes to discovery, the DA's always had Ito to cover for them. Please explain why the defense got 1000 of pages of discovery after the criminal trial?

[weezer]

Thanks, weezer. The deck was stacked against the prosecution when it came to the tour of Rockingham. Imo, the jury was already star-struck and this just added to that especially with the defense enhancements of the Simpson's house -- the phony pictures, the lit fireplace and the fresh flowers.

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone decided what Park could or could not see since his testimony was about what lights he could or could not see. and if there was a green fence around the perimeter, I need someone to explain to me how the criminal jury was able to decide that Park couldn't have seen from where the limo was parked. :shrug:

[GreenIce]

It was for the jury to decide what park could and could see. not ito.

Martin,

That is one thing I wish the jurors who gave interviews would have talked about. That was there visit to where the glove was found. The saw how narrow it was, they knew that no one could have jumped that fence and left nothing but a glove.

I find it interesting never ever did the DA's in their case in Chief ever give a theory on how the glove got back. They did not refute Dr. Lee's testimony that no one jumped that fence.

It was only in Clark's closing when she has Simpson walking into that area and then walking out. But I am sure she did not want to linger on it because she had no evidence to support it.

[tv]

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone decided what Park could or could not see since his testimony was about what lights he could or could not see. and if there was a green fence around the perimeter, I need someone to explain to me how the criminal jury was able to decide that Park couldn't have seen from where the limo was parked. :shrug:

They weren't. The whole trip to Rockingham was pure propaganda.

[martin II]

IJM
Not allowing the jury to see the throphy room is not deception.RIGHT? OR IS IT?:cool:

[martin II]

They weren't. The whole trip to Rockingham was pure propaganda.

tHE JURY AND JUDGE DIDN'T THINK SO.

[rovaan]

and no other media picked that up? really? well, I don't want to say that your claim to an article that doesn't exist is BS but. . . .:seeya:

BTW, if you go to newslibrary.com, search on Rosey Grier OJ , you will see a listing for the article I was talking about. On my search it is Number 5, Westside Today, April 29, 2005. You can purchase the article. I did. What I posted earlier was in the article. OJ did not confess to Rosey Grier.

[weezer]

interesting -- http://walraven.org/simpson/kennedy.html

". . .MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. We--I think maybe it was last Thursday, which would be Thursday, March 2nd, I received a call in my office from a juror who identified herself as "TT", I believe one of our former jurors. She said she had information regarding two of the jurors. I think it's 602 . . ."

I'm looking to see who juror 602 was. . . .

[weezer]

BTW, if you go to newslibrary.com, search on Rosey Grier OJ , you will see a listing for the article I was talking about. On my search it is Number 5, Westside Today, April 29, 2005. You can purchase the article. I did. What I posted earlier was in the article. OJ did not confess to Rosey Grier.

sorry but I have no desire to 'purchase' an article to prove your post.

[martin II]

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone decided what Park could or could not see since his testimony was about what lights he could or could not see. and if there was a green fence around the perimeter, I need someone to explain to me how the criminal jury was able to decide that Park couldn't have seen from where the limo was parked. :shrug:

The ashford gate area had not moved. when oj was released the house and property was the same on 6/12. There is a video to prove this that oj did.The green fence must have been on the sallingers side of the walkway. not around ojs property. The video of the rockingham gate and the walkway proves there was no gree fence arould ojs property.

[martin II]

sorry but I have no desire to 'purchase' an article to prove your post.

Her post has already been proven. You don;t have to do anything.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

That is one thing I wish the jurors who gave interviews would have talked about. That was there visit to where the glove was found. The saw how narrow it was, they knew that no one could have jumped that fence and left nothing but a glove.

I find it interesting never ever did the DA's in their case in Chief ever give a theory on how the glove got back. They did not refute Dr. Lee's testimony that no one jumped that fence.

It was only in Clark's closing when she has Simpson walking into that area and then walking out. But I am sure she did not want to linger on it because she had no evidence to support it.


i see clarke changed her story that oj jumped the fence and banged his head against the airconditioner three times. good for her.

[rovaan]

sorry but I have no desire to 'purchase' an article to prove your post.

I am not surprised. However, you will never know which people reading this board did go and purchase the article. And you won't know which people will know that its total BS if and when the "OJ confessed to Rosey Grier" surfaces again. Carry on.

[GreenIce]

i think they did go into the room.

Martin,

I wonder what route the jurors took into the main house? What door they entered and I wonder if any of them were looking to see which door was used.

IMO, the jurors had to go into the house because they needed to see what the witnesses really could see or not see or hear or not hear.

We know Park was mistaken about a few things, however, it is clear that he truly believed he saw what he saw. I don't see how you can argue that. I really don't.

Now if he changed it for the civil trial, well that is a bit different. IMO.

[Its just me]

Rosie is quoted in the article what he told ito. ito heasring that knew the guard lied.

Rosie is a man of god. He told the truth and ITO believed him.

Seriously I mean NO disrespect to Rosie....I admire him tremendously for even mentioning God. Many have no desire to hear about God much less tell about Him...I don't personally know Rosie so I can't put full faith in what he has stated.......because it's a fact many claiming to be men/women of God have lied big time. Following God DOES NOT make one perfect....only a desire to grow in perfection.

IMHOO It's still one man's word against another man's. The circumstances surrounding the situation continues to make be have more confidence in the deputy/guard's statement.

[weezer]

Seriously I mean NO disrespect to Rosie....I admire him tremendously for even mentioning God. Many have no desire to hear about God much less tell about Him...I don't personally know Rosie so I can't put full faith in what he has stated.......because it's a fact many claiming to be men/women of God have lied big time. Following God DOES NOT make one perfect....only a desire to grow in perfection.

IMHOO It's still one man's word against another man's. The circumstances surrounding the situation continues to make be have more confidence in the deputy/guard's statement.

before I accept an anonymous post of an article that there is no link that it even existed, I will continue to accept as truth what Rosie testified to in court. That testimony did not include anything about the guard not hearing what he said he heard and it did not include a denial that orenthal confessed.

[weezer]

"Former O. J. Simpson juror dead in apparent murder suicide
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 10:15 AM CDT
Updated: Jun 27, 2008 4:42 PM CDT

A Hattiesburg man who was once a juror in the O.J. Simpson murder trial and later wrote a book about his experience is dead, along with his wife in an apparent murder-suicide.

Hattiesburg police were called to the 100 block of Hillendale Drive about midnight Wednesday after family members were unable to contact 67-year-old Judith Kennedy.

