Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

I agree. It makes much more sense that it was Simpson making her cry than Faye. I've never thought the knife was laying out on the counter for any other reason than protection. The rest of the kitchen was immaculate and I can't see a mother carelessly leaving a knife out when she has young children in the house.

If faye called nicole at 9 pm and talked for 30 minutes and nicoles mother called at about 9pm what time did oj call? Was call waiting available them?

It makes sense that fays friends that came to nicoles house that she was afraid of may have called nicole looking for faye.Not knowing she had made a dash to the rehab.

[William Anthony]

Deedrick didn't in his diagram of the tracks thats for sure. Thats just a uninformed rummor as fas i can see.:cool:

It may help me change my mind if someone can show me.

[martin II]

It may help me change my mind if someone can show me.

That claim is always made in a negative way and directed at oj. But my question is whats wrong with a person being pigeon toed as opposed to being slew footed or straight footed?:cool:

[Hipcheck]

You say mistaken and I say, IMHO, they lied. Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. The tecnology showed that Ms Arnelle was correct/truthful. Veritas in onus, veritas in omnibus.

You claim you never accused anyone of lying so I guess you forgot about this post.

[weezer]

You claim you never accused anyone of lying so I guess you forgot about this post.

12-12-2006, 05:04 PM
William Anthony
Criime Library Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: love everlasting
Posts: 17,408

I had no beliefs until they testified and I stil, unlike you, can say that they lied. I can say that, judging from what I saw, I believed they lied.
__________________
Doc Holiday

[martin II]

12-12-2006, 05:04 PM
William Anthony
Criime Library Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: love everlasting
Posts: 17,408

I had no beliefs until they testified and I stil, unlike you, can say that they lied. I can say that, judging from what I saw, I believed they lied.
__________________
Doc Holiday

Martz--RUBIN--VANNATTER---LANG---FURHMAN---PHILLIPS----KATO---

All lied to support the prosecutions case according to testimony that has been posted. imo :cool:

[fgump2]

fgump2,


How does this guard prove what he overheard was about the murders? Doesn't that mean he has to say that he listened to the whole conversation and that the part where the voices were raised, in fact was a confession?

IMO, this is just another time some of the G's are very willing to trample on Simpson's rights but would be crying and be outraged if the same were to happen to them.

How long would it take your family members that you were talking to your minister and remind the public that over part of conversation doesn't mean any thing---that there is no way to prove what exactly was said and put it into context unless you heard the whole conversation.

I think for the first time in history, or maybe in CA's history, a grand jury was dismissed because the zeal and the zest of the DA's to destroy a defendant's right to a fair trial by releasing 911 tapes. This outrage was very successful and the DA's realized where they had to try to their case. They weren't going to win it in the courtroom so they went to the court of public opinion.

Just like the released taped, this guard and what he overheard was another dog and pony show to again taint the jury pool. There is no way Judge Ito or any other judge would have allowed that in. Not after his already telling the LAPD he knew they lied on a search warrant but he was allowing it anyway.

Bottom line, Mr. Simpson did not waive any his rights and neither did Rev Grier. The guard has no way of knowing what the content of the conversation was and if he did, then he would have been nailed between the eyes for being the "bug" in the room.

Again, if you were in the same situation, I can safely say that I would not post just as passionately about your situation that I have about Simpson's. In fact, I would probably be a whole louder if you did not have the money to defend yourself.

Oh and before you a comment about the Simpson jury, please remember, these leaks and rumors happened for the jury was picked or before they were taken for the duration of the trial. This blantent and disgusting and I will call it whatever I want to. I am with in my rights to say that what happened to Mr. Simpson was wrong and it would be just as wrong if it happened to you or me. Mr. Simpson's wealth should not be a free pass for the DA's and the LAPD to taint the jury pool or influence the jury with side issues. IMO.

I think you are expressing strong opinions without the knowledge to back it up. I don't claim to have enough knowledge to refute you completely.

I trusted Bugliosi partly because I read two books about two criminal trials he took part in, one as an LA DA, the other as a defense attourney. I thought he seemed honest and tried to describe the duties and decisions of the other people (the two judges and others) without hostility. In the trial in which he was a DA he described talks with the defense attourney which seemed to be polite and respectful on both sides. Bugliosi's book on the Simpson trial was highly recommended by a national lawyer association.

Mr. Bugliosi believed that Simpson's rights were not violated. He also believed tht what the guard heard was enough for a reasonable person to conclude that SImpson admitted guilt. In other words it wasn't innocent words taken out of context.

One of the things I don't like about the NGs on this board is to make unwarranted assumptions and act self rightious about it. I think it is possible that the LA jails should have have had better provisions for private conversations between prisoners and others - lawyers, clergy, maybe others; but I don't think that either any of the people on this crime board have enough knowledge to pass judgement on this. People like the ACLU or law school professors would probably know more about it.

I suppose all of us on this board pass judgement on things we aren't expert on. I may be worse at this than some of the NGs.

One thing that annoys me about the NGs is their willingness not just to criticize or disagree with certain people who were involved in the Simpson murder trial of 1995, but their willingness to sling mud, make insulting assumptions, about people whose ideas or testimony they don't like. the guard isn't the only one receiving unnecesary insults on this matter. Detectives, criminologist, the limo driver have also been the target of uncalled for insults.

If the NGs had just said the guard may have been mistaken, or that they think that SImpson may have had his privacy rights violated, I would feel less anger about this.

As for you wanting to protect my rights and others. I would have more confidence people who aren't so eager to insult others. One example of this in which I felt critical of GI on this is her willingness to call other people liars. I think you, GI, have repeatidly called other posters, and LAPD employees liars other interpetations are possible.

[fgump2]

That claim is always made in a negative way and directed at oj. But my question is whats wrong with a person being pigeon toed as opposed to being slew footed or straight footed?:cool:

I don't think it is an insult. Probably an advantage for a running back, possiblty other sport activities also.

The only place I know I saw in print that the foot prints at Bundy were pigeon toed was in Petrocelli's book. It would be more convincing if it were in the transcrips of the criminal trial.

I am puzzled that it wasn't in there. THere were enough footprints so that some expert should have been able to say one way or the other, at least 15 prints I think. If there was evidence it should have helped the prosecution, if there was evidence that the foot prints were't pigeon toed it would have helped the defense (somewhat).

I thought the term for toes outward was duck footed.

[Hipcheck]

Martz--RUBIN--VANNATTER---LANG---FURHMAN---PHILLIPS----KATO---

All lied to support the prosecutions case according to testimony that has been posted. imo :cool:

That's not true.

[martin II]

I think you are expressing strong opinions without the knowledge to back it up. I don't claim to have enough knowledge to refute you completely.

I trusted Bugliosi partly because I read two books about two criminal trials he took part in, one as an LA DA, the other as a defense attourney. I thought he seemed honest and tried to describe the duties and decisions of the other people (the two judges and others) without hostility. In the trial in which he was a DA he described talks with the defense attourney which seemed to be polite and respectful on both sides. Bugliosi's book on the Simpson trial was highly recommended by a national lawyer association.

Mr. Bugliosi believed that Simpson's rights were not violated. He also believed tht what the guard heard was enough for a reasonable person to conclude that SImpson admitted guilt. In other words it wasn't innocent words taken out of context.

One of the things I don't like about the NGs on this board is to make unwarranted assumptions and act self rightious about it. I think it is possible that the LA jails should have have had better provisions for private conversations between prisoners and others - lawyers, clergy, maybe others; but I don't think that either any of the people on this crime board have enough knowledge to pass judgement on this. People like the ACLU or law school professors would probably know more about it.

I suppose all of us on this board pass judgement on things we aren't expert on. I may be worse at this than some of the NGs.

One thing that annoys me about the NGs is their willingness not just to criticize or disagree with certain people who were involved in the Simpson murder trial of 1995, but their willingness to sling mud, make insulting assumptions, about people whose ideas or testimony they don't like. the guard isn't the only one receiving unnecesary insults on this matter. Detectives, criminologist, the limo driver have also been the target of uncalled for insults.

If the NGs had just said the guard may have been mistaken, or that they think that SImpson may have had his privacy rights violated, I would feel less anger about this.

As for you wanting to protect my rights and others. I would have more confidence people who aren't so eager to insult others. One example of this in which I felt critical of GI on this is her willingness to call other people liars. I think you, GI, have repeatidly called other posters, and LAPD employees liars other interpetations are possible.

Thats a long post.

The jailer lied

[weezer]

I don't think it is an insult. Probably an advantage for a running back, possiblty other sport activities also.

The only place I know I saw in print that the foot prints at Bundy were pigeon toed was in Petrocelli's book. It would be more convincing if it were in the transcrips of the criminal trial.

I am puzzled that it wasn't in there. THere were enough footprints so that some expert should have been able to say one way or the other, at least 15 prints I think. If there was evidence it should have helped the prosecution, if there was evidence that the foot prints were't pigeon toed it would have helped the defense (somewhat).

I thought the term for toes outward was duck footed.

it wasn't meant as an insult -- it was a distinguishing feature. Some posters see boogey men everywhere. :eek:

[Hipcheck]

Thats a long post.

The jailer lied

That's not true.

[fgump2]

Thats a long post.

The jailer lied

I feel disrespect for you on that point.
I think you base this on several things:
you are uncomforatble with any evidence that says Simpson was guilty.
Grier (I guess) disagreed with the guard a few day after in talking with judge Ito. Grier said that Simpson didn't raise his voice. If this is true, then the guard probably wouldn't have been able to understand what SImpson said. Also Grier waited about 10 years before saying the guard lied. Did he ever explain why he (Grier) waited 10 years to say the guard lied?

I think all of us on this board would have a hard time understanding what really happened even if we read the discussion that Ito had with the guard and with Grier. Since this information is not available, we can only guess. I am guessing the guard told the truth because I trust Bugliosi and years ago I read that the guard passed a lie detector test. I have been unable to document the lie detector test. I think lie detector tests are only a rough indication of the truth, but the guard would have been under a lot of pressure, which would have made it more difficult to pass if he had been lying. I realize that GI or someone may come up with a theory that says because the guard passed it that shows he was lying... If so I will probably ignore that speculation especially if there is no evidence to back it up.

[Its just me]

I feel disrespect for you on that point.
I think you base this on several things:
you are uncomforatble with any evidence that says Simpson was guilty.
Grier (I guess) disagreed with the guard a few day after in talking with judge Ito. Grier said that Simpson didn't raise his voice. If this is true, then the guard probably wouldn't have been able to understand what SImpson said. Also Grier waited about 10 years before saying the guard lied. Did he ever explain why he (Grier) waited 10 years to say the guard lied?

I think all of us on this board would have a hard time understanding what really happened even if we read the discussion that Ito had with the guard and with Grier. Since this information is not available, we can only guess. I am guessing the guard told the truth because I trust Bugliosi and years ago I read that the guard passed a lie detector test. I have been unable to document the lie detector test. I think lie detector tests are only a rough indication of the truth, but the guard would have been under a lot of pressure, which would have made it more difficult to pass if he had been lying. I realize that GI or someone may come up with a theory that says because the guard passed it that shows he was lying... If so I will probably ignore that speculation especially if there is no evidence to back it up.

Good post.

[Its just me]

I don't think it is an insult. Probably an advantage for a running back, possiblty other sport activities also.

The only place I know I saw in print that the foot prints at Bundy were pigeon toed was in Petrocelli's book. It would be more convincing if it were in the transcrips of the criminal trial.

I am puzzled that it wasn't in there. THere were enough footprints so that some expert should have been able to say one way or the other, at least 15 prints I think. If there was evidence it should have helped the prosecution, if there was evidence that the foot prints were't pigeon toed it would have helped the defense (somewhat).

I thought the term for toes outward was duck footed.

In my neck of the woods the term Duck Footed is used for toes/feet that turn outward. Pigeon toed is not an insult, neither is bow legs, club feet, or any other adjective describing a certain characteristic of our non perfect bodies. Very few #10 walking around and very few flaws that don’t have a name. Just a fact of life.

[martin II]

I feel disrespect for you on that point.
I think you base this on several things:
you are uncomforatble with any evidence that says Simpson was guilty.
Grier (I guess) disagreed with the guard a few day after in talking with judge Ito. Grier said that Simpson didn't raise his voice. If this is true, then the guard probably wouldn't have been able to understand what SImpson said. Also Grier waited about 10 years before saying the guard lied. Did he ever explain why he (Grier) waited 10 years to say the guard lied?

I think all of us on this board would have a hard time understanding what really happened even if we read the discussion that Ito had with the guard and with Grier. Since this information is not available, we can only guess. I am guessing the guard told the truth because I trust Bugliosi and years ago I read that the guard passed a lie detector test. I have been unable to document the lie detector test. I think lie detector tests are only a rough indication of the truth, but the guard would have been under a lot of pressure, which would have made it more difficult to pass if he had been lying. I realize that GI or someone may come up with a theory that says because the guard passed it that shows he was lying... If so I will probably ignore that speculation especially if there is no evidence to back it up.

Having followed REV Griers career, i go with what i know. He is a honorable
man with no reason to lie and did not lie about this issue.

VB was not at the jail when RG visited oj so his comments mean nothing and you seem to believe MF did not lie even when it was proven in court that he did.
I have no control over how you allow yourself to feel so i have no comment on your "disrespect."
The jailer lied. Rev Grier told the truth and he never broke his confidence.

[martin II]

In my neck of the woods the term Duck Footed is used for toes/feet that turn outward. Pigeon toed is not an insult, neither is bow legs, club feet, or any other adjective describing a certain characteristic of our non perfect bodies. Very few #10 walking around and very few flaws that don’t have a name. Just a fact of life.

Where i am from slew footed refers to a person whoes feet tilt outward when walking.:cool:

[William Anthony]

You claim you never accused anyone of lying so I guess you forgot about this post.

I did not forget anything as I said IMHO and not that the detectives lied.:);)

[William Anthony]

12-12-2006, 05:04 PM
William Anthony
Criime Library Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: love everlasting
Posts: 17,408

I had no beliefs until they testified and I stil, unlike you, can say that they lied. I can say that, judging from what I saw, I believed they lied.
__________________
Doc Holiday

I plainly said that I believed they lied. :);)

[fgump2]

Having followed REV Griers career, i go with what i know. He is a honorable
man with no reason to lie and did not lie about this issue.

VB was not at the jail when RG visited oj so his comments mean nothing and you seem to believe MF did not lie even when it was proven in court that he did.
I have no control over how you allow yourself to feel so i have no comment on your "disrespect."
The jailer lied. Rev Grier told the truth and he never broke his confidence.

I realize that some people will trust Grier a lot because he is a minister and therefore a man of God and therefore honest. I think we are all people of God just as much as Grier is.
I think Bugliosi knows more about law than Grier and all the regular posters on this board put together. SInce he worked in LA as a DA and as a defense lawyer he has inside knowledge, and possible contacts as well.

I regard the posted comments about how Simpson's privacy rights were violated as nothing more than idle speculation. Privacy rights are important; but people loose credibility when they speak with certainty about things they are only guessing at. I don't think the supreme court has ruled on the privacy situation of prisoners in the LA jail.

I don't recall posting that MF didn't lie.

If you had written that the guard probably guard lied, I could understand that even though I disagree; I think your certainty comes from wishful thinking. The fact that Grier waited about 10 years to say there was no confession should raise doubts in your mind. As one person posted, silence sometimes speaks louder than words. Doesn't prove that Grier lied, but it raises some doubts.

[William Anthony]

I don't think it is an insult. Probably an advantage for a running back, possiblty other sport activities also.

The only place I know I saw in print that the foot prints at Bundy were pigeon toed was in Petrocelli's book. It would be more convincing if it were in the transcrips of the criminal trial.

I am puzzled that it wasn't in there. THere were enough footprints so that some expert should have been able to say one way or the other, at least 15 prints I think. If there was evidence it should have helped the prosecution, if there was evidence that the foot prints were't pigeon toed it would have helped the defense (somewhat).

I thought the term for toes outward was duck footed.

That is why I don't place stock in works of fiction, because anyone can say anything, sorta of like a message board.

[William Anthony]

it wasn't meant as an insult -- it was a distinguishing feature. Some posters see boogey men everywhere. :eek:

Why was there no expert produced to say that the shoe prints were pigeon-toed, as opposed to, IMHO, a biased work of fiction?

[William Anthony]

I feel disrespect for you on that point.
I think you base this on several things:
you are uncomforatble with any evidence that says Simpson was guilty.
Grier (I guess) disagreed with the guard a few day after in talking with judge Ito. Grier said that Simpson didn't raise his voice. If this is true, then the guard probably wouldn't have been able to understand what SImpson said. Also Grier waited about 10 years before saying the guard lied. Did he ever explain why he (Grier) waited 10 years to say the guard lied?

I think all of us on this board would have a hard time understanding what really happened even if we read the discussion that Ito had with the guard and with Grier. Since this information is not available, we can only guess. I am guessing the guard told the truth because I trust Bugliosi and years ago I read that the guard passed a lie detector test. I have been unable to document the lie detector test. I think lie detector tests are only a rough indication of the truth, but the guard would have been under a lot of pressure, which would have made it more difficult to pass if he had been lying. I realize that GI or someone may come up with a theory that says because the guard passed it that shows he was lying... If so I will probably ignore that speculation especially if there is no evidence to back it up.

What makes anyone think that Reverend Grier had to speak out at anytime?
The fact is that a man of God said the guard lied. I think I would believe a man of God over a member of LE.:);):cool:

[martin II]

I feel disrespect for you on that point.
I think you base this on several things:
you are uncomforatble with any evidence that says Simpson was guilty.
Grier (I guess) disagreed with the guard a few day after in talking with judge Ito. Grier said that Simpson didn't raise his voice. If this is true, then the guard probably wouldn't have been able to understand what SImpson said. Also Grier waited about 10 years before saying the guard lied. Did he ever explain why he (Grier) waited 10 years to say the guard lied?

I think all of us on this board would have a hard time understanding what really happened even if we read the discussion that Ito had with the guard and with Grier. Since this information is not available, we can only guess. I am guessing the guard told the truth because I trust Bugliosi and years ago I read that the guard passed a lie detector test. I have been unable to document the lie detector test. I think lie detector tests are only a rough indication of the truth, but the guard would have been under a lot of pressure, which would have made it more difficult to pass if he had been lying. I realize that GI or someone may come up with a theory that says because the guard passed it that shows he was lying... If so I will probably ignore that speculation especially if there is no evidence to back it up.

I don't think there is a guarantee that others posting will not disagree with you.Do you think differently?

[William Anthony]

I realize that some people will trust Grier a lot because he is a minister and therefore a man of God and therefore honest. I think we are all people of God just as much as Grier is.
I think Bugliosi knows more about law than Grier and all the regular posters on this board put together. SInce he worked in LA as a DA and as a defense lawyer he has inside knowledge, and possible contacts as well.

I regard the posted comments about how Simpson's privacy rights were violated as nothing more than idle speculation. Privacy rights are important; but people loose credibility when they speak with certainty about things they are only guessing at. I don't think the supreme court has ruled on the privacy situation of prisoners in the LA jail.