Police found Kennedy and her 65-year-old husband Tracy dead inside the house. The Kennedy's died of gunshot wounds, authorities said. There are reports two handguns were found near the bodies. It is not known how long the pair had been dead. It is also not known how long the Kennedy's had lived in Hattiesburg after retiring and moving south from California.

Tracy Kennedy was juror number 602 in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. According to court information, at the time he was a high school teacher. He was dismissed from the jury after apparently lying about having juror information on his notebook computer.

Kennedy and his wife later co-authored a book called " The Mistrial of the Century." According to reviews, the book was not so much about Simpson or the trial but the effects on Kennedy of being sequestered for so long during the trial, which lead to a suicide attempt on his part.

Police are officially calling it a double death investigation. However, 7 ON YOUR SIDE has learned that Ms. Kennedy recently filed for divorce."

http://www.wdam.com/Global/story.asp?S=8558908

[martin II]

Are you suggesting that it was strange that oj had a bible in his house? Almost everyone has a Bible.

[martin II]

Ha....You call it a hit on OJ....I call it a reasonable question to wonder about. Like I said maybe I'm the strange one....and maybe I'm just extra close to my family. :shrug:

OJ building a house for his daughter on his property indicates that he wanted her close to him and gave her the privacy she wanted. The bedrooms up stairs was reserved for his kids.

[weezer]

I am not surprised. However, you will never know which people reading this board did go and purchase the article. And you won't know which people will know that its total BS if and when the "OJ confessed to Rosey Grier" surfaces again. Carry on.

you may very well be right. have you never wondered why Reverend Grier wasn't out shouting from the rooftops that the guard was lying and that the incident never happened? I mean, he was/is a man of principle and highly thought of. His statements would carry a lot of weight with a lot of people. Or maybe you've wondered why the criminal defense didn't deny that the guard heard 'something' but fought the jury hearing the guard's statement hiding behind the clergy's cloth? Nope. For me, this smacks of the same slimey manuever cockran pulled with kardashian's law license. ;)

[martin II]

before I accept an anonymous post of an article that there is no link that it even existed, I will continue to accept as truth what Rosie testified to in court. That testimony did not include anything about the guard not hearing what he said he heard and it did not include a denial that orenthal confessed.

Believe me. the post was made to bring truth to the discussion. not to prove anything to any one poster. So the fact that you have a problem changes nothing. The truth has been told and truth seekers understand that.imo

[GreenIce]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

The JUDGE decides what goes before the jury.It is not autamatic based on a guards claim of something otherwise anyone making a claim can have their claiim interjected into the case as evidence.
Under what basis in law would the guards claim cause his claim to go before the jury.???????????

Remember how the civil judge would not allow the defence to argue certain issues because he didn't like the issues.

Martin,

IMO, he was there as Rev. Grier. That guard knows the law regarding this. Judge Ito did go to the jail and did his own little investigation. However, the bottomline is that this was priviledged communication.

Also, how much money do you think was made by the guard on this?

[GreenIce]

OJ building a house for his daughter on his property indicates that he wanted her close to him and gave her the privacy she wanted. The bedrooms up stairs was reserved for his kids.

Martin,

Don't forget, Vanatter outright lied when he said that Rockingham was not Arnelle's primary residence. That she just happened to be there that night.

Arnelle testified why the guest houses were built in the back. They were for Jason and Arnelle because Sydney and Justin had their old rooms because of the their age.

[weezer]

". . .It not only has his-and-hers sunken bathtubs, a tennis court, swimming pool with rock slide and cave, three basketball hoops and a temperature-controlled wine storage room. It also has a guest house where an air conditioner once went bump in the night and a family room with an eerily empty built-in glass case that once housed O. J. Simpson's Heisman Trophy. . ."

orenthal must be thinking that little sterile box he lives in is just something awful. :chicken:

[weezer]

". . .It not only has his-and-hers sunken bathtubs, a tennis court, swimming pool with rock slide and cave, three basketball hoops and a temperature-controlled wine storage room. It also has a guest house where an air conditioner once went bump in the night and a family room with an eerily empty built-in glass case that once housed O. J. Simpson's Heisman Trophy. . ."

orenthal must be thinking that little sterile box he lives in is just something awful. :chicken:

or maybe not!

". . .The new owner, an unnamed investment banker who bought the property for nearly $4 million, plans to build a new house in its place. He was recently quoted as saying that the house needed so many improvements that it was cheaper to demolish and rebuild. . ." :chicken:

[rovaan]

you may very well be right. have you never wondered why Reverend Grier wasn't out shouting from the rooftops that the guard was lying and that the incident never happened? I mean, he was/is a man of principle and highly thought of. His statements would carry a lot of weight with a lot of people. Or maybe you've wondered why the criminal defense didn't deny that the guard heard 'something' but fought the jury hearing the guard's statement hiding behind the clergy's cloth? Nope. For me, this smacks of the same slimey manuever cockran pulled with kardashian's law license. ;)

I see Reverand Grier as a man of integrity who had an important choice to make in this trial. Protecting the confidentially of the clergy took precedence over the need to clear the suspicion thrown on OJ. I think he made the right choice.

If a person applies some serious thought to this, it may be that the truth is in both the guard's statement and Grier's out right statement that OJ did not confess. In order to see this, you would have to put yourself in the place of someone who did NOT commit these crimes. He is locked up in jail and faced with evidence that seems to indicate that he did do the crimes. He experiences depression which would be expected. In his depression, he starts to wonder if maybe he did do this and has blocked the memory. In talking to Grier, he loudly expresses something like "I hear all this evidence, so I think I did it, I killed Nicole", which the guard hears. Grier quickly lets him know that it is the devil attacking him and he needs to be strong. Grier clearly understands that this is not a person confessing but a person that is depressed by the battle he faces to clear his name. I think this is the more likely scenario.

[Its just me]

Are you suggesting that it was strange that oj had a bible in his house? Almost everyone has a Bible.

I hope they not only have one but they read it. If what I read is true and the Bible was placed at the residence as part of the staging it' not only strange but very wrong.

[Its just me]

Martin,

Don't forget, Vanatter outright lied when he said that Rockingham was not Arnelle's primary residence. That she just happened to be there that night.

Arnelle testified why the guest houses were built in the back. They were for Jason and Arnelle because Sydney and Justin had their old rooms because of the their age.

So are you suggesting the big house didn't have the 7 bedrooms and 7 baths as an article I read stated. Seriously I don't know. LOL Maybe it's no larger than some I'm very familiar with.

[Hotwater]

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


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

eta: Race in the case discussion is closed. Warnings have been sent via pm.