I don't recall posting that MF didn't lie.

If you had written that the guard probably guard lied, I could understand that even though I disagree; I think your certainty comes from wishful thinking. The fact that Grier waited about 10 years to say there was no confession should raise doubts in your mind. As one person posted, silence sometimes speaks louder than words. Doesn't prove that Grier lied, but it raises some doubts.

Yes, we are all people of God, which does not mean that we all, like Reverend Grier, have devoted our life to walking with God as close as we can in his footsteps and to speculate that a man of God would have "waited about 10 years to say there was no confession should raise doubts in your mind". I think that God tells a man of God when to speak and what to say and who am I to question that timing.

VB may know more about the law than all the posters on this board and he may not. The argument put forth by Shapiro about being reassured that there was privacy and there was not was a winning one, as it has been reported that judge Ito said they were lulled into a false sense of security, meaning any waiver of that right could not have been knowing or voluntary due to the lulling. I am sure VB might disagree but the fact is that to my knowledge the ruling was not appealed and, if it was, it was upheld. I have read, studied, litigated, took tests and done motions, on Constitutionally guaranteed rights/privileges. I think VB may do well to write books and let others practice, JMPO.

[weezer]

sobering statistic on law enforcement who are continually denigrated on this board. I salute their service and dedication. :patriot:

LOD Statistics: On average, a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty every 57 hours in America.
http://www.aphf.org/lodstats.html

The FBI reported today that 57 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty last year; 83 officers died in accidents while performing their official duties; and 59,201 officers suffered assaults while on duty. The 2007 edition of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted released today provides comprehensive tabular data about these incidents and brief narratives describing the fatal felonious attacks. . .

. . .Officer Profile: Among the officers who were feloniously killed, the average age was 37 years. The victim officers had served in law enforcement for an average of 10 years at the time of the fatal incidents. All of the slain officers were male; 47 officers were white.
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/FBI-Releases-2007-Statistics-on-Officer-Deaths--Assaults-/1$43678

[martin II]

I realize that some people will trust Grier a lot because he is a minister and therefore a man of God and therefore honest. I think we are all people of God just as much as Grier is.
I think Bugliosi knows more about law than Grier and all the regular posters on this board put together. SInce he worked in LA as a DA and as a defense lawyer he has inside knowledge, and possible contacts as well.

I regard the posted comments about how Simpson's privacy rights were violated as nothing more than idle speculation. Privacy rights are important; but people loose credibility when they speak with certainty about things they are only guessing at. I don't think the supreme court has ruled on the privacy situation of prisoners in the LA jail.

I don't recall posting that MF didn't lie.

If you had written that the guard probably guard lied, I could understand that even though I disagree; I think your certainty comes from wishful thinking. The fact that Grier waited about 10 years to say there was no confession should raise doubts in your mind. As one person posted, silence sometimes speaks louder than words. Doesn't prove that Grier lied, but it raises some doubts.

Your trust of jailers match you denial of the blue wall of silence.i think you deny any small piece of evidence that shows oj not guilty based on your "something" about le.

Rev Grier said straight out THE GUARD LIED .That is enough for me. Actually i may be pleased that you are on the other side of the issue as i can see why you believe Rev GRIER LIED. No problem.:cool:

[martin II]

sobering statistic on law enforcement who are continually denigrated on this board. I salute their service and dedication. :patriot:

LOD Statistics: On average, a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty every 57 hours in America.
http://www.aphf.org/lodstats.html

The FBI reported today that 57 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty last year; 83 officers died in accidents while performing their official duties; and 59,201 officers suffered assaults while on duty. The 2007 edition of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted released today provides comprehensive tabular data about these incidents and brief narratives describing the fatal felonious attacks. . .

. . .Officer Profile: Among the officers who were feloniously killed, the average age was 37 years. The victim officers had served in law enforcement for an average of 10 years at the time of the fatal incidents. All of the slain officers were male; 47 officers were white.
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/FBI-Releases-2007-Statistics-on-Officer-Deaths--Assaults-/1$43678

A major complaint of people in jail is guard ABUSE. Did you know that?

[martin II]

That is why I don't place stock in works of fiction, because anyone can say anything, sorta of like a message board.

Where some post any and everything to support their dissagreement with common sense and court testimony. EXAMPLE: Bogus studies, no name experts and pure old fools like vb.:cool::no:

[weezer]

I realize that some people will trust Grier a lot because he is a minister and therefore a man of God and therefore honest. I think we are all people of God just as much as Grier is.
I think Bugliosi knows more about law than Grier and all the regular posters on this board put together. SInce he worked in LA as a DA and as a defense lawyer he has inside knowledge, and possible contacts as well.

I regard the posted comments about how Simpson's privacy rights were violated as nothing more than idle speculation. Privacy rights are important; but people loose credibility when they speak with certainty about things they are only guessing at. I don't think the supreme court has ruled on the privacy situation of prisoners in the LA jail.

I don't recall posting that MF didn't lie.

If you had written that the guard probably guard lied, I could understand that even though I disagree; I think your certainty comes from wishful thinking. The fact that Grier waited about 10 years to say there was no confession should raise doubts in your mind. As one person posted, silence sometimes speaks louder than words. Doesn't prove that Grier lied, but it raises some doubts.

still don't understand the privileged communication argument made by the criminal defense. schiller wrote that grier told the criminal defense that the guard was lying and 10+ years later he told the world. :shrug: like I said, anyone needing to confess, don't go to Rosie's place -- he tells. :eek:

[GreenIce]

It is also possible that Nicole told her daughter the name of the person that caused her to cry. The friend.

Martin,

Faye's ex-boyfriend does believe Sydney did tell the police, it was Faye Resnick. He said that is how Sydney was. Also, I find it hard to believe that when she did say what she heard, she was not asked who the best friend was.

IMO, we know that Faye has said it was her but that Nicole was not crying, she was giggling. IMO, it seems to me that Sydney hearing this would have gone to her mother to ask what was wrong. Or we don't know what Sydney overheard, like her mother say Faye's name.

I can't see Nicole telling Sydney what the fight was about or why she was crying. I would think she would come up with a cover story. IMO.

[GreenIce]

A rush to judgment.

William,

There are so many examples of rush to judgement that it is actually very sad. IMO.

[martin II]

still don't understand the privileged communication argument made by the criminal defense. schiller wrote that grier told the criminal defense that the guard was lying and 10+ years later he told the world. :shrug: like I said, anyone needing to confess, don't go to Rosie's place -- he tells. :eek:

WRONG ACCUSATION.
RG never told anything about his conversations with oj. he did expose the jailer.

[GreenIce]

If faye called nicole at 9 pm and talked for 30 minutes and nicoles mother called at about 9pm what time did oj call? Was call waiting available them?

It makes sense that fays friends that came to nicoles house that she was afraid of may have called nicole looking for faye.Not knowing she had made a dash to the rehab.

Martin,

Faye is not telling the truth about the timing of the phone call. When the defense sought to get these phone records, she and her lawyer fought it and won.

However, Faye shot her self in the foot when she made her comments about Marcus Allen and Nicole's plans for Ron that night.

What would be interesting is what Rachel overheard. From what I read, Sydney does ask her brother what he heard or asked him if he heard it to but no mention of Rachel. So Faye's phone call had to come after Rachel left and after Nicole made arrangements with Ron to bring the glasses over. And I am pretty sure she had call waiting.

[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!

[martin II]

still don't understand the privileged communication argument made by the criminal defense. schiller wrote that grier told the criminal defense that the guard was lying and 10+ years later he told the world. :shrug: like I said, anyone needing to confess, don't go to Rosie's place -- he tells. :eek:

See Williams post and you will understand.

[martin II]

Martin,

Faye is not telling the truth about the timing of the phone call. When the defense sought to get these phone records, she and her lawyer fought it and won.

However, Faye shot her self in the foot when she made her comments about Marcus Allen and Nicole's plans for Ron that night.

What would be interesting is what Rachel overheard. From what I read, Sydney does ask her brother what he heard or asked him if he heard it to but no mention of Rachel. So Faye's phone call had to come after Rachel left and after Nicole made arrangements with Ron to bring the glasses over. And I am pretty sure she had call waiting.

GI
I am not surprised that faye lied.It was second nature.

[GreenIce]

I realize that some people will trust Grier a lot because he is a minister and therefore a man of God and therefore honest. I think we are all people of God just as much as Grier is.
I think Bugliosi knows more about law than Grier and all the regular posters on this board put together. SInce he worked in LA as a DA and as a defense lawyer he has inside knowledge, and possible contacts as well.

I regard the posted comments about how Simpson's privacy rights were violated as nothing more than idle speculation. Privacy rights are important; but people loose credibility when they speak with certainty about things they are only guessing at. I don't think the supreme court has ruled on the privacy situation of prisoners in the LA jail.

I don't recall posting that MF didn't lie.

If you had written that the guard probably guard lied, I could understand that even though I disagree; I think your certainty comes from wishful thinking. The fact that Grier waited about 10 years to say there was no confession should raise doubts in your mind. As one person posted, silence sometimes speaks louder than words. Doesn't prove that Grier lied, but it raises some doubts.

fgump2,

RG is a minister. He as there for spiritual reasons. He was not there to ask questions about the murders or even if OJ did it. Simpson told all his lawyers he was innocent, what makes you think he would tell RG something different?

Looking at this from a G point of view, do you really think Simpson would have a problem lying to a minister?

The transcripts clearly show that RG was asked point blank about this alleged incident. He explained why he was there and that the guard was not telling the turth, never did he say what the conversation was about. Only what is not about. Big difference. IMO.

[GreenIce]

GI
I am not surprised that faye lied.It was second nature.

Martin,

IMO, it was much more then second nature, it was a matter of staying alive.

[GreenIce]

I feel disrespect for you on that point.
I think you base this on several things:
you are uncomforatble with any evidence that says Simpson was guilty.
Grier (I guess) disagreed with the guard a few day after in talking with judge Ito. Grier said that Simpson didn't raise his voice. If this is true, then the guard probably wouldn't have been able to understand what SImpson said. Also Grier waited about 10 years before saying the guard lied. Did he ever explain why he (Grier) waited 10 years to say the guard lied?

I think all of us on this board would have a hard time understanding what really happened even if we read the discussion that Ito had with the guard and with Grier. Since this information is not available, we can only guess. I am guessing the guard told the truth because I trust Bugliosi and years ago I read that the guard passed a lie detector test. I have been unable to document the lie detector test. I think lie detector tests are only a rough indication of the truth, but the guard would have been under a lot of pressure, which would have made it more difficult to pass if he had been lying. I realize that GI or someone may come up with a theory that says because the guard passed it that shows he was lying... If so I will probably ignore that speculation especially if there is no evidence to back it up.

fgump2,

I think your post was a tad harsh. Martin, William and myself have been very clear regarding the evidence and why we are "uncomfortable" with it. However, you seem beyond uncomfortable with any evidence that suggests that Simpson may be innocent or that because of the job performance by key state witnesses, have made it impossible to ever truly know the value of the evidence.

You made a post recently about the crime scene being altered at Bundy and that it was obvious that the defense did this. However, they had no control over any thing at Bundy. Any decisions made regarding landscape or whatever were made by the Browns. Altered landscaping does not explain the problems of evidence and it has nothing to do with the murders themselves.

You know nothing about this guard, yet you just accept that he is telling the truth--why? You feel this guard should have been able to testify but according to him, he did not hear the conversation between RG and OJ. He heard somthing that he made the determination that it was about the murders.

A drug dealer passed a lie detector test that he sold drugs to Kato and Simpson that night. Does that mean it happened?

[weezer]

". . .Simpson is allowed unlimited visits with his lawyers. On weekdays he confers with Shapiro and other members of his legal team, including F. Lee Bailey and Johnnie Cochran Jr. Often accompanying the lawyers are his children from his first marriage, son Jason, 24, and daughter Arnelle, 25, who may both be called as witnesses at his trial. Some of the meetings, which often last for hours, take place in a special visiting room, remodeled at a cost of $3,000 to allow O.J. access to as many as four lawyers at once. Court papers are passed to Simpson only after a sheriff's deputy inspects them for prohibited materials like staples or paper clips.

Following jail procedures, Thursdays through Sundays are for visits from relatives and close friends. Nicole Pulvers, an assistant to Simpson's legal team, has been assigned the full-time duty of screening potential callers. These meetings take place in the regular visiting room with O.J. on one side of a pane of bulletproof glass and his visitor on the other. They talk on telephone headsets for about 30 minutes . . ."

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20103992,00.html

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

Need to clear something up about VB and his book. I totally and absolutely disagree with one tactic he felt the DA's should have used. However, I have posted that he never blamed the jury for their verdict. He blamed the DA's for the loss.

However, the problem of only blaming the DA's, he ignores that all DA's must present the case that the DA's and the SID team, give them. The DA's are not at fault in regards to physical evidence. They are not responsible for how it was collected, how it was stored, etc.

That being said, if VB was selected to be on the defense team, he would have tore up the LAPD and the SID department. Every lame excuse or explaination he gave in this case, he would have used if he was a member of the defense team.

VB has years and years of experience, both being a DA and a defense lawyer. He knows the importance of police credibility, he knows the cancers of our legal system. For him to give a blanket of trust in the LAPD and the SID departments really, really bothers me. He knows better, IMO.

[GreenIce]

WRONG ACCUSATION.
RG never told anything about his conversations with oj. he did expose the jailer.

Martin,

I just thought of this. I think all can agree that Judge Ito's ruling on this issue was confusing. One minute saying that he wavied his rights but then later rules that OJ had a right to believe they were in a private and secure place. He made this ruling after visiting the jail.

However, what if that was not his real reason to reverse himself on this issue. I wonder if Judge Ito thought the guard was lying? That he couldn't have heard what heard or that if he did hear what here, then had to be listening in on the conversation?

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

I don't know if you know the answer to this question, can you get finger prints or DNA off of coins, as in money coins?

I think this might be a pretty important question.

Also, have either one of you ever read MF's notes?

[GreenIce]

William,

Another legal question. MF pleaded no contest to perjury, however, was it soley based that he lied only regarding one word?

I have been thinking, MF got off with a pretty light slap on the wrist, which always made me wonder why he never took his case to trial. I never believed that money was issue, I believe he was told he better take the deal that was worked out for him because if he took his case to trial, then other prior bad acts could be introduced.

What exactly is meant by a "material issue"?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

That is not correct. Arnelle told them where her father was, out of town and she did not know exactly where he was but she did know the person to contact to find this information out.

It has also been proven through testimony that the detectives were very selective in what they heard, when they heard it and how much of it they heard.

There is no escaping the fact, the undisputed fact, that they allowed Arnelle to unlock the door, turn off the alarm and enter the house before them.

It is also a fact that Simpson could have easily told Kato, when he told them to set the alarm, not to bother, that he would contact Arnelle and have her set the alarm when she came home. He gave the code to Kato.

Arnelle did not need a "legal" excuse to enter the house. The detectives did need a legal excuse, in fact, they needed several.

Vanatter lied on a search warrant, claiming two witnesses gave statements they assumed Simpson was inside the main house. That is not true. Even giving VA the benefit of the doubt on this issue, when he wrote the search warrant, he knew the trip was in fact planned.

His comments about suspecting Simpson as soon as he saw glove makes no sense, unless, he is lying about what he knew and when he knew it.

You are wrong about public telephone records, they are kept. In fact, Faye Resnick went to court to block the defense's request for the public telephone records at the rehab center.

I will bet everything I own, when Petrocelli came up with this fantasy, he knew the public phone records did not indicate any such telephone calls or knew they would never be allowed into evidence. In other words, he knew he did not have proof when he made these accusations against Arnelle.

You also forget that not one detective or SID member testified to the contents of the washer. Not one of them testified that the clothes were wet and not one of them testified they handled them and that they were not collected because it appeared no blood was on them.

You also forget about the second search warrant where VA clearly writes that it is unclear if this sweat suit even exists but if it does, they were going to seize it.

MF impeaches Kato's testimony about this or Kato impeaches MF on this issue. So who is impeaching who?

As far as I am concerned because the LAPD used Arnelle and Kato as human shields and showed no concern for their safety, is more then enough evidence to declare who was or could have honestly been mistaken, who was telling the truth and was, with out a shadow of a doubt, was lying.

This issue is closed.

You are incorrect. The three detectives testified that when Arnelle was first asked about her father, she said, “Isn’t he here?”

You say it is an undisputed fact that the detectives allowed Arnelle to unlock the door, turn off the alarm, and enter the house. Wrong. No detective ever testified they heard warning beeps that would have been heard if the alarm was on. No detective ever testified they saw Arnelle go to a keypad and turn the house alarm off. The fact is that the house alarm was already off and the back door to the house was unlocked when Arnelle opened it to let the detectives into the house. That’s why she fabricated the story about taking the detectives around the house to the front door to turn off the alarm. Her story was impeached by five witnesses.

It doesn’t matter what you think Simpson could have told Kato, what matters is what Kaelin testified Simpson asked him to and what Kaelin testified he did.

The detectives did not need a legal excuse to enter the house since Arnelle voluntarily let them in.

Regarding the search warrant, Vannatter had made one assumption that was incorrect, two others that were true but unconfirmed at the time, and one omission of fact. Commenting from the bench Judge Ito said, “There was no evidence of malice on Vannatter's part or that he had deliberately lied.”

Vannatter testified that Simpson was not a suspect when they went to Rockingham but after he saw the glove and after he saw the blood on the driveway Simpson became a strong suspect.

You say I am wrong about public telephone records. I said that if Simpson made calls on a payphone in June 1994 without knowing what payphone he used it would have been almost impossible to find a record of that call. William tried to distort this issue by claiming that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone and incoming cell phone calls could be identified. Not only is there no evidence that Arnelle had a cell car phone in June 1994 but if Simpson had called her from a payphone after he landed in Chicago he would have called her land line room phone where she was sleeping. Land line telephone records do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls.

No I haven’t forgotten that no one testified about the dark colored sweat suit. The police didn’t know at the time Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit about an hour before the murders so it was never collected, so there was nothing to testify to.

The second search warrant listed a dark colored sweat suit to be collected, but when they conducted the search it wasn’t in the house.

You may think Fuhrman and Kaelin contradicted each other regarding this issue but I sure don’t see it. What do you think one said that contradicts the other?

The detectives didn’t use Arnelle as a human shield. They had no reason to be concerned that it wasn’t safe for her to enter the house. Their concerns were for the housekeeper. That’s why they had Arnelle take them directly to the housekeeper’s room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The only french doors in the house were in the living room. you know that.

You’re wrong. I posted a message on 9/16/09 addressing your incorrect claim with a link to a photograph of Simpson’s family room on Wagner’s web site and I quoted from his article where he wrote about the two French doors in the family room next to the smaller back door that Arnelle opened to let the detectives into the house.

I repeat,

Phillips said, “WALKED TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE -- NOT TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE, BUT THE BACK PORTION OF THE MAIN HOUSE WHERE THERE WAS SOME FRENCH DOORS AND ANOTHER SMALLER DOOR
RIGHT NEXT TO IT.”