[weezer]

I see Reverand Grier as a man of integrity who had an important choice to make in this trial. Protecting the confidentially of the clergy took precedence over the need to clear the suspicion thrown on OJ. I think he made the right choice.

If a person applies some serious thought to this, it may be that the truth is in both the guard's statement and Grier's out right statement that OJ did not confess. In order to see this, you would have to put yourself in the place of someone who did NOT commit these crimes. He is locked up in jail and faced with evidence that seems to indicate that he did do the crimes. He experiences depression which would be expected. In his depression, he starts to wonder if maybe he did do this and has blocked the memory. In talking to Grier, he loudly expresses something like "I hear all this evidence, so I think I did it, I killed Nicole", which the guard hears. Grier quickly lets him know that it is the devil attacking him and he needs to be strong. Grier clearly understands that this is not a person confessing but a person that is depressed by the battle he faces to clear his name. I think this is the more likely scenario.

I understand that your scenario seems likely to you. I personally believe that as a man of God, Reverend Grier should have stood on the side of 'right.' I believe that he did when he testified in court. He didn't testify that the guard was lying. He didn't even testify that the guard misunderstood. And he didn't testify that orenthal didn't say what the guard heard. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

[Its just me]

"Former O. J. Simpson juror dead in apparent murder suicide
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 10:15 AM CDT
Updated: Jun 27, 2008 4:42 PM CDT

A Hattiesburg man who was once a juror in the O.J. Simpson murder trial and later wrote a book about his experience is dead, along with his wife in an apparent murder-suicide.

Hattiesburg police were called to the 100 block of Hillendale Drive about midnight Wednesday after family members were unable to contact 67-year-old Judith Kennedy.

Police found Kennedy and her 65-year-old husband Tracy dead inside the house. The Kennedy's died of gunshot wounds, authorities said. There are reports two handguns were found near the bodies. It is not known how long the pair had been dead. It is also not known how long the Kennedy's had lived in Hattiesburg after retiring and moving south from California.

Tracy Kennedy was juror number 602 in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. According to court information, at the time he was a high school teacher. He was dismissed from the jury after apparently lying about having juror information on his notebook computer.

Kennedy and his wife later co-authored a book called " The Mistrial of the Century." According to reviews, the book was not so much about Simpson or the trial but the effects on Kennedy of being sequestered for so long during the trial, which lead to a suicide attempt on his part.

Police are officially calling it a double death investigation. However, 7 ON YOUR SIDE has learned that Ms. Kennedy recently filed for divorce."

http://www.wdam.com/Global/story.asp?S=8558908

:rose: very sad.

[rovaan]

I understand that your scenario seems likely to you. I personally believe that as a man of God, Reverend Grier should have stood on the side of 'right.' I believe that he did when he testified in court. He didn't testify that the guard was lying. He didn't even testify that the guard misunderstood. And he didn't testify that orenthal didn't say what the guard heard. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

Privileged communication means you can't say anything about the communication, either for or against. So in order to keep everything confidential, he said nothing about what was said. I wouldn't read anything into what he did not say.

[Its just me]

Martin,

IMO, he was there as Rev. Grier. That guard knows the law regarding this. Judge Ito did go to the jail and did his own little investigation. However, the bottomline is that this was priviledged communication.

Also, how much money do you think was made by the guard on this?

I have tried my best to think of someone who would have paid the guard to tell a lie. I can't. Who do you think would do such a thing. The real killer maybe. :shrug:

[weezer]

Privileged communication means you can't say anything about the communication, either for or against. So in order to keep everything confidential, he said nothing about what was said. I wouldn't read anything into what he did not say.

hmmmm -- let me think this through -- my preacher sits quietly while I'm being tried for a double murder -- he knows that someone is bearing false witness against me but doesn't say anything in my defense. Yah -- noooo. There's something very wrong with that picture and it has nothing to do with 'privileged communication.'

[Hotwater]

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


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

eta: Race in the case discussion is closed. Warnings have been sent via pm.

[GreenIce]

Privileged communication means you can't say anything about the communication, either for or against. So in order to keep everything confidential, he said nothing about what was said. I wouldn't read anything into what he did not say.

Rovaan,

You got it!!!!! What I find appalling is that this clearly was a priviledge communication. The guard knew why he was there and he never should have said a word. It made him and the City of LA look really, really, bad. IMO.

[GreenIce]

So are you suggesting the big house didn't have the 7 bedrooms and 7 baths as an article I read stated. Seriously I don't know. LOL Maybe it's no larger than some I'm very familiar with.

IJM,

Obviously, because of the age difference, perhaps Mr. Simpson also took their privacy into account. I believe there is over 15 year between his children from his first marriage vs his children from his second marriage.

[Its just me]

hmmmm -- let me think this through -- my preacher sits quietly while I'm being tried for a double murder -- he knows that someone is bearing false witness against me but doesn't say anything in my defense. Yah -- noooo. There's something very wrong with that picture and it has nothing to do with 'privileged communication.'

RG's silence is why I believe the guard was telling the truth. Sometimes silence can speak louder than words...this is one of those times IMHOO.

[GreenIce]

I have tried my best to think of someone who would have paid the guard to tell a lie. I can't. Who do you think would do such a thing. The real killer maybe. :shrug:

IJM,

Checkbook journalism was in full force before the Simpson trial. Who would pay to buy a topless photo of Nicole and Marcia Clark? You may ask the Goldmans and the Browns who paid for their pictures at their loved one's gravesites. I am sure they still remember who they were.

[weezer]

RG's silence is why I believe the guard was telling the truth. Sometimes silence can speak louder than words...this is one of those times IMHOO.

we share that thought and opinion. :patriot:

[GreenIce]

:rose: very sad.

And what is the purpose of this news? What does this have to do with the Simpson case?

I don't see the point of this. I really don't.

[Its just me]

IJM,

Obviously, because of the age difference, perhaps Mr. Simpson also took their privacy into account. I believe there is over 15 year between his children from his first marriage vs his children from his second marriage.

I can understand the age difference and the younger children needing to be the ones in the main house. Personally I think it to be strange but maybe one would have to know how close my family is to understand why.....and when I brought this up I was not taking a jab at OJ as Martin suggested. It was just something I have always wondered about (from the beginning) and had never seen it discussed here or have I read any explaination. I appreciate your input.

[weezer]

I can understand the age difference and the younger children needing to be the ones in the main house. Personally I think it to be strange but maybe one would have to know how close my family is to understand why.....and when I brought this up I was not taking a jab at OJ as Martin suggested. It was just something I have always wondered about (from the beginning) and had never seen it discussed here or have I read any explaination. I appreciate your input.