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

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

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

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have asked you to stop the false accusations against me and, if you do not, then I will be forced to report you, as I have asked you to post one post where I claimed anyone lied, except for MF. You were the one that continued to say I was infatuated with Arnelle, despite my denials. If you don't care why mention it?:) I have made no claims. The reality is that all three detectives testified that they saw Ms. Arnelle unlock the door and the only door that could be unlocked was the front, which Ms. Arnelle beautifully and truthfully, IMHO, testified she thereby entered the house with those fortunate detectives. The rules require us to be respectful of others opinions/inferences and calling another poster's inference illogical isn't being respectful, IMHO. I am only using the language that so many here use when it comes to some when I say that, IMHO, the detectives lied. :);):cool:

Not only did you accuse the detectives of lying you accused Kato Kaelin who corroborated the detectives testimony that Arnelle entered the back door, of lying.

There is nothing in the rules that prohibits me from pointing out that your inference is illogical and any conclusion you draw from it is incorrect The fact is the detectives said Arnelle unlocked the BACK door, not the front door, before she opened it. We know they were mistaken since the evidence is that the back door was already unlocked before she opened it. No detective ever said Arnelle unlocked the front door so for you to infer that they corroborated Arnelle’s fabricated story is illogical and incorrect and the conclusion you came to based on that illogical incorrect inference that Arnelle was telling the truth and the detectives and Kato were lying is an incorrect conclusion.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Do you know that Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone? Please provide proof of your claim stated as fact that, "Since land line telephone records do not show incoming phone calls unless they are collect calls then there would be no record of that call on Arnelle Simpson’s telephone records"?

There is no evidence that I know of that Arnelle had a cell phone in June 1994. If you believe she did then support your belief by posting it. The proof that land line telephone bills do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls is anyone’s land line telephone bill. If you think my statement is incorrect then prove me wrong.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Where some post any and everything to support their dissagreement with common sense and court testimony. EXAMPLE: Bogus studies, no name experts and pure old fools like vb.:cool::no:

The purpose of writing a book is to sell it, which means money. In order to make money the book by its very nature should be provocative, IMHO, which means that the truth may often be distorted, embellished or minimized.

[William Anthony]

still don't understand the privileged communication argument made by the criminal defense. schiller wrote that grier told the criminal defense that the guard was lying and 10+ years later he told the world. :shrug: like I said, anyone needing to confess, don't go to Rosie's place -- he tells. :eek:

There was no privileged communication between the guard and Mr. Grier. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

William,

There are so many examples of rush to judgement that it is actually very sad. IMO.

GreenIce,

ITA.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I just thought of this. I think all can agree that Judge Ito's ruling on this issue was confusing. One minute saying that he wavied his rights but then later rules that OJ had a right to believe they were in a private and secure place. He made this ruling after visiting the jail.

However, what if that was not his real reason to reverse himself on this issue. I wonder if Judge Ito thought the guard was lying? That he couldn't have heard what heard or that if he did hear what here, then had to be listening in on the conversation?

GreenIce,

I think you have touched on the interesting point and I do believe you understand it. Not ruling on which party was credible, judge Ito said that Simpson had waived his right but the waiver was not valid, because it was not knowing and/or voluntary.

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

I don't know if you know the answer to this question, can you get finger prints or DNA off of coins, as in money coins?

I think this might be a pretty important question.

Also, have either one of you ever read MF's notes?

GreenIce,

I don't know about the coins and I have not read MF's notes.

[William Anthony]

William,

Another legal question. MF pleaded no contest to perjury, however, was it soley based that he lied only regarding one word?

I have been thinking, MF got off with a pretty light slap on the wrist, which always made me wonder why he never took his case to trial. I never believed that money was issue, I believe he was told he better take the deal that was worked out for him because if he took his case to trial, then other prior bad acts could be introduced.

What exactly is meant by a "material issue"?

Let me begin with the question and say that you may be confusing material fact with material issue but let me again look at the definition of perjury.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

This says a material matter and a witness' credibility is always a material matter. MF's perjury charge was in regard to his testimony in regard to his use of the word, which means that he lied when he testified that all those, who said he used the word within the last ten years were lying in addition to lying about his use. I don't know about the other bad acts since at that time he had not been asked, if he planted evidence in this case, IIRC, which means that the question would have been irrelevant and immaterial. However, there was still the chance that it could have gotten in.

[William Anthony]

It doesn’t matter what you think Simpson could have told Kato, what matters is what Kaelin testified Simpson asked him to and what Kaelin testified he did.

You say I am wrong about public telephone records. I said that if Simpson made calls on a payphone in June 1994 without knowing what payphone he used it would have been almost impossible to find a record of that call. William tried to distort this issue by claiming that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone and incoming cell phone calls could be identified. Not only is there no evidence that Arnelle had a cell car phone in June 1994 but if Simpson had called her from a payphone after he landed in Chicago he would have called her land line room phone where she was sleeping. Land line telephone records do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls.

bobaugust

Can we say then that it doesn't matter what you assume the detectives saw, since they all testified they saw Ms. Arnelle unlock the door?

You are guilty of double speak, as you say that it would be "almost impossible to find a record of a phone call from a payphone, without knowing the payphone" and then you say "but if Simpson had called her from a payphone after he landed in Chicago he would have called her land line room phone where she was sleeping. Land line telephone records do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls." I have asked you to support your claim, "Land line telephone records do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls". Who has the burden of showing that Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone? Don't you think that belongs to the person alleging that Simpson called her, so I ask you for proof?

[William Anthony]

Not only did you accuse the detectives of lying you accused Kato Kaelin who corroborated the detectives testimony that Arnelle entered the back door, of lying.

There is nothing in the rules that prohibits me from pointing out that your inference is illogical and any conclusion you draw from it is incorrect The fact is the detectives said Arnelle unlocked the BACK door, not the front door, before she opened it. We know they were mistaken since the evidence is that the back door was already unlocked before she opened it. No detective ever said Arnelle unlocked the front door so for you to infer that they corroborated Arnelle’s fabricated story is illogical and incorrect and the conclusion you came to based on that illogical incorrect inference that Arnelle was telling the truth and the detectives and Kato were lying is an incorrect conclusion.

bobaugust

I have asked you to stop the false accusation by posting where I claimed anyone lied, except for MF, and told you that I would report if you continued the false accusations. You have faied and so have others to post where I said someone other than MF lied, so I am compelled to report this post.

I thank you for changing your statement as to my inferences being illogical to incorrect conclusions. That is more respectful.:);):cool: Ms.Arnelle testified she unlocked the front door, the detective testified she unlocked the door, the technology proved the only door that could be unlocked was the front door. Ergo, the detectives story is an illogical and fabricated bunch of lies, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence that I know of that Arnelle had a cell phone in June 1994. If you believe she did then support your belief by posting it. The proof that land line telephone bills do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls is anyone’s land line telephone bill. If you think my statement is incorrect then prove me wrong.

bobaugust

You made the claims and according to the rules I have asked you to support your claims. I read the rules and I have asked once and therefore I am under no obligation to respond. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Martin,

I just thought of this. I think all can agree that Judge Ito's ruling on this issue was confusing. One minute saying that he wavied his rights but then later rules that OJ had a right to believe they were in a private and secure place. He made this ruling after visiting the jail.

However, what if that was not his real reason to reverse himself on this issue. I wonder if Judge Ito thought the guard was lying? That he couldn't have heard what heard or that if he did hear what here, then had to be listening in on the conversation?

ITO was concerned about the security at the jail and found that it was not what prisoners had a right to expect. Maby the jailer was too close to oj for privacy or the phones were faulty and required oj to speal loudly. i am not sure what was wrong but something convinced him that the expected security was not the case.
Shaperio reminded him of his finding and ITO decided that oj did not have the required security.
It may be that ITO believed Rev Grier over the jailer when he interviewed them. This plus his observations at the jail may be behind his correct decision. Maby the jailer was too close to oj or the phones were faulty. ITO never spoke on what he saw at the jail.But it was enough for him to make the correct decision.

ITO first comment was not the overiding issue. His final decision overuled the first.:cool:

[martin II]

fgump2,

Need to clear something up about VB and his book. I totally and absolutely disagree with one tactic he felt the DA's should have used. However, I have posted that he never blamed the jury for their verdict. He blamed the DA's for the loss.

However, the problem of only blaming the DA's, he ignores that all DA's must present the case that the DA's and the SID team, give them. The DA's are not at fault in regards to physical evidence. They are not responsible for how it was collected, how it was stored, etc.

That being said, if VB was selected to be on the defense team, he would have tore up the LAPD and the SID department. Every lame excuse or explaination he gave in this case, he would have used if he was a member of the defense team.

VB has years and years of experience, both being a DA and a defense lawyer. He knows the importance of police credibility, he knows the cancers of our legal system. For him to give a blanket of trust in the LAPD and the SID departments really, really bothers me. He knows better, IMO.

In this case VB only objective was to get the DA to give him a seat at their table for the purpose of publicity and fame in this large case. The Da refused to give him than opportunity so he paid them back in spades and more by writing that book and attacking them.Obviously the defense also turned him down as with the team they had they did not allow him to "assist" them as they must have been aware of how he would try to 'LEAD" the team.Plus he was too radical in his views.

So what did he do. He went home angry at the rejections and wrote his fiction attacking EVERYONE. And some read his fiction using his attacks on the defense and remain silent on his attacks on the DA.IMO:cool:

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

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

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

Or perhaps it's the fact that initial observations are just that, initial. I have done my research and found that Fuhrman indeed had not yet personally handled any evidence in this matter when he sat down to take his notes. For that matter, no one had begun actually handling evidence at that time. The only thing he had completed at that point was the initial walk through with a distant observation of the evidence. He did not step onto the walkway nor did he get particularly close to the bodies.

Knowing this, I must ask why do you assume that he deliberately notated false details?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

In this case VB only objective was to get the DA to give him a seat at their table for the purpose of publicity and fame in this large case. The Da refused to give him than opportunity so he paid them back in spades and more by writing that book and attacking them.Obviously the defense also turned him down as with the team they had they did not allow him to "assist" them as they must have been aware of how he would try to 'LEAD" the team.Plus he was too radical in his views.

So what did he do. He went home angry at the rejections and wrote his fiction attacking EVERYONE. And some read his fiction using his attacks on the defense and remain silent on his attacks on the DA.IMO:cool:

Proof please to the idea that VB wanted a role within the defense in which he was turned down in assisting them.

Kate

[martin II]

Martin and William,

I don't know if you know the answer to this question, can you get finger prints or DNA off of coins, as in money coins?

I think this might be a pretty important question.

Also, have either one of you ever read MF's notes?

Finger prints can be lifted from a door knob so i believe they can be lifted from a coin as both are smooth metal items. DNA can be lifted is sweat,skin and other DNA is on the item.

[martin II]

There is no evidence that I know of that Arnelle had a cell phone in June 1994. If you believe she did then support your belief by posting it. The proof that land line telephone bills do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls is anyone’s land line telephone bill. If you think my statement is incorrect then prove me wrong.

bobaugust

Bob

if you don't know she had a cell phone the issue is closed. You don't know.

[martin II]

GreenIce,

I think you have touched on the interesting point and I do believe you understand it. Not ruling on which party was credible, judge Ito said that Simpson had waived his right but the waiver was not valid, because it was not knowing and/or voluntary.

That is the answer.

[martin II]

Martin and William,

I don't know if you know the answer to this question, can you get finger prints or DNA off of coins, as in money coins?

I think this might be a pretty important question.

Also, have either one of you ever read MF's notes?

i have not read MF notes but believe they were the results of his actual observations of the Bundy crime scene or something he just made up.Vannatter received them but not sure he read them.imo

MF investigated and observed the bundy evidence from the time he arrived until after he moved the glove.

[martin II]

Martin,

I just thought of this. I think all can agree that Judge Ito's ruling on this issue was confusing. One minute saying that he wavied his rights but then later rules that OJ had a right to believe they were in a private and secure place. He made this ruling after visiting the jail.

However, what if that was not his real reason to reverse himself on this issue. I wonder if Judge Ito thought the guard was lying? That he couldn't have heard what heard or that if he did hear what here, then had to be listening in on the conversation?

I think the jailer may have had some problems convincing ITO that what he believes he heard was what he thought it meant. That Rev Grier told ITO
nothing about the content of his conversations with oj other than it was about the bible and the jailer was not telling the truth about what he said he heard. The jailers report of that conversation did not take place between he and oj. I believe ITO believed Rev Grier.imo

[weezer]

William Anthony
12-12-2006, 05:04 PM
I had no beliefs until they testified and I stil, unlike you, can say that they lied. I can say that, judging from what I saw, I believed they lied.

05-20-2008, 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by tvdinner
Why don't you just say you think Kato is lying?
I am not like some on the board. He may have just had a false memory.
__________________
Doc Holiday

09-27-2009, 06:41 AM
You say mistaken and I say, IMHO, they lied. Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. The tecnology showed that Ms Arnelle was correct/truthful. Veritas in onus, veritas in omnibus.
__________________
Doc Holiday

[tv]

Proof please to the idea that VB wanted a role within the defense in which he was turned down in assisting them.

Kate

Kate, I've never understood this claim that Mr. Buglisosi wanted to be a part of the defense. Here is an excerpt from the introduction to his book --

"...Despite my efforts, I was only partially successful in staying away from the Simpson case. Reporters and talk show hosts are incredibly persistent, and occasionally I would agree to appear on national TV to comment on the Simpson case, every time telling myself it was the last time. But it never was. And since I never do anything, even appear on television, without doing my homework, I kept sufficiently current with the case to know what was going on."

[Hipcheck]

MF investigated and observed the bundy evidence from the time he arrived until after he moved the glove.

You have NO proof that Mark Fuhrman moved the glove.

Do you have proof of this or is that your opinion?

Everyone at the Bundy crime scene only seen one glove. There wasn't a second glove for Fuhrman to move and plant at Rockingham.

[Hipcheck]

William Anthony
12-12-2006, 05:04 PM
I had no beliefs until they testified and I stil, unlike you, can say that they lied. I can say that, judging from what I saw, I believed they lied.

05-20-2008, 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by tvdinner
Why don't you just say you think Kato is lying?
I am not like some on the board. He may have just had a false memory.
__________________
Doc Holiday

09-27-2009, 06:41 AM
You say mistaken and I say, IMHO, they lied. Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. The tecnology showed that Ms Arnelle was correct/truthful. Veritas in onus, veritas in omnibus.
__________________
Doc Holiday

It's a joke. William has called the detectives in many posts liars just like above.

William stating he has never done that even when shown that he has is a joke.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony
12-12-2006, 05:04 PM
I had no beliefs until they testified and I stil, unlike you, can say that they lied. I can say that, judging from what I saw, I believed they lied.

05-20-2008, 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by tvdinner
Why don't you just say you think Kato is lying?
I am not like some on the board. He may have just had a false memory.
__________________
Doc Holiday

09-27-2009, 06:41 AM
You say mistaken and I say, IMHO, they lied. Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. The tecnology showed that Ms Arnelle was correct/truthful. Veritas in onus, veritas in omnibus.
__________________
Doc Holiday

I am unable to go back and pull up the first post but I do have a strong belif that the word can should be can't and, if you would pull up the post and post the post to which I was responding, you will be able to confirm that. In any event, I did not claim anyone lied. I claimed based on my observations I believed they lied.

As to the second, it is clear that I said that Kato may have had a false memory and not that Kato lied.

As to the third, the IMHO, meaning in my honest opinion, not that they did lie or that I said they lied.

Thanks.

[William Anthony]

It's a joke. William has called the detectives in many posts liars just like above.

William stating he has never done that even when shown that he has is a joke.

No one has been able to post any post saying that I said anyone lied. I have stated my beliefs and my opinions but, unlike some posts I have seen, i have never stated someone lied or called anyone a liar, save MF, and nothing anyone falsely claims about that can change it. So, at this point I am respectfully asking you to stop the false accusations.

[William Anthony]

Or perhaps it's the fact that initial observations are just that, initial. I have done my research and found that Fuhrman indeed had not yet personally handled any evidence in this matter when he sat down to take his notes. For that matter, no one had begun actually handling evidence at that time. The only thing he had completed at that point was the initial walk through with a distant observation of the evidence. He did not step onto the walkway nor did he get particularly close to the bodies.

Knowing this, I must ask why do you assume that he deliberately notated false details?

Kate

Kate,

This is if you believe MF. Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus.

[William Anthony]

Bob

if you don't know she had a cell phone the issue is closed. You don't know.

He has stated that Simpson called Ms. Arnelle but since there is no evidence of any phone call he stated that Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone in 1994. When I asked if he thought Simpson invented a cell phone with accessories, he stated there was no evidence that Ms. Arnelle had a cell phone. That is exactly our point. Without the evidence that she did not have a cell phone, how can he say what she had?:);):cool:

[Hipcheck]

I am unable to go back and pull up the first post but I do have a strong belif that the word can should be can't and, if you would pull up the post and post the post to which I was responding, you will be able to confirm that. In any event, I did not claim anyone lied. I claimed based on my observations I believed they lied.

As to the second, it is clear that I said that Kato may have had a false memory and not that Kato lied.

As to the third, the IMHO, meaning in my honest opinion, not that they did lie or that I said they lied.

Thanks.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tv]

It's a joke. William has called the detectives in many posts liars just like above.

William stating he has never done that even when shown that he has is a joke.

William states that he uses the word 'inference' or 'IMHO' to qualify the word lie. What about this quote? Posted 9/16/09 at 4:17 PM. Well, William?

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

[William Anthony]

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!

I see that you may now have realized the difference in saying they lied, as opposed to I believe they lied or in my honest opinion they lied. I know how some appreciate my stories and I will just give a shortened version of a Captain, who said in his opinion I would never make a soldier and I said in my opinion he was an a**hole. The captain ordered me to go to JAG. I went and told the JAG lawyer what happened and he asked did anyone hear me and I told him the whole company since we were in formation. He told me not to worry and go back to duty and have the captain call him, which I did. After duty, I went to the lawyer and asked what he said. He said that he told the captain I did not call him anything as I said in my opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[William Anthony]

William states that he uses the word 'inference' or 'IMHO' to qualify the word lie. What about this quote? Posted 9/16/09 at 4:17 PM. Well, William?


Well, Ms. Tvdinner

Lets put it in context, shall we?:)

Here is the post that started it.

Originally Posted by martin II View Post
Well
Did Arnell lie about unlocking the a door or did the detectives lie when they said she did?

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

bobaugust

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

If you do not understand my comedic sarcasm at how bobaugust is apparently allowed to post in an unbridled and indifferent manner and to say who was mistaken and who lied, then I do apologize and will hereafter notify you when I am being comedic and sarcastic, as I am now. You did give it a college try.:);):cool:

[tv]

Well, Ms. Tvdinner

Lets put it in context, shall we?:)





If you do not understand my comedic sarcasm at how bobaugust is apparently allowed to post in an unbridled and indifferent manner and to say who was mistaken and who lied, then I do apologize and will hereafter notify you when I am being comedic and sarcastic, as I am now. You did give it a college try.:);):cool:

Give it up, William. You didn't use inference or imho. Are you saying you were being sarcastic about your feelings about Arnelle? You're caught in your own snare...if you hadn't made such a big deal about it you wouldn't be trying to slither out of it now...hey, just swallow your lumps...it won't kill you. :D

[martin II]

You have NO proof that Mark Fuhrman moved the glove.