I remember arnelle testifying that she moved back after Nicole moved out and that she was suppose to pay rent (some minimal amount like $100 a month). It may have been nothing more than two adults claiming space for their own privacy. In his deposition, Jason said that arnelle had two of the three rooms and that one of the rooms was his when he lived at home. I've had teenagers and grown children who have moved back home -- trust me -- a room out back does not sound so awful to me. :D

[Its just me]

And what is the purpose of this news? What does this have to do with the Simpson case?

I don't see the point of this. I really don't.

I replied to a post about a person who was setted on the OJ jury who along with their spouse are now dead. The death of anyone is very sad to me. I'm sure as time goes by there will be more deaths of the people on the jury and it will just as sad to me if I hear about it. Sorry you have a problem with that. I really am.

[rovaan]

hmmmm -- let me think this through -- my preacher sits quietly while I'm being tried for a double murder -- he knows that someone is bearing false witness against me but doesn't say anything in my defense. Yah -- noooo. There's something very wrong with that picture and it has nothing to do with 'privileged communication.'

In my scenario, what could Grier say without disclosing privileged information? Could he say, "The guard only heard part of what was said.?" The defense would not want information that OJ sometimes got depressed and wondered "could he have done it?" out to the media or court. In California law, OJ would have the ability to assert the privilege over his communication with Grier. To remain silent and claim privilege was best in this situation.

[weezer]

I replied to a post about a person who was setted on the OJ jury who along with their spouse are now dead. The death of anyone is very sad to me. I'm sure as time goes by there will be more deaths of the people on the jury and it will just as sad to me if I hear about it. Sorry you have a problem with that. I really am.

I posted it as a natural progression of the story about juror 602 who in the first posts of the visit to rockingham was the juror complained about and then later in the trial was the one kicked off of the jury. I posted that I was going to try to find out who the juror was and I did. No one should have taken it as anything more than information about a juror. And IJM, you're right -- it is sad.

[Its just me]

I remember arnelle testifying that she moved back after Nicole moved out and that she was suppose to pay rent (some minimal amount like $100 a month). It may have been nothing more than two adults claiming space for their own privacy. In his deposition, Jason said that arnelle had two of the three rooms and that one of the rooms was his when he lived at home. I've had teenagers and grown children who have moved back home -- trust me -- a room out back does not sound so awful to me. :D

:D
OH Goodness, I hope I don't have to find out the hard way. Mine are 3 hours away and I think I'd love for the whole bunch to move in with me. The old ones, middle ones and young ones all under the same roof. LOL Thanks for the heads up….. it may not be too easy to move 'em out once they moved in and it becomes a nightmare. :beer:

[GreenIce]

I can understand the age difference and the younger children needing to be the ones in the main house. Personally I think it to be strange but maybe one would have to know how close my family is to understand why.....and when I brought this up I was not taking a jab at OJ as Martin suggested. It was just something I have always wondered about (from the beginning) and had never seen it discussed here or have I read any explaination. I appreciate your input.

IJM,

I understand your feelings completely. My son will not be allowed to attend any University that does not have a parent dorm. So far, he is seriously bumming because every college he is looking at, they all have them. They are called apartments!!!! He is seriously thinking about going overseas. However, I have yet to tell them they have apartments in Europe too, but they are just called flats. I'm sure he will figure it out.

[weezer]

In my scenario, what could Grier say without disclosing privileged information? Could he say, "The guard only heard part of what was said.?" The defense would not want information that OJ sometimes got depressed and wondered "could he have done it?" out to the media or court. In California law, OJ would have the ability to assert the privilege over his communication with Grier. To remain silent and claim privilege was best in this situation.

best for whom? surely not orenthal. he was sitting there charged with double murder. I'm sorry but that simply makes no sense to me. And yes, once the judge ruled that the communication was no longer privileged, Grier could most certainly have said what he heard. If it wasn't a confession and if the guard didn't hear what he stated, why woulnd't he have. The judge said there was no privilege. Yet orenthal's criminal defense argued successfully that there was. Why? If they knew that the guard was lying, why not let Grier say it? They had nothing to gain from arguing minister privilege communication. Their client was on trial for double murder. They were already accusing LE of framing/planting/lying. Why not use this perfect opportunity to seal their argument? The answer is simple. They couldn't. Because when Grier testified he did tell the truth. He didn't testify that the guard lied. He didn't testify that the guard misunderstood. He didn't testify that orenthal didn't confess.

[GreenIce]

:D
OH Goodness, I hope I don't have to find out the hard way. Mine are 3 hours away and I think I'd love for the whole bunch to move in with me. The old ones, middle ones and young ones all under the same roof. LOL Thanks for the heads up….. it may not be too easy to move 'em out once they moved in and it becomes a nightmare. :beer:

IJM,

You need to PM me, I can put you in contact with my mom--since I live with her. She may be able to help you.:)

[fgump2]

RG's silence is why I believe the guard was telling the truth. Sometimes silence can speak louder than words...this is one of those times IMHOO.
I thought I would enter a quote from Wikipedia

Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. Both he and a jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled that he didn't mean to do it, after which Grier had urged him to come clean. Ito ruled that the evidence could not be allowed in court.
I wasn't able to find anything in the transcrips on this.
http://walraven.org/simpson/#transcripts

In Bugliosi's book he wrote that Ito ruled that it wasn't privileged communication, but he ruled it inadmissable because Simpson had been lulled into a false sense of security.

VB wrote that the prisoners and their visitors are told that if they talk in a voice of normal loudness, they won't be overheard, but that Simpson shouted. Bugliosi worked in LA both as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, so he should know the rules.

Some posters have questioned Bugliosi's integrity. That's OK, I have questioned the integrity of some of the defense people. A reviewer from the American Bar association, in the Appellate Practice Journal wroe this about his book:
Overwhelmingly convincing... One can be sure that this is the best book that will ever be written on the OJ Simpson murder trial.

I think Rantala's book was probably just as good.

Greenice and Martin have both questioned Bugliosi's integrity. My guess is that they have nothing to go on except that they disagree with what he wrote.
I would guess he sold more books than all the dream team lawyers put together, which doesn't prove his integrity, but does take the steam out of the charge that he acted and wrote out of jealousy.

If Grier did say that Simpson didn't confess, then it is odd that he waited so long to speak up.

[Its just me]

I posted it as a natural progression of the story about juror 602 who in the first posts of the visit to rockingham was the juror complained about and then later in the trial was the one kicked off of the jury. I posted that I was going to try to find out who the juror was and I did. No one should have taken it as anything more than information about a juror. And IJM, you're right -- it is sad.