Do you have proof of this or is that your opinion?

Everyone at the Bundy crime scene only seen one glove. There wasn't a second glove for Fuhrman to move and plant at Rockingham.

See MF testimony.

[martin II]

No one has been able to post any post saying that I said anyone lied. I have stated my beliefs and my opinions but, unlike some posts I have seen, i have never stated someone lied or called anyone a liar, save MF, and nothing anyone falsely claims about that can change it. So, at this point I am respectfully asking you to stop the false accusations.

MF was caught telling a lie. Yet some offer the idea that he tells the truth.

[martin II]

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since no one proved Darden lied, i believe him. He was fired from his job.

[weezer]

Give it up, William. You didn't use inference or imho. Are you saying you were being sarcastic about your feelings about Arnelle? You're caught in your own snare...if you hadn't made such a big deal about it you wouldn't be trying to slither out of it now...hey, just swallow your lumps...it won't kill you. :D

LOL -- reminds me of orenthal sitting in front of a picture of a bruised, battered, and bleeding Nicole while he swore he never hit her. "Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?" :tongue:

[William Anthony]

Give it up, William. You didn't use inference or imho. Are you saying you were being sarcastic about your feelings about Arnelle? You're caught in your own snare...if you hadn't made such a big deal about it you wouldn't be trying to slither out of it now...hey, just swallow your lumps...it won't kill you. :D

Let's put it all in context, since we must and this was my response to IJM,

"Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
This has been done when posters make long posts but since you take umbrage at this being done, I will certainly so do. You may take logic over riches but just make sure that you haven't passed up riches for fake logic. For instance, there was a post that said Ms. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door. However, when it was pointed out that the men all claimed she unlocked the door, it was not claimed that the men lied. The only door that could have been unlocked was the front door, which Ms. Arnelle said she unlocked and let in the men. Talking logically, then if Ms. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door, then the men lied."

This post was followed by

"Originally Posted by martin II View Post
Well
Did Arnell lie about unlocking the a door or did the detectives lie when they said she did?"

This post was followed by

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

This post was followed by


bobaugust "

This post was followed by

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

There is nothing for me to slither out of as I leave that for the likes of MF. I was providing a comedic and sarcastic response to bobaugust post saying the Ms. Arnelle lied and the detectives were mistaken in response to the post from Martin asking who lied and the overall logic of saying Ms. Arnelle lied but the detectives who corroborated her unlocking of the door did not lie, according to bobaugust. Good try but no cigar. :);):cool:

[tv]

LOL -- reminds me of orenthal sitting in front of a picture of a bruised, battered, and bleeding Nicole while he swore he never hit her. "Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?" :tongue:

...and just as transparent. :rolleyes:

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

This is if you believe MF. Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus.

Not exactly William. When Fuhrman sat in the living room to take his notes appears to not be disputed from what I can gather, nor is that he completed only an initial walk through at that time. Do you know of anything to the contrary?

Kate

[tv]

Let's put it all in context, since we must and this was my response to IJM,

"Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
This has been done when posters make long posts but since you take umbrage at this being done, I will certainly so do. You may take logic over riches but just make sure that you haven't passed up riches for fake logic. For instance, there was a post that said Ms. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door. However, when it was pointed out that the men all claimed she unlocked the door, it was not claimed that the men lied. The only door that could have been unlocked was the front door, which Ms. Arnelle said she unlocked and let in the men. Talking logically, then if Ms. Arnelle lied about unlocking the door, then the men lied."

This post was followed by

"Originally Posted by martin II View Post
Well
Did Arnell lie about unlocking the a door or did the detectives lie when they said she did?"

This post was followed by

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

This post was followed by


bobaugust "

This post was followed by

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

There is nothing for me to slither out of as I leave that for the likes of MF. I was providing a comedic and sarcastic response to bobaugust post saying the Ms. Arnelle lied and the detectives were mistaken in response to the post from Martin asking who lied and the overall logic of saying Ms. Arnelle lied but the detectives who corroborated her unlocking of the door did not lie, according to bobaugust. Good try but no cigar. :);):cool:

You said it. Is there some reason you can't admit you're wrong and apologize to the board for demanding apologies from other posters and threatening to report them?

[William Anthony]

This is pertinent to the discussion how?

Kate

Kate,

I believe it is pertinent on the issue of RG and the guard lying. I think the point is that prison guards engage in unlawful conduct and one might not be above fabricating a story. If I am wrong, perhaps, Martin will enlighten me.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

This is if you believe MF. Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus.

I am sure you aware that most officers do take initial notes at a crime scene; it's something I learned from law enforcement training classes several years ago.

What reason do you think Fuhrman would have had to deliberately make false statements such as a possible gunshot wound or that the killer may have been bitten by a dog?

Kate

[William Anthony]

You said it. Is there some reason you can't admit you're wrong and apologize to the board for demanding apologies from other posters and threatening to report them?

I did apologize. Did you not read, "If you do not understand my comedic sarcasm at how bobaugust is apparently allowed to post in an unbridled and indifferent manner and to say who was mistaken and who lied, then I do apologize and will hereafter notify you when I am being comedic and sarcastic, as I am now"? I took the time of placing the post in context so that you will understand and I said that I would notify you when I am being comedic and sarcastic and will do so for the benefit of any other posters who may have misunderstood.

[martin II]

Guards

12/05/2005 - The weapons used by three Kern County jailers to kill a defenseless inmate in August were simple, District Attorney Ed Jagels said Thursday.
"Boot. Fist. Elbow," he said.

Sheriff's officials arrested five of their own Thursday -- some on suspicion of murder and others solely on suspicion of assault.

James Moore of Bakersfield was bound, hand and foot, when three detention deputies struck heavy blows to his head on Aug. 15, Jagels said.

Moore, 30, died of blunt force head trauma six days later at Mercy Hospital, according to coroner's reports.

Arrested on second-degree murder charges were Daniel Thomas Lindini, 48; Ralph Contreras, 32,; and Roxanne Fowler, 41, according to Jagels and jail records.

Lindini is a 23-year veteran of the department. Contreras and Fowler have 11 and 10 years of experience, respectively, the department said.

Two other jailers, 34-year-old Angel Lopez Bravo and 20-year-old Lisa Diane Romero, struck unnecessary but non-lethal blows to Moore's body, Jagels alleged Thursday.

Both face charges of assault under the color of authority and were released after posting $50,000 bail Thursday, officials said. Bravo was hired by the department 10 years ago while Romero was hired in June, according to the department.

All of the suspects were booked into the downtown jail where the beating occurred months ago.

Moore was arrested Aug. 15 on suspicion of making threats after he got into an argument with the mother of his younger son, his family and sheriff's officials said.

Jagels said Moore got into a total of four "violent confrontations" with jail staffers that same day, but the jailers' actions were only criminal during the fourth incident.

"Mr. Moore was acting extremely irrationally and violently. According to all the witnesses, he was incredibly strong," Jagels said.

Jagels added Moore wasn't under the influence of drugs because a test done at the time of his arrest ruled that out.

During the first three incidents, detention personnel used a baton, pepper spray and a carotid-artery hold to try to subdue Moore, according to the investigation of the incidents, Jagels said. No criminal violations were found in those incidents, Jagels said.

http://www.policecrimes.com/police_brutality/California3_police.html

[William Anthony]

I am sure you aware that most officers do take initial notes at a crime scene; it's something I learned from law enforcement training classes several years ago.

What reason do you think Fuhrman would have had to deliberately make false statements such as a possible gunshot wound or that the killer may have been bitten by a dog?

Kate

I think that he may have been trying to conceal his actual closeness to the evidence.

[tv]

I did apologize. Did you not read, "If you do not understand my comedic sarcasm at how bobaugust is apparently allowed to post in an unbridled and indifferent manner and to say who was mistaken and who lied, then I do apologize and will hereafter notify you when I am being comedic and sarcastic, as I am now"? I took the time of placing the post in context so that you will understand and I said that I would notify you when I am being comedic and sarcastic and will do so for the benefit of any other posters who may have misunderstood.

No, you apologized for your "comedic sarcasm". The post was in context and you know it. I'd like to see you apologize to those that you say falsely accused you. There's no need to notify me when you're being comedic or sarcastic because I have you on ignore most of the time and would probably miss it.

[William Anthony]

Not exactly William. When Fuhrman sat in the living room to take his notes appears to not be disputed from what I can gather, nor is that he completed only an initial walk through at that time. Do you know of anything to the contrary?

Kate

Kate,

You subsequently provided the things that may be contrary in addition to the tapes and his seeming willingness to fabricate reports.

[William Anthony]

No, you apologized for your "comedic sarcasm". The post was in context and you know it. I'd like to see you apologize to those that you say falsely accused you. There's no need to notify me when you're being comedic or sarcastic because I have you on ignore most of the time and would probably miss it.

There is no need for me to apologize since I was falsely accused and there is not need to take things out of context in order to say someone said something they did not, unless there is some sort of concerted effort by others for some unknown reason to justify anger at a person, IMHO. So what, if I did say they lied (comedic and sarcastic).:):rolleyes:

[Hotwater]

Drop it and move to another subject please.

HW

[Kate Sachel]

I think that he may have been trying to conceal his actual closeness to the evidence.

I see. However, I find it logical to notate a possibility that the killer may have been bitten by a dog considering the bloody paw prints that let us know that a canine was present at some point.

I personally believe Fuhrman far too arrogant to take notations that make him seem clearly off base in his initial observations. At that time, I doubt he had any reason to believe that the police activity of that early morning would be so highly scrutinized and criticized.

Kate

[martin II]

I think that he may have been trying to conceal his actual closeness to the evidence.

Furhman made detail notes of his observations/investigations at Bundy up until he was relieved of his duty..Gave them to vannater who filed them away.

Furhman then went to Rockingham which deemed to crime scene and DID NOT MAKE ONE NOTE. Neither did any of the detectives during their stay at rockingham.So all detectives do not make notes at a crime scene.

[Kate Sachel]

Furhman made detail notes of his observations/investigations at Bundy up until he was relieved of his duty..Gave them to vannater who filed them away.

Furhman then went to Rockingham which deemed to crime scene and DID NOT MAKE ONE NOTE. Neither did any of the detectives during their stay at rockingham.So all detectives do not make notes at a crime scene.

I don't believe anyone claimed that all detectives make notes. I believe the term was "most".

Kate

[William Anthony]

I see. However, I find it logical to notate a possibility that the killer may have been bitten by a dog considering the bloody paw prints that let us know that a canine was present at some point.

I personally believe Fuhrman far too arrogant to take notations that make him seem clearly off base in his initial observations. At that time, I doubt he had any reason to believe that the police activity of that early morning would be so highly scrutinized and criticized.

Kate

Kate,

We do agree on MF's arrogance not allowing him to appear to be too far off base, which is why I said I think one reason was he was trying to conceal how close he was to the evidence and he was playing Justin Case. :);)

[GreenIce]

You are incorrect. The three detectives testified that when Arnelle was first asked about her father, she said, “Isn’t he here?”

You say it is an undisputed fact that the detectives allowed Arnelle to unlock the door, turn off the alarm, and enter the house. Wrong. No detective ever testified they heard warning beeps that would have been heard if the alarm was on. No detective ever testified they saw Arnelle go to a keypad and turn the house alarm off. The fact is that the house alarm was already off and the back door to the house was unlocked when Arnelle opened it to let the detectives into the house. That’s why she fabricated the story about taking the detectives around the house to the front door to turn off the alarm. Her story was impeached by five witnesses.

It doesn’t matter what you think Simpson could have told Kato, what matters is what Kaelin testified Simpson asked him to and what Kaelin testified he did.

The detectives did not need a legal excuse to enter the house since Arnelle voluntarily let them in.

Regarding the search warrant, Vannatter had made one assumption that was incorrect, two others that were true but unconfirmed at the time, and one omission of fact. Commenting from the bench Judge Ito said, “There was no evidence of malice on Vannatter's part or that he had deliberately lied.”

Vannatter testified that Simpson was not a suspect when they went to Rockingham but after he saw the glove and after he saw the blood on the driveway Simpson became a strong suspect.

You say I am wrong about public telephone records. I said that if Simpson made calls on a payphone in June 1994 without knowing what payphone he used it would have been almost impossible to find a record of that call. William tried to distort this issue by claiming that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone and incoming cell phone calls could be identified. Not only is there no evidence that Arnelle had a cell car phone in June 1994 but if Simpson had called her from a payphone after he landed in Chicago he would have called her land line room phone where she was sleeping. Land line telephone records do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls.

No I haven’t forgotten that no one testified about the dark colored sweat suit. The police didn’t know at the time Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit about an hour before the murders so it was never collected, so there was nothing to testify to.

The second search warrant listed a dark colored sweat suit to be collected, but when they conducted the search it wasn’t in the house.

You may think Fuhrman and Kaelin contradicted each other regarding this issue but I sure don’t see it. What do you think one said that contradicts the other?

The detectives didn’t use Arnelle as a human shield. They had no reason to be concerned that it wasn’t safe for her to enter the house. Their concerns were for the housekeeper. That’s why they had Arnelle take them directly to the housekeeper’s room.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You are incorrect, the three detectives all claimed they did not hear what Arnelle had said, it was always very vague and it was always "some thing to the effect of". Arnelle was asked a direct question and at least two detectives, including the one who asked her, did not listen to her response. I would think it is a no brainer that when you are detective, and you ask important questions, you should listen to the response as well as the demeanor and/or the reaction of the person who is giving an answer.

Arnelle's testimony has never been inconsistent on any of these issues, her credbility was never questioned because there was no evidence that suggested it should be. A judge did question the detectives and while only one of the bore much the blunt of slap, they were all involved in it.

Please explain to me why you feel them not hearing the beeps of the alarm system as to be parmount to her credbility yet you have no problem with them listening to the answers to cruical questions?

Also, if they were telling the truth, they never would have allowed Arnelle to put herself in danger. If they were telling the truth, they would have asked Arnelle to please wait with a detective, while they entered and secured the house.

They used Arnelle and Kato as a human shield. I know, you feel Arnelle's life is worth nothing and its no big deal had she walked into finding the maid butchered or even finding her father, maybe hanging for a ceiling fan. But, in all fairness to you, at least as far I as I know, your job's motto was not "To Protect and Serve", you do not carry a shield, a shield that stands for protection.

The detectives who allowed Arnelle to do this, were again, not doing their job, again, were showing total disrespect for the danager and horror that young woman could have walked into. I know they didn't care about her any more then you do, but too bad for them, the citizens on the jury realized what they did. Those detectives earned the shamed and they deserve all the blame---IMO.

You are wrong about the detectives impeaching Arnelle but you know that already.

When ever you make a post about this issue, I think the response should be,
LAPD Uses Arnelle Simpson As Human Shield and Kato was Shield B.

No amount of your nonsense will change the facts.

[martin II]

William/GI

After reading so much about guard abuse ,especially against women in jail i am wondering if ITO considered what he knew about gurads abuse and lying
on prisoners, listened to the guard and his excuse sounded like so many others ITO had known about.
i am still reading some of guard abuse of women.

[William Anthony]

The detectives did not need a legal excuse to enter the house since Arnelle voluntarily let them in. By bobaugust

The detectives use exigent circumstances to invade Simpson's curtilage. Thus, they did not need anyone's permission to enter the home, if they truly believed they had exigent circumstances.

[martin II]

Kate,

We do agree on MF's arrogance not allowing him to appear to be too far off base, which is why I said I think one reason was he was trying to conceal how close he was to the evidence and he was playing Justin Case. :);)

WILLIAM
That is very smart obervation aboout mf playing justin case. Thats very funny. thanks. I am still giggling.

He was closer to one glove than he was to the one in the picture.

[William Anthony]

WILLIAM
That is very smart obervation aboout mf playing justin case. Thats very funny. thanks. I am still giggling.

He was closer to one glove than he was to the one in the picture.

Thanks,

I was being comedic and sarcastic.:);):cool:

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I don't know about the coins and I have not read MF's notes.

William,

The thing about the coins is that it was reported that there were so many coins and which they were. Lange's notes reflected something different. My issue with this, how could have everybody gotten this wrong but Lange got it right?

And it was their theory that the coins came out when the killers went into his pants pocket to get the keys out. So were these coins checked? And what if they were the DNA was not a link to Simpson?

IMO, there is too much evidence that was claimed not to be collected or tested and too much evidence was "lost" for it to be believeable. IMO, it is very possible that some evidence was gathered by the detectives, it was tested and when it was not linked to Simpson, it was lost or it was thrown out.

About MF's notes. He wrote about the ice cream and the condition it was in when Riske first saw it, yet Riske gives a different description of it. I have come to be believe that Riske perhaps is not all that credibile and he did not want to be be proven wrong about Simpson being involved in the murders.

[William Anthony]

William,

The thing about the coins is that it was reported that there were so many coins and which they were. Lange's notes reflected something different. My issue with this, how could have everybody gotten this wrong but Lange got it right?

And it was their theory that the coins came out when the killers went into his pants pocket to get the keys out. So were these coins checked? And what if they were the DNA was not a link to Simpson?

IMO, there is too much evidence that was claimed not to be collected or tested and too much evidence was "lost" for it to be believeable. IMO, it is very possible that some evidence was gathered by the detectives, it was tested and when it was not linked to Simpson, it was lost or it was thrown out.

About MF's notes. He wrote about the ice cream and the condition it was in when Riske first saw it, yet Riske gives a different description of it. I have come to be believe that Riske perhaps is not all that credibile and he did not want to be be proven wrong about Simpson being involved in the murders.

GreenIce,

I think that a partial fingerprint may have been lifted from the coins if the owner was not wearing gloves. I agree with you about the alleged selective collection of evidence. The Ice cream has always interested me and was the carton checked for fingerprints.

[GreenIce]

William/GI

After reading so much about guard abuse ,especially against women in jail i am wondering if ITO considered what he knew about gurads abuse and lying
on prisoners, listened to the guard and his excuse sounded like so many others ITO had known about.
i am still reading some of guard abuse of women.

Martin,

I made a similar post. Ito's ruling makes no sense, unless he did come to believe that the guard was lying. William's response was awesome, Ito never ruled on anyone's credibility, he just ruled that Simpson was led to believe that he had privacy.

Several of Ito's rulings went this way. IMO, the delay of many of his rulings was for the media. He was very conscious of what the media was saying about the case. He knew the DA's were not going to bring in the Bronco Chase or the statement.

Remember when Collin Y., opened the door to Simpson's statement--it was Ito who called the sidebar and said that Collin Y opened the door to this. IMO, he was acting like a DA, not a judge. IMO, it shouldn't have mattered to him if the statement came in or not. If the DA's stepped in it, he was not to be the one to help them clean their shoes off, IMO.