Thanks, You are correct. Juror 602 was complained about and later kicked off because he told a lie about his notes in some form...and you did post you would try to find out who the juror was. I appreciate you finding it and making the post. By the book being more about how being on the jury affected their personal life is very telling. IMHOO It had to have been hard being away from home that long. This has absolutely nothing to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence but these people were clearly connected to the trial. imhoo

[GreenIce]

I thought I would enter a quote from Wikipedia

Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. Both he and a jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled that he didn't mean to do it, after which Grier had urged him to come clean. Ito ruled that the evidence could not be allowed in court.
I wasn't able to find anything in the transcrips on this.
http://walraven.org/simpson/#transcripts

In Bugliosi's book he wrote that Ito ruled that it wasn't privileged communication, but he ruled it inadmissable because Simpson had been lulled into a false sense of security.

VB wrote that the prisoners and their visitors are told that if they talk in a voice of normal loudness, they won't be overheard, but that Simpson shouted. Bugliosi worked in LA both as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, so he should know the rules.

Some posters have questioned Bugliosi's integrity. That's OK, I have questioned the integrity of some of the defense people. A reviewer from the American Bar association, in the Appellate Practice Journal wroe this about his book:
Overwhelmingly convincing... One can be sure that this is the best book that will ever be written on the OJ Simpson murder trial.

I think Rantala's book was probably just as good.

Greenice and Martin have both questioned Bugliosi's integrity. My guess is that they have nothing to go on except that they disagree with what he wrote.
I would guess he sold more books than all the dream team lawyers put together, which doesn't prove his integrity, but does take the steam out of the charge that he acted and wrote out of jealousy.

If Grier did say that Simpson didn't confess, then it is odd that he waited so long to speak up.

fgump2,

The best way to put this is that Rosie Grier is "a man of the cloth". He was there as a spirtual advisor. IMO, had Rev. Grier been a Catholic Priest or a Rabbi, this never would have been issue.

Grier did take the stand in a pre-trial hearing. IMO, to continue to challenge this is a challenge to Grier's status as a reverend.

I understand that anybody can get this title over the internet. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Grier was not a member of good standing and that he only acted in this capacity for OJ Simpson.

[weezer]

I thought I would enter a quote from Wikipedia

Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. Both he and a jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled that he didn't mean to do it, after which Grier had urged him to come clean. Ito ruled that the evidence could not be allowed in court.
I wasn't able to find anything in the transcrips on this.
http://walraven.org/simpson/#transcripts

In Bugliosi's book he wrote that Ito ruled that it wasn't privileged communication, but he ruled it inadmissable because Simpson had been lulled into a false sense of security.

VB wrote that the prisoners and their visitors are told that if they talk in a voice of normal loudness, they won't be overheard, but that Simpson shouted. Bugliosi worked in LA both as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, so he should know the rules.

Some posters have questioned Bugliosi's integrity. That's OK, I have questioned the integrity of some of the defense people. A reviewer from the American Bar association, in the Appellate Practice Journal wroe this about his book:
Overwhelmingly convincing... One can be sure that this is the best book that will ever be written on the OJ Simpson murder trial.

I think Rantala's book was probably just as good.

Greenice and Martin have both questioned Bugliosi's integrity. My guess is that they have nothing to go on except that they disagree with what he wrote.
I would guess he sold more books than all the dream team lawyers put together, which doesn't prove his integrity, but does take the steam out of the charge that he acted and wrote out of jealousy.

If Grier did say that Simpson didn't confess, then it is odd that he waited so long to speak up.

I've read most of the books but for resource, I don't think you can beat Rantala.

[GreenIce]

In my scenario, what could Grier say without disclosing privileged information? Could he say, "The guard only heard part of what was said.?" The defense would not want information that OJ sometimes got depressed and wondered "could he have done it?" out to the media or court. In California law, OJ would have the ability to assert the privilege over his communication with Grier. To remain silent and claim privilege was best in this situation.

Rovaan,

Again, you are dead on. It is unfortunate but it also understandable why people automatically assume that when a person is in person and they speak to a their spiritual advisor, they must be guilty and confessing to the sin they have been accused off.

IMO, I am a huge believer in confession and I for me, it gives me great comfort and I can bend a priest's ear and I have never killed anybody.

We do associate certain privileges with those of being guilty. Like people who don't take the stand, taking the 5th, etc.

I think when it comes to spiritual advisors, people should perhaps do the research on how this came into effect and why is should be guarded and protected with much more vigor then it is. IMO.

[Its just me]

IJM,

You need to PM me, I can put you in contact with my mom--since I live with her. She may be able to help you.:)

LOL I'm beginning to think I may need to change my mind on things. Mine just come for a few days at a time and it's all wonderfully good....I can see where things could really get sticky if they felt is wasn't necessary to obey Mama's rules. :eek: To be completely honest....I doubt any of them would want to come bunk with the ole gal and I know they love me a lot. :)

[GreenIce]

I don't know if it was the same day or not and don't see any importance if it was. They knew what he testified to.
i have posted several comments by the jury including a descriptioon of what happened in deliberations. it is there.

In deliberations the only question left by jurors was Parks testimony.They asked for a readback of his testimony. They continued more descussions on his testimony and decided to take a vote as there were no more questions. they voted not guilty.

I don't think Park lied as some others did but i do know he was confused on much of his testimony which is why he gave different testimony at different times on the same issue. I think this was caused by overpreperation by Clarke and maby his mama and a effort to suppoort the prosecutions case.
Seeing two cars, oj wearing a black overcoat, oj could have had on a dark bathrobe, being able to see through all the heavy trees and bush in front of ojs house. Not seeing the address oner time and not looking for it another time. Not seeing the bronco parked at the Rockingham gate another.

The jury had his testimony and saw him testify. They did not believe him.

Martin,

IMO, I think the real issue with Park and Kato was always the timeline. Did one man have enough time to do the things the DA's accused him of. IMO, there was not enough time for him to have done this. The demeanor witnesses also supported this, IMO.

Also, Simpson had two fresh cuts according the detectives' book. Both on the front of knuckles on the same hand. IIRC, one was the jagged fishhook and the other they described as being "different". So what exactly are they saying? I only heard about one cut where the DA's and the LAPD insisted the blood drops came from.

[Its just me]

IJM,

Checkbook journalism was in full force before the Simpson trial. Who would pay to buy a topless photo of Nicole and Marcia Clark? You may ask the Goldmans and the Browns who paid for their pictures at their loved one's gravesites. I am sure they still remember who they were.

I guess I could see some sexmachine buying a topless photo of Nicole but Marcia Clark is a different story. I'll not comment on the Goldmans and Browns....I've experienced loosing a child and I'm very thankful it was not the way they lost theirs.

IMHOO paying for a photo of famous people is totally different than someone paying a guard to tell a lie when there is no motive to back up a reason.

[GreenIce]

LOL I'm beginning to think I may need to change my mind on things. Mine just come for a few days at a time and it's all wonderfully good....I can see where things could really get sticky if they felt is wasn't necessary to obey Mama's rules. :eek: To be completely honest....I doubt any of them would want to come bunk with the ole gal and I know they love me a lot. :)

IJM,

I was supposed only stay a few weeks, it is now 10 years later. And you got one thing right, the only way we have made this long is that I still live by her rules. Her house, her rules. However, I still often wonder who this woman really is when she deals with my son---because I don't recognize that person many times:)

[GreenIce]

I guess I could see some sexmachine buying a topless photo of Nicole but Marcia Clark is a different story. I'll not comment on the Goldmans and Browns....I've experienced loosing a child and I'm very thankful it was not the way they lost theirs.

IMHOO paying for a photo of famous people is totally different than someone paying a guard to tell a lie when there is no motive to back up a reason.

IJM,

Do you remember when JFJ Jr, died? And why his family insisted that all photos, etc., be destroyed? They knew if they weren't, they would make their way on to the internet. The same thing with Princess Diana.

Marcia Clark had one really angry ex-mother in law! I know you believe Mr. Simpson is guilty, however, he did make a very good point to the Browns. He warned them of the media and he was very upset about the pictures taken of his kids at Nicole's grave. He said they (the media) will tell you anything you want to hear, justify the money they want to pay you, but they don't tell you how it will look in the public's eye.

The problem with the guard, with a lot of other stuff, the media reported it first and that is when the court got involved. Remember the media leak about Nicole's blood being on the sock before it was sent out for testing?

The people who handle photos, results, etc., probably don't make a lot of money or they see no harm in selling things they believe will come out later or that they will never get caught.

I do believe money and a headline can be very seductive. Again, IMO.

[Its just me]

I thought I would enter a quote from Wikipedia

Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. Both he and a jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled that he didn't mean to do it, after which Grier had urged him to come clean. Ito ruled that the evidence could not be allowed in court.
I wasn't able to find anything in the transcrips on this.
http://walraven.org/simpson/#transcripts

In Bugliosi's book he wrote that Ito ruled that it wasn't privileged communication, but he ruled it inadmissable because Simpson had been lulled into a false sense of security.

VB wrote that the prisoners and their visitors are told that if they talk in a voice of normal loudness, they won't be overheard, but that Simpson shouted. Bugliosi worked in LA both as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, so he should know the rules.

Some posters have questioned Bugliosi's integrity. That's OK, I have questioned the integrity of some of the defense people. A reviewer from the American Bar association, in the Appellate Practice Journal wroe this about his book:
Overwhelmingly convincing... One can be sure that this is the best book that will ever be written on the OJ Simpson murder trial.

I think Rantala's book was probably just as good.

Greenice and Martin have both questioned Bugliosi's integrity. My guess is that they have nothing to go on except that they disagree with what he wrote.
I would guess he sold more books than all the dream team lawyers put together, which doesn't prove his integrity, but does take the steam out of the charge that he acted and wrote out of jealousy.

If Grier did say that Simpson didn't confess, then it is odd that he waited so long to speak up.

Thanks. I totally agree about Grier waiting to speak up. I've read some about Bugliosi's book and read several reviews...all were positive with the exception of one IIRC. I think I may read it.
TRuTV did an analysis of the criminal case against OJ. and at the top of the page there is a post saying "In Session Trial footage available" Courtroom footage is available for this story for license and/or purchase from the IN SESSION archives...click here. So it appears they have evidence to back up what information they provided. This is a snip about Judge Ito's ruling and it is very similar to what Bugliosi put in his book. This is not the only news article I've read about this but it is the only one I bookmarked.

Although both Stuart and Grier gave testimony to Judge Ito regarding the overheard conversation, and the judge ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege," he nevertheless disallowed the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/home_15.html

[GreenIce]

Thanks. I totally agree about Grier waiting to speak up. I've read some about Bugliosi's book and read several reviews...all were positive with the exception of one IIRC. I think I may read it.
TRuTV did an analysis of the criminal case against OJ. and at the top of the page there is a post saying "In Session Trial footage available" Courtroom footage is available for this story for license and/or purchase from the IN SESSION archives...click here. So it appears they have evidence to back up what information they provided. This is a snip about Judge Ito's ruling and it is very similar to what Bugliosi put in his book. This is not the only news article I've read about this but it is the only one I bookmarked.

Although both Stuart and Grier gave testimony to Judge Ito regarding the overheard conversation, and the judge ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege," he nevertheless disallowed the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/home_15.html

IJM,

And how did Simpson waive this? How the judge make this ruling but then say that Simpson had a right to believe it was a private converstion or something like that?

I don't see how anyone can waive this unless they sign something.

[Its just me]

IJM,

I was supposed only stay a few weeks, it is now 10 years later. And you got one thing right, the only way we have made this long is that I still live by her rules. Her house, her rules. However, I still often wonder who this woman really is when she deals with my son---because I don't recognize that person many times:)

:) Oh I hope one day you get to understand about these "Grand" children. They are something grand for sure. Off to bed :seeya:

I've enjoyed posting with everyone.

[bobaugust]

The three detectives denied hearing that Kato told them OJ was in Chicago or that he asked, "Did OJ's plane go down?" They also were vague and clearly gave the impression that they didn't hear what Arnelle had to say exactly only that she pointed toward the house and said "something to the effect"--Isn't he here or in there".

Vanatter also testifed in the prelim hearing that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence, she just happened to come over that night to sleep. We know that is a complete lie on Vanatter's part. Also, if he took the time to listen to that question, how come he didn't hear her exact reply?

Also, Arnelle kept getting the two detectives mixed up. She has been consistent that only two detectives were talking to her about her father and that MF was with Kato and the other detective was by the patio or the pool.

Since Arnelle forgetting to set the alarm is not a federal offense, it is no big deal. She would not have to lie about why it was not set, if that is in fact the case. She would not have to make up any story on which door she entered. In fact, according to you, she already knew what was happening, she had to know all the details before the actual murders, and there is no way she would have done such an outstanding job getting rid of the shoes, clothes and weapons but leave the socks out or make it so obvious that she threw a dark objects in with her whites and washed them.