[martin II]

William,

The thing about the coins is that it was reported that there were so many coins and which they were. Lange's notes reflected something different. My issue with this, how could have everybody gotten this wrong but Lange got it right?

And it was their theory that the coins came out when the killers went into his pants pocket to get the keys out. So were these coins checked? And what if they were the DNA was not a link to Simpson?

IMO, there is too much evidence that was claimed not to be collected or tested and too much evidence was "lost" for it to be believeable. IMO, it is very possible that some evidence was gathered by the detectives, it was tested and when it was not linked to Simpson, it was lost or it was thrown out.

About MF's notes. He wrote about the ice cream and the condition it was in when Riske first saw it, yet Riske gives a different description of it. I have come to be believe that Riske perhaps is not all that credibile and he did not want to be be proven wrong about Simpson being involved in the murders.

it has been my belief that the dark clothing was taken and tested. When it did not show blood or matching fibers it was lost or thrown out and le claimed it was missing as a cover story.

MF made several observations of what he saw. So either he saw what he said he saw or he just wrote something that he did not see.
But he made not one note of his work at rockingham so i wonder why did he change his mo about note taking at rockingham. imo

[martin II]

Martin,

I made a similar post. Ito's ruling makes no sense, unless he did come to believe that the guard was lying. William's response was awesome, Ito never ruled on anyone's credibility, he just ruled that Simpson was led to believe that he had privacy.

Several of Ito's rulings went this way. IMO, the delay of many of his rulings was for the media. He was very conscious of what the media was saying about the case. He knew the DA's were not going to bring in the Bronco Chase or the statement.

Remember when Collin Y., opened the door to Simpson's statement--it was Ito who called the sidebar and said that Collin Y opened the door to this. IMO, he was acting like a DA, not a judge. IMO, it shouldn't have mattered to him if the statement came in or not. If the DA's stepped in it, he was not to be the one to help them clean their shoes off, IMO.

I understand but believe ITOS ruling about expected security was correct. He found that the privacy that should have been in place was not in place and that all prisoners including oj had a right for privacy to be in place.
imo

[William Anthony]

it has been my belief that the dark clothing was taken and tested. When it did not show blood or matching fibers it was lost or thrown out and le claimed it was missing as a cover story.

MF made several observations of what he saw. So either he saw what he said he saw or he just wrote something that he did not see.
But he made not one note of his work at rockingham so i wonder why did he change his mo about note taking at rockingham. imo

I believe he was otherwise distracted at Rockingham, which kept him too busy to write notes and at that point he did not want to write about what he was doing.

[William Anthony]

I understand but believe ITOS ruling about expected security was correct. He found that the privacy that should have been in place was not in place and that all prisoners including oj had a right for privacy to be in place.
imo

"I think it's disingenuous for Your Honor even to make that suggestion that you gave us privacy with those phones and then you went there yourself and saw that we did not have privacy!"

[martin II]

GreenIce,

I think that a partial fingerprint may have been lifted from the coins if the owner was not wearing gloves. I agree with you about the alleged selective collection of evidence. The Ice cream has always interested me and was the carton checked for fingerprints.

Lang found the jewelry and put it in his desk drawyer instead of truning it in.

[martin II]

I believe he was otherwise distracted at Rockingham, which kept him too busy to write notes and at that point he did not want to write about what he was doing.

Without any notes i guess the detectives testified to whatever came to mind when asked a question. Like making it up as one goes.

[William Anthony]

Lang found the jewelry and put it in his desk drawyer instead of truning it in.

March 6th

"Q: THAT IS THE WAY YOU WERE TRAINED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: AGAIN, YES, AS A GUIDE.

Q: OKAY. AS A GUIDE IN THIS CASE THE SNEAKERS WERE NOT BOOKED THE SAME DAY THEY WERE RECOVERED, WERE THEY?

A: THEY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN."

March 20th

"Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU GOT THE BLOOD?

A: I WENT BACK UP TO MY OFFICE.

Q: FOR WHAT?

A: TO START ASSEMBLING SOME OF THE -- SOME OF THE INFORMATION I HAD AND -- AND TO ORGANIZE MYSELF AND THEN TO GO OUT TO ROCKINGHAM.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU ASSEMBLE THIS INFORMATION? DID YOU TAKE NOTES?

A: I WAS JUST -- IT HAD BEEN A LONG DAY. I MAY HAVE EVEN HAD A CUP OF COFFEE WHEN HE WENT UP THERE, I DON'T RECALL, BUT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T KEEP ANY RECORDS OF WHAT YOU DID?

A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.

Q: AND THE BLOOD WAS WITH YOU?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE WAS THE BLOOD? IN YOUR JACKET?

A: NO. I WENT TO MY DESK AND I HAD IT IN A MANILA ENVELOPE ON MY DESK.

Q: DID YOU LEAVE ANY RECORD -- WAS LANGE WITH YOU?

A: LANGE WAS WITH ME, YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU TALKING WITH LANGE?

A: I'M SURE I WAS, YEAH. I TALK WITH HIM ALL THE TIME.

Q: ARE YOU SURE LANGE WENT UP TO YOUR OFFICE WITH YOU?

A: YEAH, I'M SURE.

Q: NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT?

A: LANGE WAS WITH ME AFTER TWELVE O'CLOCK MOST OF THE EVENING UNTIL ABOUT SEVEN O'CLOCK.

Q: AND DID LANGE HAVE COFFEE WITH YOU IN YOUR OFFICE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR COFFEE FROM?

A: FROM A COFFEE MACHINE IN THE OFFICE. I SAID I MAY HAVE. I'M NOT POSITIVE I DID. I MAY HAVE HAD A CUP OF COFFEE.

Q: AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD THAT?

A: YEAH, THAT'S TRUE, SURE.

Q: AND YOU MAY HAVE SPENT A HALF HOUR THERE AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE?

A: I THINK I WAS THERE ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR BEFORE I LEFT.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY RECORD TO INDICATE THAT?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T. "

[William Anthony]

Without any notes i guess the detectives testified to whatever came to mind when asked a question. Like making it up as one goes.

Like in the examples above.

[weezer]

Ito's final ruling on LE planting:

". . .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. . ."

[Hipcheck]

WILLIAM
That is very smart obervation aboout mf playing justin case. Thats very funny. thanks. I am still giggling.

He was closer to one glove than he was to the one in the picture.

Post some facts which support your statement that "he was closer to one glove than he was to the one in the picture" or is that yur opinion.

So William made you giggle like a little girl.

[William Anthony]

Ito's final ruling on LE planting:

". . .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. . ."

September 6th,

Six days after the so-called final ruling. With an additional proffer

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

"Where additional evidence is presented, the findings of the magistrate to the extent they are affected by the additional evidence are not binding on the superior court. This allows the superior court to exercise its independent judgment on issues on which additional evidence is introduced." The additional evidence that we wish to introduce relates directly to the credibility of Detective Mark Fuhrman. And our position quite simply is that your Honor, in considering this evidence, is not bound by whatever findings were made with respect to Detective Fuhrman's credibility in the municipal court, but that you are to exercise your independent judgment on the issue of his credibility. Now, the Prosecution has contended that what we are offering with this additional proffer is simply evidence going to his general credibility. And I want to point out to the court the very clear relationship between the portions of the McKinny transcripts and tapes that we are proffering as new evidence on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman and the testimony that he presented on the motion to suppress. And I think it's fair to call the court's attention to the fact that there were only two detectives who testified on the motion to suppress, Detective Vannatter and Detective Fuhrman. And your Honor will recall that in the context of a number of misrepresentations made by Detective Vannatter in the affidavit for the search warrant, this court made a finding that Detective Vannatter had a reckless disregard for the truth, so that the credibility of Detective Fuhrman becomes a very, very important aspect of the determination of the Defendant's motion to suppress.

THE COURT: Do you think though that the magistrate would have been interested in hearing cross-examination of Detective Fuhrman being confronted with some of this material on the tapes?

So we're not in the position of trying to go back and recreate how Judge Kennedy-Powell would have reacted if she had had the opportunity of hearing the Fuhrman tapes in deciding whether she should believe Detective Fuhrman's account of what happened on the morning of June 13th. To the extent that this is newly discovered evidence, the question is, what finding does your Honor make about the credibility of Detective Fuhrman with respect to the events that took place on the morning of June the 13th. And to that extent, the bishop case relied on by the Prosecution is inapposite. They're saying, you must challenge the credibility of both officers. But that occurs in a context where the two officers corroborate each other, where you have two officers testifying to the same thing. Of course, just attacking the credibility of one officer isn't going to undercut the factual finding. But with respect to each of the factual issues we have identified, the discovery of the speck on the door of the Bronco, the investigative activity in terms of searching for evidence that took place in the room of Kato Kaelin, the searching activity that took place behind the house after Detective Fuhrman decided to follow up on what Kaelin told him, every one of these were judgments or discoveries made by Detective Fuhrman without any corroboration. He was by himself, he was alone and his credibility stands alone with respect to each of those issues.

THE COURT: Well, it's not--and it's not just knowing what I know on those tapes. It's what I heard from Miss Singer, it's what I know from Miss Bell and what I heard from Mr. Hodge.

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."

[William Anthony]

So William made you giggle like a little girl.

Is that your opinion or do I detect some jealousy on your part?:);):cool:

[weezer]

I'm surprised that the poster does not understand that the stipulation not agreed to had absolutely nothing to do with PLANTING or any ruling on PLANTING. or maybe the poster thinks that because Fuhrman said he wasn't answering, that was the end of it. Ito didn't need to demand an investigation into the allegations. LE didn't need to throw him in the pokey. orenthal and his criminal defense said 'well, okay then.'

Fuhrman wasn't charged with anything more than perjury no matter how much anyone wishes otherwise. Sorry. :shrug:

[GreenIce]

I see. However, I find it logical to notate a possibility that the killer may have been bitten by a dog considering the bloody paw prints that let us know that a canine was present at some point.

I personally believe Fuhrman far too arrogant to take notations that make him seem clearly off base in his initial observations. At that time, I doubt he had any reason to believe that the police activity of that early morning would be so highly scrutinized and criticized.

Kate

Kate,

I have to disagree with your second paragraph. It is rather upsetting that it appears not only completely understandable but also completely acceptable for police and the other members of the department to turn in a sub-par performance because no one thinks anyone is going to notice. Or that they won't get caught. Our prisions are filled with people who didn't they would get caught ---- and this is just for the average guy.

Officer Riske knew enough not to use his radio to call this in because not only did he believe that Simpson was involved in the murders but he he knew the media was going to be all over this.

Mark Fuhrman knew this was going to be a high profile case and he knew that this case was going to be watched closely.

In regards to his notes, I tend to agree with you about them. However, here tis the problem. Either MF had completely lied in them or Vanatter and Company are painting him as at the very least, a detective who got things so wrong or MF's notes are the truth and Lange and VA are lying about them.

It is an either/or. IMO.

I have read MF's book as well as VA and Lange's. I find it interesting that MF does not slam the defense, only when it refers to him, however, he said the defense had and made a good case because of Lange and VA's job performance.

Lange and VA say the defense just made up their case as they went along. That they "created controversary". No, the defense didn't create this, the LAPD and the SID department did. IMO.

[William Anthony]

I'm surprised that the poster does not understand that the stipulation not agreed to had absolutely nothing to do with PLANTING or any ruling on PLANTING. or maybe the poster thinks that because Fuhrman said he wasn't answering, that was the end of it. Ito didn't need to demand an investigation into the allegations. LE didn't need to throw him in the pokey. orenthal and his criminal defense said 'well, okay then.'

Fuhrman wasn't charged with anything more than perjury no matter how much anyone wishes otherwise. Sorry. :shrug:

Let's do this the hard but obviously necessary way. Ruling by Ito on August 31st.

Ito's final ruling on LE planting:

". . .The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . ."

The judge was basing his ruling on the evidence that the jury had thus far heard and not that which he had heard.

However, Uelmen argued on September 6th,

"Where additional evidence is presented, the findings of the magistrate to the extent they are affected by the additional evidence are not binding on the superior court. This allows the superior court to exercise its independent judgment on issues on which additional evidence is introduced."

"THE COURT: Well, it's not--and it's not just knowing what I know on those tapes. It's what I heard from Miss Singer, it's what I know from Miss Bell and what I heard from Mr. Hodge."

Judge Ito did not bring MF up on charges of perjury nor demand an investigation. That was up to the DAs or the feds. I thought the poster understood that. Also, if I might ask the poster how can there be a stipulation that is not agreed to?:);):cool:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stipulation+(law)

An agreement between attorneys that concerns business before a court and is designed to simplify or shorten litigation and save costs.

During the course of a civil lawsuit, criminal proceeding, or any other type of litigation, the opposing attorneys may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues. Such an agreement is called a stipulation. Courts look with favor on stipulations because they save time and simplify the matters that must be resolved. Stipulations are voluntary, however, and courts may not require litigants to stipulate with the other side. A valid stipulation is binding only on the parties who agree to it. Courts are usually bound by valid stipulations and are required to enforce them.

If there is no agreement, there is no stipulation.

[GreenIce]

I understand but believe ITOS ruling about expected security was correct. He found that the privacy that should have been in place was not in place and that all prisoners including oj had a right for privacy to be in place.
imo

Martin,

IMO, Ito's rulings have been all over the place, however, his ruling on these types of issues, IMO, seem to protect the state. When Ito went to there to check it out, he had to know if the guard was telling the truth or lying. His ruling protected that guard, not Mr. Simpson. And I think that is wrong.

[GreenIce]

it has been my belief that the dark clothing was taken and tested. When it did not show blood or matching fibers it was lost or thrown out and le claimed it was missing as a cover story.

MF made several observations of what he saw. So either he saw what he said he saw or he just wrote something that he did not see.
But he made not one note of his work at rockingham so i wonder why did he change his mo about note taking at rockingham. imo

Martin,

I believe there was a lot more evidence collected and I believe there were a lot of tossed results. I believe both sides know what they must legally turn over and we all know that they love to tell their experts, "don't write any thing down". I also believe that is more likely that when some of these results were not coming back as expected and decided not to risk to test other items.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that where the blood evidence later showed up was always after it was examined by several people?

[Hipcheck]

Is that your opinion or do I detect some jealousy on your part?:);):cool:

No jealousy here because I don't giggle like a little girl.

[William Anthony]

No jealousy here because I don't giggle like a little girl.

If you weren't jealous why mention it?:);):cool:

[martin II]

Like in the examples above.

Sounds like vannater was intent on not telling the truth about what he did in his office with the blood. This kind of testimony may be why the kurors said he was not truthful in his testimony. It sound like vannater didn't care what his testimony sound like.

[William Anthony]

Sounds like vannater was intent on not telling the truth about what he did in his office with the blood. This kind of testimony may be why the kurors said he was not truthful in his testimony. It sound like vannater didn't care what his testimony sound like.

He may have done the best he could with what he had to work with.:);):cool:

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, Ito's rulings have been all over the place, however, his ruling on these types of issues, IMO, seem to protect the state. When Ito went to there to check it out, he had to know if the guard was telling the truth or lying. His ruling protected that guard, not Mr. Simpson. And I think that is wrong.

I understand your position. ito could/should have exposed the guards lie but he decided not to. He ruled in a way to indicate that he believed Rev Grier
and the guards claims were rejected for legal reasons.imo
ITO didn't want to attck that jail system but Shaperio had him by the neck so he saught a legal soultion.

[fgump2]

What type of animals do those type of cops that you compare to wolf packs
attack. I do believe that while people realize they are animals they do not like to be referred to in that manner and, when you place the adjective you used with cops in context with your use of the word animal, it gives a particularly negative connotation to certain people, which was not missed by me.

I probably shouldn't have written that. I went too far. In any case I didn't mean to insult people who have been picked on by cops. It is also true that not all victims on unfair LE practices are not racial minorities; some are white.

I think it is always easier to notice other people's bad manners, and ignore your own. I think an outside observer would sometimes criticize my manners, but I don't think I my manners have ever been as bad as most of the NG people. I don't think I have ever done anything like referring to the Simpson civil trial of 1996 as a socio political production. That isn't a personal insult, but it does show a lack of interest in discussing ideas in a calm objective manner. It is an attempt to stir up emotion. It comes accross as an attempt to turn the heat up on a pot that is too hot already.

Describing Petrocelli's book as a work of fiction somes accross to me as arrogant and doesn't show an interest in changing other people's mind about anything. Attempting to show that some things in a book are incorrect, and perhaps the result of deliberate dishonesty isn't the same as calling the book a work of fiction.

I think most people have at some times entered a discussion with the idea of sharing their ideas, and perhaps changing their minds, and then without realizing it they get to the point where they are working harder at insults than at an honest exchange of ideas. I think that has happened on this board.

I realize I may have stepped on toes by criticizing the jury and also Henry Lee and Cochran, but I tried to back my crticisms up with facts and logic. I don't think I have made comments about other people's motives any where near as much as the 3 most common NG posters.

[martin II]

He may have done the best he could with what he had to work with.:);):cool:

Sounds like he was playing around with some vials and could not remember what he said he did. i bet lang was pissed because vannater said he was there also.Watching.

[Hotwater]

Anyone else need a vacation? Back to the case discussion please.

HW

[William Anthony]

Sounds like he was playing around with some vials and could not remember what he said he did. i bet lang was pissed because vannater said he was there also.Watching.

Do you remember if the question was ever asked of Lang as to whether or not he went with Vannatter to his office?

[martin II]

Do you remember if the question was ever asked of Lang as to whether or not he went with Vannatter to his office?

I thought about that. GI is very good on lang i will ask her.

[martin II]

Do you remember if the question was ever asked of Lang as to whether or not he went with Vannatter to his office?

if i were a jury member and heard and looked at vannater giving that testimony,i would conclude that he was not being truthful. i think the defense once again showed the jury vannater could not be trusted to give truthful testimony.imo.

[martin II]

GI
Do you know if lang testified that he was in vannaters office after vannater had 0js blood drawn as vannater said he was?

[martin II]

Martin,

I believe there was a lot more evidence collected and I believe there were a lot of tossed results. I believe both sides know what they must legally turn over and we all know that they love to tell their experts, "don't write any thing down". I also believe that is more likely that when some of these results were not coming back as expected and decided not to risk to test other items.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that where the blood evidence later showed up was always after it was examined by several people?

i think the lab people needed time to decide where to put it.

[William Anthony]

i think the lab people needed time to decide where to put it.

The lab 20 summit.:)

[bobaugust]

Can we say then that it doesn't matter what you assume the detectives saw, since they all testified they saw Ms. Arnelle unlock the door?

You are guilty of double speak, as you say that it would be "almost impossible to find a record of a phone call from a payphone, without knowing the payphone" and then you say "but if Simpson had called her from a payphone after he landed in Chicago he would have called her land line room phone where she was sleeping. Land line telephone records do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls." I have asked you to support your claim, "Land line telephone records do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls". Who has the burden of showing that Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone? Don't you think that belongs to the person alleging that Simpson called her, so I ask you for proof?