You have no proof to the contents of the washing machine, you have no proof what the dark clothes were and you have no proof that those dark items were in fact a sweat suit and they were a man's sweat suit. You have Petrocelli's fantasy and trying to play hero and shame the DA's.

If Judge Fujisaki allowed Nancy Ney to testify, surely he would have allowed Brad Roberts and Dennis Fung to testify about the contents of the washing machine.

You see nothing wrong with the Detectives allowing Arnelle into the house first even after expressing their panic that there was a blood bath in the main house? That the maid could be injured and needing medical assistence? You think it was okey doaky that Arnelle would have found the maid with her throat slit and blood every where? You think it was okay that if Simpson was still in house and believed to have also been murdered, Arnelle deserved to find him? Or if had taken his own life?

Bottom line Mr. August, they heard Arnelle but what is more important, they already knew where Simpson was, they already knew when he left and that is the only reason why they declared Rockingham a crime scene.

Their words never matched their actions and their actions never matched their words.

Bottom line, VA was cited for reckless disregard of the truth, not wanting to know the truth is just as bad as lying about it. Also, while VA took the hit for this, Phillips and Lange were just as guilty of it. I will give VA credit, he took the hit and continued to take the hits, he never dragged Lange into it.

Please stop claiming that I said Arnelle knew about the murders before she learned from the police that Nicole had been killed. I have never said that. And I never said she got rid of any other evidence other than the blood evidence that was destroyed when she washed her father’s sweat suit.

You say it was no big deal Arnelle forgot to set the house alarm and she would not have to lie about why it was not set. But the fact is Arnelle DID lie about it. The fact is that when Arnelle opened the back door to let the detectives into the house the alarm was not on. That fact tells us someone had turned the alarm off before the police arrived at Rockingham. The fact that that back door could only be locked or unlocked from inside the house tells us someone had unlocked that door before Arnelle opened it. The fact is that later that day when the police searched Simpson’s house they found some freshly washed clothing in Simpson’s machine.

Those facts tell us that someone had been in Simpson’s house and had turned the house alarm off sometime after Kaelin had turned it on the previous night. Someone had washed some clothing in Simpson’s washing machine. Someone had left the house by unlocking the back door and made the mistake of not turning the house alarm back on.

The fact is that “someone” had to have had a key to Simpson house.
The fact is that “someone” had to have known the house alarm code.
The fact is that “someone” had to have access to Arnelle’s laundry basket and clothing.
The fact is that “someone” had to have a reason to exit the house using the back door.

All of that evidence points to Arnelle Simpson as that “someone.” That’s why Arnelle lied by fabricating the story that after the police woke her up early Monday morning she led them around the house to the front door and turned the house alarm off so they could enter the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There is no claim to support, you failed to see IMHO.

Your opinion is based on false information and you refuse to admit that someone you have a great infatuation for was proven to have lied under oath.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Because she is beautiful and her daddy was rich. Yes, although it may not have said cell phone.

I am unaware of any evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994 or as they were called then, a car phone.

I don’t believe telephone bills show incoming calls unless they are collect calls, do you believe they do?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

And what do you rely on that determines what is reasonable and did you listen to the impeachment of mostly all the prosecution witnesses?

I rely on the fact that five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s story and proved that she lied.

[bobaugust]

oj fence looks like regular 11 ga aluminum wire. Same as used by most. if as you say the fence was extra foir security it would have had razzor wire on top but i didn't because it was just a regular fence not used by anyone.
The photograper that stood on top of the fence to take the picture of the glove BENT THAT ONE LITTLE.VERY LITTLE WIRE OF ABOUT1/4 INCH.

Your claim that Rokahr stood on top of the chain link fence to take the photograph of the glove is proved false by the photograph Rokahr took of the glove. That photograph clearly shows that Rokahr was standing on the ground and leaning over the glove to photograph it.

You are unable to support your claim because it is a false ridiculous claim.

bobaugust

[Its just me]

IJM,

And how did Simpson waive this? How the judge make this ruling but then say that Simpson had a right to believe it was a private converstion or something like that?

I don't see how anyone can waive this unless they sign something.

The way I understand it (LOL which may actually be the joke for today) OJ waived his right to privacy when he became loud enough to be heard by a third party. I personally think that would not include any eavesdroppers and in my opinion we all have a certain amount of personal responsibility to "protect" the privacy we are entitled to....OJ didn't do that when he got loud.

I don't know the legal terms....but I'm thinking the defense argued the right to privacy and OJ presumed he had it when he was talking to Rosie. I guess OJ presumed he had the right to privacy no matter how loud he became.

IMHOO Judge Ito was talking out of both sides of his mouth. I've read a few legal opinions on this and I may have it all screwed up but I think Ito ruling OJ waived his right to privacy and not allowing it to go before the court was a blunder. The information I've read stated Rosie and the guard testified before Ito so there had to be enough evidence that OJ became loud enough to waive his right to privacy where he intended to do so or not. I didn't intend to run that stop sign but I did and I got a ticket.

Just an opinion in my own language and not intended to be argued before CL court of legal terms.

[weezer]

The way I understand it (LOL which may actually be the joke for today) OJ waived his right to privacy when he became loud enough to be heard by a third party. I personally think that would not include any eavesdroppers and in my opinion we all have a certain amount of personal responsibility to "protect" the privacy we are entitled to....OJ didn't do that when he got loud.

I don't know the legal terms....but I'm thinking the defense argued the right to privacy and OJ presumed he had it when he was talking to Rosie. I guess OJ presumed he had the right to privacy no matter how loud he became.

IMHOO Judge Ito was talking out of both sides of his mouth. I've read a few legal opinions on this and I may have it all screwed up but I think Ito ruling OJ waived his right to privacy and not allowing it to go before the court was a blunder. The information I've read stated Rosie and the guard testified before Ito so there had to be enough evidence that OJ became loud enough to waive his right to privacy where he intended to do so or not. I didn't intend to run that stop sign but I did and I got a ticket.

Just an opinion in my own language and not intended to be argued before CL court of legal terms.

I think your reasoning makes sense.

[GreenIce]

The way I understand it (LOL which may actually be the joke for today) OJ waived his right to privacy when he became loud enough to be heard by a third party. I personally think that would not include any eavesdroppers and in my opinion we all have a certain amount of personal responsibility to "protect" the privacy we are entitled to....OJ didn't do that when he got loud.

I don't know the legal terms....but I'm thinking the defense argued the right to privacy and OJ presumed he had it when he was talking to Rosie. I guess OJ presumed he had the right to privacy no matter how loud he became.

IMHOO Judge Ito was talking out of both sides of his mouth. I've read a few legal opinions on this and I may have it all screwed up but I think Ito ruling OJ waived his right to privacy and not allowing it to go before the court was a blunder. The information I've read stated Rosie and the guard testified before Ito so there had to be enough evidence that OJ became loud enough to waive his right to privacy where he intended to do so or not. I didn't intend to run that stop sign but I did and I got a ticket.

Just an opinion in my own language and not intended to be argued before CL court of legal terms.

IJM,

I totally agree with you about Ito and his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth on certain issue. IMO, this is one of them.

However, it appears to me that he does not address the fact of who RG was and why he was talking to Simpson. He had to get permission from the jailer's minister or whatever he is called and then he had to get Simpson's persmission to see him.

[tv]

The way I understand it (LOL which may actually be the joke for today) OJ waived his right to privacy when he became loud enough to be heard by a third party. I personally think that would not include any eavesdroppers and in my opinion we all have a certain amount of personal responsibility to "protect" the privacy we are entitled to....OJ didn't do that when he got loud.

I don't know the legal terms....but I'm thinking the defense argued the right to privacy and OJ presumed he had it when he was talking to Rosie. I guess OJ presumed he had the right to privacy no matter how loud he became.

IMHOO Judge Ito was talking out of both sides of his mouth. I've read a few legal opinions on this and I may have it all screwed up but I think Ito ruling OJ waived his right to privacy and not allowing it to go before the court was a blunder. The information I've read stated Rosie and the guard testified before Ito so there had to be enough evidence that OJ became loud enough to waive his right to privacy where he intended to do so or not. I didn't intend to run that stop sign but I did and I got a ticket.

Just an opinion in my own language and not intended to be argued before CL court of legal terms.

I believe Judge Ito was dead wrong on this. Since when does anyone have an expectation of privacy in jail? The only time situation I can think of is when an inmate is talking to his lawyer. Inmates use the bathroom in front of others and phone conversations are recorded and monitored. Being 'lulled into a false sense of security' was a weak argument from the defense but Ito agreed with their faulty reasoning.

[weezer]

I believe Judge Ito was dead wrong on this. Since when does anyone have an expectation of privacy in jail? The only time situation I can think of is when an inmate is talking to his lawyer. Inmates use the bathroom in front of others and phone conversations are recorded and monitored. Being 'lulled into a false sense of security' was a weak argument from the defense but Ito agreed with their faulty reasoning.

I can actually see where the criminal defense point came from but what I don't understand is the 'why' of the argument. If my client was on trial for a double murder and my defense is based on accusing LE of planting/lying/framing, I'd put someone that had the recognition as a credible as Grier up there in a second to prove my case. :shrug: Unless of course I knew the truth. ;)

[GreenIce]

Please stop claiming that I said Arnelle knew about the murders before she learned from the police that Nicole had been killed. I have never said that. And I never said she got rid of any other evidence other than the blood evidence that was destroyed when she washed her father’s sweat suit.

You say it was no big deal Arnelle forgot to set the house alarm and she would not have to lie about why it was not set. But the fact is Arnelle DID lie about it. The fact is that when Arnelle opened the back door to let the detectives into the house the alarm was not on. That fact tells us someone had turned the alarm off before the police arrived at Rockingham. The fact that that back door could only be locked or unlocked from inside the house tells us someone had unlocked that door before Arnelle opened it. The fact is that later that day when the police searched Simpson’s house they found some freshly washed clothing in Simpson’s machine.

Those facts tell us that someone had been in Simpson’s house and had turned the house alarm off sometime after Kaelin had turned it on the previous night. Someone had washed some clothing in Simpson’s washing machine. Someone had left the house by unlocking the back door and made the mistake of not turning the house alarm back on.

The fact is that “someone” had to have had a key to Simpson house.
The fact is that “someone” had to have known the house alarm code.
The fact is that “someone” had to have access to Arnelle’s laundry basket and clothing.
The fact is that “someone” had to have a reason to exit the house using the back door.

All of that evidence points to Arnelle Simpson as that “someone.” That’s why Arnelle lied by fabricating the story that after the police woke her up early Monday morning she led them around the house to the front door and turned the house alarm off so they could enter the house.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

The fact or facts is, you need to establish that Arnelle and Simpson had communication regarding the murders.

The fact is you also need to establish that if this communication did indeed take place, that Arnelle would have followed her father's instruction.

The fact is that the detectives need to justify their enterance on to Simpson's propert and needed to get inside the mainhouse. Arnelle did not have to justify while she was sleeping in her own room nor did she have to justify when or why she entered the house.

The fact is there is no supporting evidence that the dark items in the washer was what you claim it to be nor was there any evidence that the contents of the washer in fact wet.

The fact is Arnelle and everybody else were ordered out of the house by 7:30 a.m. and the search warrant was never issued until after 10:00 a.m. that morning, so no one can proof what the contents of the washer machine were that morning when the police first entered the house.

The fact is that without any witnesses such as a detective or SID person to testify about this, there is really nothing to debate. You can't prove any of your claims. However, it would be interesting to hear why if so many people saw the contents of the washing machine, why they were not called to testify about this. At least in the civil trial.

The fact is never was Arnelle challenged regarding washing any clothes. The fact is that none of the detectives ever said that Arnelle was acting differently and none of her actions or demeanor indicated that she knew anything about the murders or clean up.

The fact is or should I say the facts are, the 4 detectives have been caught in contradictary testimony. The fact is VA did testify that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence and that she just happened to sleep there that night.

The bottomline fact is that if the detectives or anyone else had any proof of this, Arnelle would have been arrested and charged. IMO, at least one family could have found a tad of comfort knowing that at least someone was going to jail for a long time.

The reality of this whole debate comes down to this fact that you can't change no matter how hard you try, the allowed Arnelle to keep possession of the key, they allowed Arnelle to unlock the door, they allowed Arnelle to disarm the alarm and they allowed her as well as Kato, according to you to enter a house where they firmly stated they believed that people who lived in the main house were in mortal danager or needed medical treatment ASAP.

Another point, do you really think Westec would not have turned off the alarm? That if VA, according to him had to demand the telephone number because of the grave danger, that he would not have demanded the security code or ask if they had keys to the home?

An unlock door or doors or security system set or not set does not equal an accomplice. And as you know, the detectives were very selective on what they heard and what they saw.

Remember, VA was citied for reckless disregard of the truth on the search warrant because at the time he wrote it, he already knew what had written was a lie. Why would VA lie on the warrant when he did not have to?

If Arnelle lied as you say she has, then it was to help cover for her father or for her involvement in the clean up.

Who was VA lying for? What was he trying to cover up?