You’re the one who is claiming Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994, not me. I said there is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994. You’re the one making the claim so it is your obligation to support your belief that she did. I don’t have to prove a negative. Besides the fact I said that Simpson would have called Arnelle on her land line phone in her room after he landed in Chicago because Arnelle was sleeping in her room at that time.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have asked you to stop the false accusation by posting where I claimed anyone lied, except for MF, and told you that I would report if you continued the false accusations. You have faied and so have others to post where I said someone other than MF lied, so I am compelled to report this post.

I thank you for changing your statement as to my inferences being illogical to incorrect conclusions. That is more respectful.:);):cool: Ms.Arnelle testified she unlocked the front door, the detective testified she unlocked the door, the technology proved the only door that could be unlocked was the front door. Ergo, the detectives story is an illogical and fabricated bunch of lies, IMHO.

You are still misstating the evidence that you base your illogical inference on to come to a false conclusion just as did when you accused the detectives and Kato Kaelin of lying.

In Arnelle Simpson’s fabricated story she said that she unlocked the FRONT door. The three detectives testified she unlocked the BACK door before she opened it and let them into the house. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle enter the house through the back door. The evidence is that the back door was already unlocked before Arnelle opened it. That evidence proves the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the BACK door before she opened it.

What you still can not seem to grasp is that Arnelle’s uncorroborated story was impeached by five witnesses proving that she lied.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You made the claims and according to the rules I have asked you to support your claims. I read the rules and I have asked once and therefore I am under no obligation to respond. :);):cool:

I did support my claim. I said that there are no incoming telephone calls shown on land line telephone bills and I supported that by telling you that everyone’s land line telephone bill, including yours if you have one, proves I am correct. If you don’t have a land line telephone then I suggest you ask someone you know who does have one and you will learn the same thing.

You’re the one claiming Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994 and I have asked you to support your claim. According to the rules it is your obligation to support your claim. If you can’t support it I suggest you stop repeating it

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There is nothing for me to slither out of as I leave that for the likes of MF. I was providing a comedic and sarcastic response to bobaugust post saying the Ms. Arnelle lied and the detectives were mistaken in response to the post from Martin asking who lied and the overall logic of saying Ms. Arnelle lied but the detectives who corroborated her unlocking of the door did not lie, according to bobaugust. Good try but no cigar. :);):cool:


Your comments are illogical and wrong since you still can’t seem to grasp the fact that the detectives were talking about the back door that Arnelle opened to let them into the house and not the front door that Arnelle lied about opening to let them into the house in her fabricated story.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You are incorrect, the three detectives all claimed they did not hear what Arnelle had said, it was always very vague and it was always "some thing to the effect of". Arnelle was asked a direct question and at least two detectives, including the one who asked her, did not listen to her response. I would think it is a no brainer that when you are detective, and you ask important questions, you should listen to the response as well as the demeanor and/or the reaction of the person who is giving an answer.

Arnelle's testimony has never been inconsistent on any of these issues, her credbility was never questioned because there was no evidence that suggested it should be. A judge did question the detectives and while only one of the bore much the blunt of slap, they were all involved in it.

Please explain to me why you feel them not hearing the beeps of the alarm system as to be parmount to her credbility yet you have no problem with them listening to the answers to cruical questions?

Also, if they were telling the truth, they never would have allowed Arnelle to put herself in danger. If they were telling the truth, they would have asked Arnelle to please wait with a detective, while they entered and secured the house.

They used Arnelle and Kato as a human shield. I know, you feel Arnelle's life is worth nothing and its no big deal had she walked into finding the maid butchered or even finding her father, maybe hanging for a ceiling fan. But, in all fairness to you, at least as far I as I know, your job's motto was not "To Protect and Serve", you do not carry a shield, a shield that stands for protection.

The detectives who allowed Arnelle to do this, were again, not doing their job, again, were showing total disrespect for the danager and horror that young woman could have walked into. I know they didn't care about her any more then you do, but too bad for them, the citizens on the jury realized what they did. Those detectives earned the shamed and they deserve all the blame---IMO.

You are wrong about the detectives impeaching Arnelle but you know that already.

When ever you make a post about this issue, I think the response should be,
LAPD Uses Arnelle Simpson As Human Shield and Kato was Shield B.

No amount of your nonsense will change the facts.

When the detectives first spoke to Arnelle she was asked if she knew where her father was and all three detectives testified as to what she answered.

Phillips testified, IT WAS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT "ISN'T HE THERE?"
Lange testified, “SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, "ISN'T HE HERE?"
Vannatter testified, “SHE GESTURED TOWARD THE HOUSE AND SAID, "ISN'T HE HERE," POINTING LIKE TOWARDS THE HOUSE”

If Simpson’s house alarm was still turned on when Arnelle opened the back door, sensors on the back door would have activated the alarm and there would have been loud warning beeps for about 40 seconds so the alarm could be turned off at a key pad before Westec was notified. No detective testified they heard those warning beeps nor did they ever see Arnelle go to a key pad and turn the alarm off.

The detectives didn’t use Arnelle as a shield. After Arnelle and the detectives entered the house through the back door the detectives asked her to show them where the housekeeper’s room was and the detectives checked out that room. When Kaelin and Fuhrman entered the house after Arnelle and the three detectives entered, Fuhrman had Kaelin take a seat at the bar to wait for Vannatter. Kaelin wasn’t used as a shield.

Arnelle’s testimony has been consistently wrong, Arnelle’s fabricated story that she led two detectives around the house to the front door so she could turn the house alarm off before letting them in was a total fabrication and proved to be a lie. Arnelle’s testimony that Kaelin remained outside speaking to Fuhrman all the time she was in the house and when she went back to her room all the time she was in her room, was incorrect and contradicted by the other witnesses. She either intentionally lied again or she was mistaken because she was so upset after learning about Nicole’s death.

No I am not wrong about the five witnesses impeaching Arnelle’s story.
Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter testified that Arnelle opened the back door of the house and they followed her into the house through the back door.
Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle and the three detectives enter the back door of the house and then he and Fuhrman followed them into the house through the same back door.
Fuhrman testified that he and Kaelin entered the house through the same back door.

Arnelle Simpson’s story was proved to be a lie.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

You’re the one who is claiming Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994, not me. I said there is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994. You’re the one making the claim so it is your obligation to support your belief that she did. I don’t have to prove a negative. Besides the fact I said that Simpson would have called Arnelle on her land line phone in her room after he landed in Chicago because Arnelle was sleeping in her room at that time.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You are making the claim that Arnelle lied. She lied because she was told to enter the main house and to wash a sweat suit, which is an order to destroy evidence. Which is a felony.

You have not produced any evidence that Arnelle either knew about the crimes before hand, which means there would be no record of communication between Simpson and Arnelle. You need to provide a link that such communication took place. You need to provide a link which efforts were done to see if this communication took place.

We have produced supporting evidence that clearly shows the weaknesses of the detectives testimony, we have produced evidence where they have given different rooms where they have entered. We have given our reasons why the police had to lie to justify the search warrant.

It has been proven that Vanatter never had to lie about entering the property. It has been proven that Vanatter did not need to MC, regarding a warrant. He had ever opportunity, using the exact same lies to get a judge to sign off on one. It has been proven that even if VA is telling the truth about not hearing any of the responses, he knew the truth before he wrote the warrant.

Arnelle has always testified that only two detectives came to her door. She has always testified that she believed on two detectives had followed her into the house. Since Vanatter denied not only that both Kato and Arnelle did tell the detectives that Simpson was out of town but that they both indicated he was inside the main house only means two things, he was not there when the questions were asked and answered or he heard them and lied any way.

Both Vanatter and MF testified about MF's actions inside Kato's room and his on the outside at Rockingham, which they called "officer security". No problem with that. However, they had two civilians they were responsible for and they did not show the same concern they should have shown to the people they were sworn to protect and serve.

The LAPD had Kato's phone records, they had Simpson's phone records, do you honestly think they did not have Arnelle's?

Not one detective, even to this day, has ever said that Arnelle lied to them or showed that she was involved in any way. No DA who wrote a book on the case ever pointed a finger at Arnelle.

Petrocelli's fantasy is just that. He has made an accusation that he can't prove and even if the detectives didn't here the beeps, does not mean that she did not turn off the alarm. I believed Kato was asked about the color of the light. Do you really believe the detectives did not see these lights?

[GreenIce]

Do you remember if the question was ever asked of Lang as to whether or not he went with Vannatter to his office?

William and Martin,

I thought I read some testimony that VA said he and Tom Lange were together since about 12:00 p.m. I think it was JC who kept asking VA if he was sure that he and Lange were always together and VA said yes. JC kept asking if he remembered if Lange was there or went with him to get a coffee or something.

My personal belief is that VA would never have done anything in front of Lange or any other detective---I don't think he would put a brother in blue in that position. However, that being said, that does not mean the other detectives did not suspect it. What they didn't see or hear means they don't have to testify about it.

However, one thing that does stand out in my mind, if Lange was with him, then didn't he see VA hand the vial off to the SID people? The exchange was never filmed and I don't think Fung or Mozzola ever testified they remembered when the hand off took place.

[GreenIce]

Or perhaps it's the fact that initial observations are just that, initial. I have done my research and found that Fuhrman indeed had not yet personally handled any evidence in this matter when he sat down to take his notes. For that matter, no one had begun actually handling evidence at that time. The only thing he had completed at that point was the initial walk through with a distant observation of the evidence. He did not step onto the walkway nor did he get particularly close to the bodies.

Knowing this, I must ask why do you assume that he deliberately notated false details?

Kate

Kate,

There is testimony that MF was close to the bodies as well as at least one picture supporting this.

I believe that MF have tweaked the details to serve his purposes but I see no advantage to him about deliberately getting the details wrong.

Seeing a "ski mask" sounds a lot more sinister then a "knit cap". Especially if you believe a famous person is responsible for the murders.

The comment about possible GSW would have opened another reason to go to Rockingham and justify the entry into the property. MF may have also been aware that Simpson did own guns and did carry one in his car. I believe you need a permit to carry such weapsons. I am sure, MF could have found this out very quickly.

You may know that I do believe that MF did go to Rockingham long before the four detectives went to Rockingham. You will never be able to convince otherwise on this. You can't have MF being a great detective and not know the laws regarding search warrants.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9224159]When the detectives first spoke to Arnelle she was asked if she knew where her father was and all three detectives testified as to what she answered.

Phillips testified, IT WAS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT "ISN'T HE THERE?"
Lange testified, “SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, "ISN'T HE HERE?"
Vannatter testified, “SHE GESTURED TOWARD THE HOUSE AND SAID, "ISN'T HE HERE," POINTING LIKE TOWARDS THE HOUSE”

Mr. August,

Phillips asked Arnelle a direct question, she should have been listening to her answer. His explaination why he did not hear response doesn't even pass the laugh test. Bottomline, "Something to the effect" is nothing but a CYA answer.

Please note that Lange and Phillips gave the exact same answer, yet Vanatter's isn't. If VA was with them, then his answer should have been the same.

However, Kato was clear that Simpson was not in the main house. He directed them to Arnelle to get in touch with Simpson, not that he did not know where Simpson was. He knew where he was and he knew when Simpson left.

Vanatter lied over and over again. It was proven he knew he was lying when he wrote the warrant and he lied to a judge to get the search warrant signed.

[GreenIce]

I probably shouldn't have written that. I went too far. In any case I didn't mean to insult people who have been picked on by cops. It is also true that not all victims on unfair LE practices are not racial minorities; some are white.

I think it is always easier to notice other people's bad manners, and ignore your own. I think an outside observer would sometimes criticize my manners, but I don't think I my manners have ever been as bad as most of the NG people. I don't think I have ever done anything like referring to the Simpson civil trial of 1996 as a socio political production. That isn't a personal insult, but it does show a lack of interest in discussing ideas in a calm objective manner. It is an attempt to stir up emotion. It comes accross as an attempt to turn the heat up on a pot that is too hot already.

Describing Petrocelli's book as a work of fiction somes accross to me as arrogant and doesn't show an interest in changing other people's mind about anything. Attempting to show that some things in a book are incorrect, and perhaps the result of deliberate dishonesty isn't the same as calling the book a work of fiction.

I think most people have at some times entered a discussion with the idea of sharing their ideas, and perhaps changing their minds, and then without realizing it they get to the point where they are working harder at insults than at an honest exchange of ideas. I think that has happened on this board.

I realize I may have stepped on toes by criticizing the jury and also Henry Lee and Cochran, but I tried to back my crticisms up with facts and logic. I don't think I have made comments about other people's motives any where near as much as the 3 most common NG posters.

fgump2,

Many posts you have made have been based on information or facts that you thought were true but were not. You logic is soley based on your belief that Simpson is guilty.

You were proven wrong about Dr. Lee regarding the 1 one hair, you have been proven wrong about the jury and the DA's have done the very same things that you accuse JC of doing.

You have not used logic in regards to the job performance of the LAPD. You have given them excuse upon excuse on why they did not do their jobs and why they should be given the be given the benefit of the doubt. However, our legal system is not based on giving the state the benefit of the doubt.

Within an hour after the criminal trial verdict was read, the media was already screaming the verdict of the civil trial would be different and the two reasons it would be different because of where the trial was going to be held and they did not have the same burden of proof that the criminal trial verdict was different.

In the plaintiffs' motions, they made sure to remind the judge that the rules of evidence were different in a civil trial.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You are making the claim that Arnelle lied. She lied because she was told to enter the main house and to wash a sweat suit, which is an order to destroy evidence. Which is a felony.

You have not produced any evidence that Arnelle either knew about the crimes before hand, which means there would be no record of communication between Simpson and Arnelle. You need to provide a link that such communication took place. You need to provide a link which efforts were done to see if this communication took place.

We have produced supporting evidence that clearly shows the weaknesses of the detectives testimony, we have produced evidence where they have given different rooms where they have entered. We have given our reasons why the police had to lie to justify the search warrant.

It has been proven that Vanatter never had to lie about entering the property. It has been proven that Vanatter did not need to MC, regarding a warrant. He had ever opportunity, using the exact same lies to get a judge to sign off on one. It has been proven that even if VA is telling the truth about not hearing any of the responses, he knew the truth before he wrote the warrant.

Arnelle has always testified that only two detectives came to her door. She has always testified that she believed on two detectives had followed her into the house. Since Vanatter denied not only that both Kato and Arnelle did tell the detectives that Simpson was out of town but that they both indicated he was inside the main house only means two things, he was not there when the questions were asked and answered or he heard them and lied any way.

Both Vanatter and MF testified about MF's actions inside Kato's room and his on the outside at Rockingham, which they called "officer security". No problem with that. However, they had two civilians they were responsible for and they did not show the same concern they should have shown to the people they were sworn to protect and serve.

The LAPD had Kato's phone records, they had Simpson's phone records, do you honestly think they did not have Arnelle's?

Not one detective, even to this day, has ever said that Arnelle lied to them or showed that she was involved in any way. No DA who wrote a book on the case ever pointed a finger at Arnelle.

Petrocelli's fantasy is just that. He has made an accusation that he can't prove and even if the detectives didn't here the beeps, does not mean that she did not turn off the alarm. I believed Kato was asked about the color of the light. Do you really believe the detectives did not see these lights?

No I’m not claiming Arnelle lied, I’m stating it as a fact she lied. Five witnesses completely contradicted her story proving she lied. One of the those witnesses was Arnelle Simpson’s friend, Kato Kaelin, who even comforted Arnelle in Simpson’s house after she learned about Nicole’s death yet Arnelle either forgot that fact or she intentionally lied again to try to cast suspicions on the police so that some gullible people would believe her fabricated story and not believe the police. Sounds to me like her father coached her since he used the same tactic in the civil trial.

Arnelle’s testimony that she led two detectives around the house to the front door after they woke her up is a lie. The fact is she didn’t lead any detectives around the house she led them to the back of the house to the back door.

I don’t have to produce any evidence that was not available in the trials to come to my conclusions since the evidence that is in the record is more than enough to make logical reasonable inferences as to why Arnelle lied.

Evidently you want to believe everything a couple of posters say on this discussion group even when what they say has been proven false. There is no evidence that Arnelle, the four detectives, or Kato Kaelin entered any other door to the house that morning except the back door that Arnelle opened into the bar area of Simpson’s family room. Maybe you never read my messages that proved Martin’s claims false that Phillips entered a different door and a different room. I even provided a link to a photograph showing the back door and quoted the facts Dick Wagner wrote concerning it. I suggest you look at the photograph and read what was written about it; post #17797 on page 445 of this thread.

I would think that the prosecutors did have Arnelle’s telephone records even though I do not recall them being entered into evidence. But again those telephone records would only show what calls Arnelle made, they don’t show incoming calls.

The fact that no detective heard any warning beeps or never saw Arnelle go to a key pad and turn the alarm off does mean the alarm was not on.

February 16, 1995 Phillips

Q BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SHOW US AGAIN -- SHOW US HOW YOU WENT AND WHERE YOU WENT?
A WE WALKED TO ARNELLE'S ROOM, DOWN THIS WALKWAY, UP THESE STEPS AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A SERIES OF DOORS RIGHT HERE AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. SHE UNLOCKED ONE OF THESE DOORS. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DOOR FARTHEST TO OUR LEFT AND THAT'S THE WAY WE WENT INSIDE THAT HOUSE.
Q WHEN SHE UNLOCKED THAT DOOR, WAS THERE AN ALARM ON THAT HOUSE?
A I DON'T KNOW, SIR.
Q DID YOU HEAR THE ALARM GO OFF?
A NO ALARM WENT OFF.
Q DID YOU SEE HER PRESS SOME BUTTONS ON THE WALL?
A I DIDN'T SEE HER DO ANYTHING.
Q DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF AN ALARM FOR WESTEC ON THAT WALL THAT SHE ENTERED?
A I WOULD NOT KNOW THAT.
Q YOU ARE SURE AS YOU SIT HERE NOW THAT YOU WENT IN SOME DOOR TOWARD THE REAR OF THE HOUSE?
A YES, SIR.
Q BUT YOU DID NOT GO AROUND AND COME IN THE FRONT?
A I'M POSITIVE.
Q YOU ARE POSITIVE OF THAT?
A POSITIVE.
Q AND WHO WAS PRESENT WITH YOU WHEN YOU WENT -- WALKED THIS ROUTE? WHO WAS PRESENT?
A ARNELLE SIMPSON, VANNATTER, TOM LANGE AND MYSELF.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Phillips asked Arnelle a direct question, she should have been listening to her answer. His explaination why he did not hear response doesn't even pass the laugh test. Bottomline, "Something to the effect" is nothing but a CYA answer.

Please note that Lange and Phillips gave the exact same answer, yet Vanatter's isn't. If VA was with them, then his answer should have been the same.

However, Kato was clear that Simpson was not in the main house. He directed them to Arnelle to get in touch with Simpson, not that he did not know where Simpson was. He knew where he was and he knew when Simpson left.

Vanatter lied over and over again. It was proven he knew he was lying when he wrote the warrant and he lied to a judge to get the search warrant signed.

You say that Lange and Phillips gave the same exact answer and Vannatter’s was not the same. Read the responses again.

Based on the three detectives testimony it’s very apparent they were all there and Arnelle first responded the way they recalled she did.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

No I’m not claiming Arnelle lied, I’m stating it as a fact she lied. Five witnesses completely contradicted her story proving she lied. One of the those witnesses was Arnelle Simpson’s friend, Kato Kaelin, who even comforted Arnelle in Simpson’s house after she learned about Nicole’s death yet Arnelle either forgot that fact or she intentionally lied again to try to cast suspicions on the police so that some gullible people would believe her fabricated story and not believe the police. Sounds to me like her father coached her since he used the same tactic in the civil trial.

Arnelle’s testimony that she led two detectives around the house to the front door after they woke her up is a lie. The fact is she didn’t lead any detectives around the house she led them to the back of the house to the back door.

I don’t have to produce any evidence that was not available in the trials to come to my conclusions since the evidence that is in the record is more than enough to make logical reasonable inferences as to why Arnelle lied.

Evidently you want to believe everything a couple of posters say on this discussion group even when what they say has been proven false. There is no evidence that Arnelle, the four detectives, or Kato Kaelin entered any other door to the house that morning except the back door that Arnelle opened into the bar area of Simpson’s family room. Maybe you never read my messages that proved Martin’s claims false that Phillips entered a different door and a different room. I even provided a link to a photograph showing the back door and quoted the facts Dick Wagner wrote concerning it. I suggest you look at the photograph and read what was written about it; post #17797 on page 445 of this thread.

I would think that the prosecutors did have Arnelle’s telephone records even though I do not recall them being entered into evidence. But again those telephone records would only show what calls Arnelle made, they don’t show incoming calls.

The fact that no detective heard any warning beeps or never saw Arnelle go to a key pad and turn the alarm off does mean the alarm was not on.

February 16, 1995 Phillips

Q BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SHOW US AGAIN -- SHOW US HOW YOU WENT AND WHERE YOU WENT?
A WE WALKED TO ARNELLE'S ROOM, DOWN THIS WALKWAY, UP THESE STEPS AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A SERIES OF DOORS RIGHT HERE AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. SHE UNLOCKED ONE OF THESE DOORS. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DOOR FARTHEST TO OUR LEFT AND THAT'S THE WAY WE WENT INSIDE THAT HOUSE.
Q WHEN SHE UNLOCKED THAT DOOR, WAS THERE AN ALARM ON THAT HOUSE?
A I DON'T KNOW, SIR.
Q DID YOU HEAR THE ALARM GO OFF?
A NO ALARM WENT OFF.
Q DID YOU SEE HER PRESS SOME BUTTONS ON THE WALL?
A I DIDN'T SEE HER DO ANYTHING.
Q DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF AN ALARM FOR WESTEC ON THAT WALL THAT SHE ENTERED?
A I WOULD NOT KNOW THAT.
Q YOU ARE SURE AS YOU SIT HERE NOW THAT YOU WENT IN SOME DOOR TOWARD THE REAR OF THE HOUSE?
A YES, SIR.
Q BUT YOU DID NOT GO AROUND AND COME IN THE FRONT?
A I'M POSITIVE.
Q YOU ARE POSITIVE OF THAT?
A POSITIVE.
Q AND WHO WAS PRESENT WITH YOU WHEN YOU WENT -- WALKED THIS ROUTE? WHO WAS PRESENT?
A ARNELLE SIMPSON, VANNATTER, TOM LANGE AND MYSELF.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

In the grand jury hearings and in the prelim hearings, none of the detectives were asked which door they entered. None of them. Arnelle has testified consistently to what door they entered and her movements, such as unlocking the door and turning off the alarm.

It is only common sense that the 4 lead detectives would have read both Kato's and Arnelle's testimony in any of these proceedings and tailor their responses that help their illegal entry on to the property. Just because 4 detectives testify to this, does not mean the detectives are telling the truth.
The fact that these four detectives testified to knowing of prior DV's calls to the Simpsons and yet they did not suspect Mr. Simpson and according to Vanatter's testimony, not even a "potential" suspect is proof their testimony can't be trusted.

Several times it has been posted that Park and Kato were mistaken in their testimony. I do believe these were mistakes. You have often justified those mistakes, at least, for Kato, was that he was so shaken up by the thumps that he would not have paid attention to what Simpson was wearing to the airport. So how is it that Arnelle is lying but Kato is only mistaken?

You know that MF's and Kato's testimony contradict each other. At no time does MF ever, ever say that he saw anyone enter the house and the only reason why he knew which to door to open was because one was open. So why would MF lie about this?

Another trick you have about Kato is that you can't decided which "camp" he was in. You need to pick which camp he was in because he can't be in both camps.

According to the detective's testimony, they spent several minutes at Simpson's front door. They knew if the alarm was set or wasn't set. They would not have needed to hear anything to know the status. Also, if I am reading Arnelle's civil trial testimony correctly, there was a difference regarding the timing through the front door and another door. I believe there was a 40 second time delay one of the doors.

Vanatter testifed that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence and she just happened to spend the night there. What about that lie?

Because VA knowing lied on the search warrant, knowing that he called MC to help him because he had problems and even after contacting MC, he lied to a judge to get a search warrant, he has no credibility.

None of the 4 lead detectives have any credibility.

Why Arnelle would lie about how many detectives followed her into the house makes no sense. Vanatter gave vague answers regarding his actions during the grand jury hearings. He never gives a direct answer on when he entered the house. It is very misleading but he does cover himself, sort of.

Phillips testified that he entered the house and he walked through the living room area, Kato said that the door he entered, was by a bar area and that he was planted there by MF.

Because of lies that the 4 lead detectives have told over and over again, there is no reason to believe them. It is obvious the cover story they developed and it is obvious why they did so.

MC spend a lot of time with the detectives regarding their actions and conversations with Arnelle and Kato. She was told by the 4 detectives which door they entered if not before the grand jury then before the prelim hearing. The fact that she confirms Arnelle's entry through the front door as well as establishing that a detective did ask her about the maid.

Those are the facts Mr. August.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

I thought I read some testimony that VA said he and Tom Lange were together since about 12:00 p.m. I think it was JC who kept asking VA if he was sure that he and Lange were always together and VA said yes. JC kept asking if he remembered if Lange was there or went with him to get a coffee or something.

My personal belief is that VA would never have done anything in front of Lange or any other detective---I don't think he would put a brother in blue in that position. However, that being said, that does not mean the other detectives did not suspect it. What they didn't see or hear means they don't have to testify about it.

However, one thing that does stand out in my mind, if Lange was with him, then didn't he see VA hand the vial off to the SID people? The exchange was never filmed and I don't think Fung or Mozzola ever testified they remembered when the hand off took place.

Well. AM testified that she had blinked her eyes at the moment VA was supossed to have handed something to sid guy. She was sitting on some sofa
in ojs house.She did not want to testify about it.

[martin II]

Kate,

There is testimony that MF was close to the bodies as well as at least one picture supporting this.

I believe that MF have tweaked the details to serve his purposes but I see no advantage to him about deliberately getting the details wrong.

Seeing a "ski mask" sounds a lot more sinister then a "knit cap". Especially if you believe a famous person is responsible for the murders.

The comment about possible GSW would have opened another reason to go to Rockingham and justify the entry into the property. MF may have also been aware that Simpson did own guns and did carry one in his car. I believe you need a permit to carry such weapsons. I am sure, MF could have found this out very quickly.

You may know that I do believe that MF did go to Rockingham long before the four detectives went to Rockingham. You will never be able to convince otherwise on this. You can't have MF being a great detective and not know the laws regarding search warrants.

Either MF wrote what he did see or he just made something up. Take your pick.

[martin II]

fgump2,

many posts you have made have been based on information or facts that you thought were true but were not. You logic is soley based on your belief that simpson is guilty.

You were proven wrong about dr. Lee regarding the 1 one hair, you have been proven wrong about the jury and the da's have done the very same things that you accuse jc of doing.

You have not used logic in regards to the job performance of the lapd. You have given them excuse upon excuse on why they did not do their jobs and why they should be given the be given the benefit of the doubt. However, our legal system is not based on giving the state the benefit of the doubt.

Within an hour after the criminal trial verdict was read, the media was already screaming the verdict of the civil trial would be different and the two reasons it would be different because of where the trial was going to be held and they did not have the same burden of proof that the criminal trial verdict was different.

In the plaintiffs' motions, they made sure to remind the judge that the rules of evidence were different in a civil trial.

ditto

[William Anthony]

You’re the one who is claiming Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994, not me. I said there is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994. You’re the one making the claim so it is your obligation to support your belief that she did. I don’t have to prove a negative. Besides the fact I said that Simpson would have called Arnelle on her land line phone in her room after he landed in Chicago because Arnelle was sleeping in her room at that time.

bobaugust

I do not think Simpson shared your clairvoyance, in that he would have know where Ms. Arnelle was.

[martin II]

The report that mf gave va was his only and final report.

[William Anthony]

You are still misstating the evidence that you base your illogical inference on to come to a false conclusion just as did when you accused the detectives and Kato Kaelin of lying.

In Arnelle Simpson’s fabricated story she said that she unlocked the FRONT door. The three detectives testified she unlocked the BACK door before she opened it and let them into the house. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle enter the house through the back door. The evidence is that the back door was already unlocked before Arnelle opened it. That evidence proves the detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the BACK door before she opened it.

What you still can not seem to grasp is that Arnelle’s uncorroborated story was impeached by five witnesses proving that she lied.

bobaugust

The technology proved that, IMHO, the detectives testilied and that Ms. Arnelle told the truth. The back door did not have a lock on the outside, as proven by the video, and the detectives and Ms. Arnelle testified that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door.

[William Anthony]

I did support my claim. I said that there are no incoming telephone calls shown on land line telephone bills and I supported that by telling you that everyone’s land line telephone bill, including yours if you have one, proves I am correct. If you don’t have a land line telephone then I suggest you ask someone you know who does have one and you will learn the same thing.

You’re the one claiming Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994 and I have asked you to support your claim. According to the rules it is your obligation to support your claim. If you can’t support it I suggest you stop repeating it

bobaugust

I see that you are mistaking phone records with phone bills and you seem to be unaware that phone records can be subpoenaed from phone companies showing all incoming and outgoing calls. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Your comments are illogical and wrong since you still can’t seem to grasp the fact that the detectives were talking about the back door that Arnelle opened to let them into the house and not the front door that Arnelle lied about opening to let them into the house in her fabricated story.

bobaugust

The technology showed who was lying. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I thought I read some testimony that VA said he and Tom Lange were together since about 12:00 p.m. I think it was JC who kept asking VA if he was sure that he and Lange were always together and VA said yes. JC kept asking if he remembered if Lange was there or went with him to get a coffee or something.

My personal belief is that VA would never have done anything in front of Lange or any other detective---I don't think he would put a brother in blue in that position. However, that being said, that does not mean the other detectives did not suspect it. What they didn't see or hear means they don't have to testify about it.

However, one thing that does stand out in my mind, if Lange was with him, then didn't he see VA hand the vial off to the SID people? The exchange was never filmed and I don't think Fung or Mozzola ever testified they remembered when the hand off took place.

The only reason I was asking was to see if there was any kind of discrepancies in the testimonies.

[martin II]

kato told vannatter and MF thatoj left for chicago.they checked at lax and knew ge caught a flight and at what time.Also it was a premade reversation.
He and MC then wrote a search warrant request saying oj had fled on a unscheduled trip.imo

The big lie for the illegal search warrant.

[William Anthony]

You’re the one who is claiming Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994, not me. I said there is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994. You’re the one making the claim so it is your obligation to support your belief that she did. I don’t have to prove a negative. Besides the fact I said that Simpson would have called Arnelle on her land line phone in her room after he landed in Chicago because Arnelle was sleeping in her room at that time.

bobaugust

You do have to prove a negative when you state the negative as fact, according to my understanding of the rules. You have been trying to prove a negative for as long as I have known you, which is that Simpson is not not guilty.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I thought I read some testimony that VA said he and Tom Lange were together since about 12:00 p.m. I think it was JC who kept asking VA if he was sure that he and Lange were always together and VA said yes. JC kept asking if he remembered if Lange was there or went with him to get a coffee or something.

My personal belief is that VA would never have done anything in front of Lange or any other detective---I don't think he would put a brother in blue in that position. However, that being said, that does not mean the other detectives did not suspect it. What they didn't see or hear means they don't have to testify about it.

However, one thing that does stand out in my mind, if Lange was with him, then didn't he see VA hand the vial off to the SID people? The exchange was never filmed and I don't think Fung or Mozzola ever testified they remembered when the hand off took place.

Is their any testimony as to if they sat around eating doughnuts with their coffee and trying to decide what to do with the sneakers and the vial of Simpson's blood.

[martin II]

The only reason I was asking was to see if there was any kind of discrepancies in the testimonies.

i don't think lang was with VA when he arrived to rockingham with ojs blood.

[martin II]

Is their any testimony as to if they sat around eating doughnuts with their coffee and trying to decide what to do with the sneakers and the vial of Simpson's blood.

VA RECEIVES OJS BLOOD and decides it is not important that he give it to SID across the street from where he was.He decides that he needs a cup of coffee, so he THINKS HE MAY have sat at his desk and had some coffee with ojs blood sample in a vial on his desk.unbelievable lie. imo

[William Anthony]

i don't think lang was with VA when he arrived to rockingham with ojs blood.

That is also my recollection.

[martin II]

VA RECEIVES OJS BLOOD and decides it is not important that he give it to SID across the street from where he was.He decides that he needs a cup of coffee, so he THINKS HE MAY have sat at his desk and had some coffee with ojs blood sample in a vial on his desk.unbelievable lie. imo

No reasonable thinking person would believe VA story.obviously the jury did not believe him.

[martin II]

The technology showed who was lying. :);):cool:

The bottom line oj did not call Arnell after she arrived home so she did not use the washing nachine. no one can prove otherwise.

[William Anthony]

The bottom line oj did not call Arnell after she arrived home so she did not use the washing nachine. no one can prove otherwise.

True dat and those who speculate otherwise have to come up with, IMHO, rank speculation to try to explain why there is no evidence to support their speculation.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

In the grand jury hearings and in the prelim hearings, none of the detectives were asked which door they entered. None of them. Arnelle has testified consistently to what door they entered and her movements, such as unlocking the door and turning off the alarm.

It is only common sense that the 4 lead detectives would have read both Kato's and Arnelle's testimony in any of these proceedings and tailor their responses that help their illegal entry on to the property. Just because 4 detectives testify to this, does not mean the detectives are telling the truth.
The fact that these four detectives testified to knowing of prior DV's calls to the Simpsons and yet they did not suspect Mr. Simpson and according to Vanatter's testimony, not even a "potential" suspect is proof their testimony can't be trusted.

Several times it has been posted that Park and Kato were mistaken in their testimony. I do believe these were mistakes. You have often justified those mistakes, at least, for Kato, was that he was so shaken up by the thumps that he would not have paid attention to what Simpson was wearing to the airport. So how is it that Arnelle is lying but Kato is only mistaken?

You know that MF's and Kato's testimony contradict each other. At no time does MF ever, ever say that he saw anyone enter the house and the only reason why he knew which to door to open was because one was open. So why would MF lie about this?

Another trick you have about Kato is that you can't decided which "camp" he was in. You need to pick which camp he was in because he can't be in both camps.

According to the detective's testimony, they spent several minutes at Simpson's front door. They knew if the alarm was set or wasn't set. They would not have needed to hear anything to know the status. Also, if I am reading Arnelle's civil trial testimony correctly, there was a difference regarding the timing through the front door and another door. I believe there was a 40 second time delay one of the doors.

Vanatter testifed that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence and she just happened to spend the night there. What about that lie?

Because VA knowing lied on the search warrant, knowing that he called MC to help him because he had problems and even after contacting MC, he lied to a judge to get a search warrant, he has no credibility.

None of the 4 lead detectives have any credibility.

Why Arnelle would lie about how many detectives followed her into the house makes no sense. Vanatter gave vague answers regarding his actions during the grand jury hearings. He never gives a direct answer on when he entered the house. It is very misleading but he does cover himself, sort of.

Phillips testified that he entered the house and he walked through the living room area, Kato said that the door he entered, was by a bar area and that he was planted there by MF.

Because of lies that the 4 lead detectives have told over and over again, there is no reason to believe them. It is obvious the cover story they developed and it is obvious why they did so.

MC spend a lot of time with the detectives regarding their actions and conversations with Arnelle and Kato. She was told by the 4 detectives which door they entered if not before the grand jury then before the prelim hearing. The fact that she confirms Arnelle's entry through the front door as well as establishing that a detective did ask her about the maid.

Those are the facts Mr. August.

You are incorrect.

In the preliminary hearing Kato Kaelin, Fuhrman, and Vannatter testified they went into Simpson’s house through the back of the house.

There was absolutely no reason for the detectives or Kaelin to lie about this, it didn’t help the case against Simpson to say they went in the back door. But Arnelle evidently did have a reason to lie.

Both Park and Kaelin were mistaken about some minor details. There is a huge difference between minor details and entering house through the front door or the back door.

Kaelin and Fuhrman do not contradict each other. The fact that Kaelin saw Arnelle and the detectives enter the house but Fuhrman didn’t only means that Kaelin was looking in that direction and Fuhrman wasn’t.

I don’t have to pick a camp for Kaelin since Kaelin told the truth no matter what his beliefs were about Simpson early in the case and then later in the case.

There was no reason for the detectives to know if the house alarm was on or off unless they were familiar with Simpson’s house alarm system and knew what a green light or red light meant. Either they didn’t notice it or didn’t know what it meant. The warning beeps that would sound if a door was opened when the alarm was on were the same for every door in the house that had sensors on it.

I’m not going to get into a discussion as to why you think the detectives lied about different things since no one is going to change your feelings and suspicions about LE. I’m not going to get into a discussion with you about the different names Arnelle, the detectives, and Kaelin used to refer to the Simpson’s family room. The fact is that every one entered Simpson’s house that morning using the same back door that led into the same large room.

The fact is that Arnelle lied for a reason, but none of the prosecutors evidently ever figured why there was a contradiction between Arnelle and the other four witnesses regarding this seemingly minor detail, so Clark just ignored it. It wasn’t until Petrocelli started preparing for the civil trial by reviewing all the evidence and testimony that he realized why Arnelle told a different story than the other four witnesses.

The evidence is very clear that Arnelle Simpson lied to cover up something she did that she didn’t want anyone to know about. Just like her father did in the civil trial.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I do not think Simpson shared your clairvoyance, in that he would have know where Ms. Arnelle was.

Arnelle lived with Simpson and I have no doubt that Simpson would know that she would be sleeping in her room at about 4:00 am on that Monday morning.

[bobaugust]

The technology proved that, IMHO, the detectives testilied and that Ms. Arnelle told the truth. The back door did not have a lock on the outside, as proven by the video, and the detectives and Ms. Arnelle testified that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door.

The fact is that the three detectives were mistaken when they said Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the front door as well as other doors in the house can be locked or unlocked from the outside.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

"MR. COCHRAN: Have you ever been around when Mr. Simpson was leaving to go on a trip?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how Mr. Simpson would--what you observed as he would leave to go on trips?

MS. GUARIN: He's always rushing.

MR. COCHRAN: And describe that for us. What would he be doing?

MS. GUARIN: He's always--the limo is already there, the one who will pick him up. It still going to here for a long time because he just goes to start putting all her things together on the last minute.

MR. COCHRAN: You've observed this yourself?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, I do. Sometimes I will help him packing all the things that he needs.

MR. COCHRAN: And waiting until the last minute, would that require him to do something? Was he rushing around?

MS. GUARIN: He's rushing around taking--doing everything on the last minute.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you ever talk to him about that?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. He's always late. I will tell him that, "Dale is here. He's already waiting outside." He says, "Tell him I will be there soon," but dale's going to wait for a long time before he will come down.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you say "Dale," are you referring to a limousine driver?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: By the name of Dale St. John?

MS. GUARIN: I know his name is dale. I don't know his last name.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So this particular habit of Mr. Simpson, will he always be running late?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Motion to strike. Never mind. Withdrawn.

THE COURT: Thank you. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you withdraw it?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you answer?

MS. GUARIN: Can you repeat the question, please?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly. Okay. Would Mr. Simpson always be running late on these trips?

MS. GUARIN: Yes. Always.

MR. COCHRAN: The limousine driver would have to wait for him?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at times when Mr. Simpson, when he was running late, would his habit for picking up his clothes change at all or would it remain the same? Describe that for the jury.

MS. GUARIN: Remain the same. He will--after he put everything in his suitcase, he will making sure that everything is in proper place, that he never leave anything out.

MR. COCHRAN: May we have just a second, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to approach, your Honor. I'm not sure these photographs are in evidence, your Honor. So just in case, I'll show them to counsel. We've all seen them. Your Honor, I would like to mark--this may be one of the exhibits, but I'll--out of an abundance of caution, I'll mark this as a Defense exhibit if I might.

THE CLERK: 1256.

THE COURT: 1256.

MR. COCHRAN: 1256?

MR. COCHRAN: I've show it to counsel. I'll put 1256 on the back. I would like to approach the witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: Counsel has now seen this.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to show you what has now been marked as exhibit 1256, Miss Guarin. Can you take a look at that photograph, please? And I'll ask you some questions after you've seen it.

THE COURT: It appears to be identical to what was it, 167?

MR. COCHRAN: It may be, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: You've now looked at this?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I proceed, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this particular photograph, do you recognize the room depicted in this photograph?

MS. GUARIN: Yes, it is.

MR. COCHRAN: And what room--whose room is this?

MS. GUARIN: That's Mr. Simpson room.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And that's the room that you worked in during this time frame we've been talking about?

MS. GUARIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: If I were to put this on the elmo--I'm going to ask you some questions about it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you can look down at the monitor there. With regard to that photograph that's now on the elmo, at any time during the time you worked for Mr. Simpson, have you ever seen him leave any socks on the rug or on that carpet in his room at any time, out like that?

MS. GUARIN: No."

[bobaugust]

I see that you are mistaking phone records with phone bills and you seem to be unaware that phone records can be subpoenaed from phone companies showing all incoming and outgoing calls. :);):cool:

If I recall correctly all the telephone records that were entered into evidence in the Simpson case were telephone bills. Support your comment please that there were other land line phone records in June 1994 that showed incoming phone calls.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The technology showed who was lying. :);):cool:

The video tape showed that the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door before she opened it. They no reason to lie about this, they had assumed the house was locked that’s why they asked Arnelle if she had a key to the house. Arnelle got a key and led them to the back door with the key in her hand, opened the door, and they all entered the house through that door. The detectives mistakenly assumed she had first unlocked it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You do have to prove a negative when you state the negative as fact, according to my understanding of the rules. You have been trying to prove a negative for as long as I have known you, which is that Simpson is not not guilty.;):cool:

No, I didn’t state a negative as a fact; I said there is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994. You’re the one who said she did because “her daddy’s was rich.” It’s obvious you can’t support your belief with any evidence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

True dat and those who speculate otherwise have to come up with, IMHO, rank speculation to try to explain why there is no evidence to support their speculation.

The freshly washed underwear found in the washing machine belonged to Arnelle. The laundry basket found in the laundry room belonged to Arnelle. The housekeeper testified that when she left for the weekend those items were not in the laundry room. Based on that evidence I don’t think it’s unreasonable to infer Arnelle took her laundry into Simpson’s house and washed her clothing sometime before the police arrived at Rockingham early Monday morning.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is that the three detectives were mistaken when they said Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the front door as well as other doors in the house can be locked or unlocked from the outside.

bobaugust

The detectives did not testify that they were mistaken as to Ms. Arnelle locking the door. Support the fact that they said they were mistaken or say it as your opinion, please?

[William Anthony]

If I recall correctly all the telephone records that were entered into evidence in the Simpson case were telephone bills. Support your comment please that there were other land line phone records in June 1994 that showed incoming phone calls.

bobaugust

Will do, when you do.;):cool::cool: It was your claim that land line phone records would not show incoming calls from payphones in 1994, which I asked you to support. wink, smile cool.

[martin II]

The freshly washed underwear found in the washing machine belonged to Arnelle. The laundry basket found in the laundry room belonged to Arnelle. The housekeeper testified that when she left for the weekend those items were not in the laundry room. Based on that evidence I don’t think it’s unreasonable to infer Arnelle took her laundry into Simpson’s house and washed her clothing sometime before the police arrived at Rockingham early Monday morning.

bobaugust

no proof
just stuff you made up.

[William Anthony]

The video tape showed that the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door before she opened it. They no reason to lie about this, they had assumed the house was locked that’s why they asked Arnelle if she had a key to the house. Arnelle got a key and led them to the back door with the key in her hand, opened the door, and they all entered the house through that door. The detectives mistakenly assumed she had first unlocked it.

bobaugust

The detectives testified that she unlocked the door. Please, provide the link to support your claim that the detectives testified they assumed she unlocked the door or admit this is your assumption?

[William Anthony]

No, I didn’t state a negative as a fact; I said there is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994. You’re the one who said she did because “her daddy’s was rich.” It’s obvious you can’t support your belief with any evidence.

bobaugust

Ah, you try valiantly to simply the matter but you see it is you that claim that Simpson called the beautiful Ms. Arnelle and, now, you claim it was at 4:00am. When asked for evidence to support your claim, you say there is no evidence. You are stating as a fact that a phone call was made and stating as a fact that no records exist to show the phone call, because you are stating, in the negative, there is no evidence to show Ms.Arnelle had a cell phone. When you charge someone, as you have done with a crime, and make a statement of fact, the onus is on you to produce evidence that she did not have a cell phone, not on me, as the defense to prove she did, only to point out that what you say cannot be trusted, because you failed to provide evidence to support your claim as to why no such phone records exist. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

The freshly washed underwear found in the washing machine belonged to Arnelle. The laundry basket found in the laundry room belonged to Arnelle. The housekeeper testified that when she left for the weekend those items were not in the laundry room. Based on that evidence I don’t think it’s unreasonable to infer Arnelle took her laundry into Simpson’s house and washed her clothing sometime before the police arrived at Rockingham early Monday morning.

bobaugust

Who do we know for a fact that was in the house between the times that Simpson left for the airport and after Ms. Arnelle left to pick up her brother and sister? LE? Who claimed that socks were somewhere at a time when the video showed they weren't? LE? Who said that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the back door and the video showed there were no locks that could have been unlocked by Ms. Arnelle on any of the rear doors? LE?

[William Anthony]

no proof
just stuff you made up.

My definition for speculation-just stuff made up.:);):cool:

[martin II]

The video tape showed that the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door before she opened it. They no reason to lie about this, they had assumed the house was locked that’s why they asked Arnelle if she had a key to the house. Arnelle got a key and led them to the back door with the key in her hand, opened the door, and they all entered the house through that door. The detectives mistakenly assumed she had first unlocked it.

bobaugust

There WAS a reason for them to lie.
the washing machine lie.

[William Anthony]

The freshly washed underwear found in the washing machine belonged to Arnelle.

bobaugust

Link please? No one asked Ms. Arnelle in the criminal trial or the socio political production if any underwear belonged to her.

[William Anthony]

You are incorrect.


Kaelin and Fuhrman do not contradict each other. The fact that Kaelin saw Arnelle and the detectives enter the house but Fuhrman didn’t only means that Kaelin was looking in that direction and Fuhrman wasn’t.


bobaugust

Notice what part of your post I placed in bold. Kato testified that they followed behind Arnelle and the detectives. Here is what MF testified.

"Q: AND MEANWHILE THE OTHERS, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD LEFT AND GONE INTO THE MAIN HOUSE?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE.

Q: WELL, THEY WEREN'T WITH ARNELLE ANY MORE WHEN YOU CAME OUT, WERE THEY?

A: WELL, WHEN I CAME OUT, I LOOKED TO MY RIGHT AND I DIDN'T SEE THEM, SO I LOOKED TO MY LEFT AND I SAW AN OPEN DOOR.

Q: UH-HUH. KATO WENT WITH YOU INTO THE MAIN HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS YOU PASSED BY THE KITCHEN, YOU HAD ALREADY SEATED HIM IN THE BAR STOOL?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU SAW PHILLIPS ON THE PHONE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU KNOW HE WAS TALKING TO MR. SIMPSON?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS TALKING TO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU INQUIRE OF ANY OF THESE FELLOWS WHAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS DOING?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE COMFORTING ARNELLE?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE HIM DOING? DID YOU SEE HIM IN THE ROOM?

A: I BELIEVE HE WAS IN THE ROOM, BUT I SAW DETECTIVE VANNATTER. THAT IS WHO I FOCUSED ON.

Q: DID YOU SEE ARNELLE IN THE ROOM, MR. SIMPSON'S DAUGHTER?

A: I BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE. "

If we are to believe that MF could not see what was directly in front of him, according to you, then how are we to believe he found the glove behind Kato's quarters? It seems MF could find things in the most difficult places to see, which suggests all sorts of possibilities on the word them, IMHO. Let's not forget the bloody fingerprints that he allegedly saw.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Although the idea of payphones have become somewhat antiquated, I do remember either dialing the number and and automated voice system telling me how much I had to pay to call a certain place or a long distance operator would come on the line. In any event there would have been a record made, which could have been subpoenaed.

[martin II]

After talking to oj on the phone twice,Arnell went to her room to get dressed. kato and mf were at katos room. When she came out of her room going back to the house, kato and mf were at katos door.Arnell went back to the house and kato and mf were not inside. Arnell left to go get the kids and mf brought kato into the house and placed him on the stool.

So katos testimony that he entered the house with Arnell,vannatter,lang and phillips was absolutely not true. He was at his room with mf when arnell and the others first entered the front door of the house.
So why did kato lie.

[martin II]

Bobaugust,

Although the idea of payphones have become somewhat antiquated, I do remember either dialing the number and and automated voice system telling me how much I had to pay to call a certain place or a long distance operator would come on the line. In any event there would have been a record made, which could have been subpoenaed.

Put in 12 quarters and i will put your call through. Record of transaction made.

[martin II]

BOB

I think it is too difficult a situation for you to know who the underwear belonged to.

[martin II]

If the beautiful MS Arnell arrived home at 1 am and went to bed and was awaken at about 5;30 am. How would she know about some sweat suite in the washing machine if OJ never called her. If there is no proof that he did call her one cannot just make up a story that he did call her. Proof of that is required just like proof is required that mf did not plant the glove. I have seen neither.imo:cool:

[GreenIce]

Arnelle lived with Simpson and I have no doubt that Simpson would know that she would be sleeping in her room at about 4:00 am on that Monday morning.

Mr. August,

According to Vanatter, your post is dead wrong.

[GreenIce]

If the beautiful MS Arnell arrived home at 1 am and went to bed and was awaken at about 5;30 am. How would she know about some sweat suite in the washing machine if OJ never called her. If there is no proof that he did call her one cannot just make up a story that he did call her. Proof of that is required just like proof is required that mf did not plant the glove. I have seen neither.imo:cool:

Martin,

It makes no sense that Simpson would call Arnelle for help and Arnelle waiting until about 2 hours to come and do this. It also makes sense that if he planned to involved Arnelle, he would ask Kato to set the alarm. It also makes no sense that Simpson did not ask Arnelle to look in other rooms, mainly his bedroom to see if he left any thing or that there was some evidence of his involvement in the crime, like blood or dark socks.

[GreenIce]

The freshly washed underwear found in the washing machine belonged to Arnelle. The laundry basket found in the laundry room belonged to Arnelle. The housekeeper testified that when she left for the weekend those items were not in the laundry room. Based on that evidence I don’t think it’s unreasonable to infer Arnelle took her laundry into Simpson’s house and washed her clothing sometime before the police arrived at Rockingham early Monday morning.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Arnelle testified that she did no laundry that weekend correct? Well if she was called by Simpson to wash the sweat suit, then why did she say that she did no laundry that weekend? Doesn't it only make sense that she would have said that she did do some laundry?

There was no way for the detectives to know what time she started to wash the clothes.

In regards to the maid, why was Chris Darden asking her about the laundry? Why wasn't one state witness questioned about the washing machine?

Another point, Kato heard Arnelle come home, he heard her enter room, he did not hear her exit her room, which he would have. He did not get a good nights sleep because of the thumps and the ringing of a telephone inside the main house.

You can't have Kato hearing entering her room, but not hear her exit it a few minutes later and then re-enter her room again a few more minutes after that.

Arnelle's items of clothing play no role in this. The only clothes that mattered were the dark item or items. By looking that picture, there is on way to say how many dark items were in the washer. It could have been one, it could have two and maybe even three or more.

You also can't tell from that picture what color the dark items were nor can you tell what fibers made up this garment.

[GreenIce]

Notice what part of your post I placed in bold. Kato testified that they followed behind Arnelle and the detectives. Here is what MF testified.

"Q: AND MEANWHILE THE OTHERS, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD LEFT AND GONE INTO THE MAIN HOUSE?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE.

Q: WELL, THEY WEREN'T WITH ARNELLE ANY MORE WHEN YOU CAME OUT, WERE THEY?

A: WELL, WHEN I CAME OUT, I LOOKED TO MY RIGHT AND I DIDN'T SEE THEM, SO I LOOKED TO MY LEFT AND I SAW AN OPEN DOOR.

Q: UH-HUH. KATO WENT WITH YOU INTO THE MAIN HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS YOU PASSED BY THE KITCHEN, YOU HAD ALREADY SEATED HIM IN THE BAR STOOL?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU SAW PHILLIPS ON THE PHONE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU KNOW HE WAS TALKING TO MR. SIMPSON?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS TALKING TO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU INQUIRE OF ANY OF THESE FELLOWS WHAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS DOING?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE COMFORTING ARNELLE?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE HIM DOING? DID YOU SEE HIM IN THE ROOM?

A: I BELIEVE HE WAS IN THE ROOM, BUT I SAW DETECTIVE VANNATTER. THAT IS WHO I FOCUSED ON.

Q: DID YOU SEE ARNELLE IN THE ROOM, MR. SIMPSON'S DAUGHTER?

A: I BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE. "

If we are to believe that MF could not see what was directly in front of him, according to you, then how are we to believe he found the glove behind Kato's quarters? It seems MF could find things in the most difficult places to see, which suggests all sorts of possibilities on the word them, IMHO. Let's not forget the bloody fingerprints that he allegedly saw.:);):cool:

William,

Was this MF's testimony from the prelim hearing or criminal trial?

If it was from the prelim hearing, what is interesting is that MF says that after he found the glove, he used the path and was going to the front of the house. He references the front of house quite a bit.

Does it make sense to you MF stopped his questioning of Kato when he found out about thumps, he says he walked Kato into the house because he knew a door was open, dropped Kato off and then exited the front of house.

Yet when he exits, he says he uses the front door. Doesn't it only make sense you are going to leave house from the same door you came in? BTW, Phillips testifies in the civil trial that he saw MF leave through the same door that they entered, MF's testimony contradicts this.

Imagine that---detectives again contradict each other! :)

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9224387]You are incorrect.

In the preliminary hearing Kato Kaelin, Fuhrman, and Vannatter testified they went into Simpson’s house through the back of the house.

Mr. August,

You are wrong. Kaelin nor MF testified to what door they went into. Neither did Phillips or Lange.

Clark only focuses on the front door.

[tv]

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Testimony of Mark Fuhrman --

WELL, DID SOMEBODY COME AND OPEN UP THIS BACK
25 DOOR AND LET YOU IN THEN, INTO THE FAMILY ROOM?
A I BELIEVE SO, BUT THE DOOR WAS OPENED.
26 Q IT WAS -- NOBODY NEEDED TO OPEN IT, OR IT WAS
OPENED --
27 A IT WAS OPENED FOR ME. AND I ASSUME THAT THAT IS
THE WAY THAT ARNELLE ENTERED THE RESIDENCE. BUT I DID NOT
28 KNOW. IT WAS JUST OPENED.

Testimony of Kato Kaelin --

Q All right. did Arnelle take some of the
26 officers into the house?
27 A I think so, because I don't have a key, so I
28 know I didn't open it, so someone did. I think so. I
0038
01 think she led them in the back doorway and I followed.

[martin II]

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Testimony of Mark Fuhrman --

WELL, DID SOMEBODY COME AND OPEN UP THIS BACK
25 DOOR AND LET YOU IN THEN, INTO THE FAMILY ROOM?
A I BELIEVE SO, BUT THE DOOR WAS OPENED.
26 Q IT WAS -- NOBODY NEEDED TO OPEN IT, OR IT WAS
OPENED --
27 A IT WAS OPENED FOR ME. AND I ASSUME THAT THAT IS
THE WAY THAT ARNELLE ENTERED THE RESIDENCE. BUT I DID NOT
28 KNOW. IT WAS JUST OPENED.

Testimony of Kato Kaelin --

Q All right. did Arnelle take some of the
26 officers into the house?
27 A I think so, because I don't have a key, so I
28 know I didn't open it, so someone did. I think so. I
0038
01 think she led them in the back doorway and I followed.kATO DID NOT ENTER THE HOUSE WITH Ms Arnell,vannater,lang and phillip.He did not enter the house when "she led them in."



Arnell ,vannater,lang and phillip entered the house by the front door. Kato and MF were at Katos room talking. After the beautiful Ms Arnell was asked to go get the kids she opened the south small door from the inside and walked to her room. Kato and MF were at Katos room door talking.She left her room dressed and Kato and MF were still around Katos room door talking.
She came back into the house, and she and AC left to go get the kids.
Mf THEN brought Kato from katos room to the small south door THAT HAD BEEN OPENED BY The Beautiful Ms Arnell FROM THE INSIDE when she left the house (kitchen) to go to her room to get dressed. That is the first time MF and Kato had entered the house through the door Ms Arnell had opened from the inside.

That is the testimony.

[tv]

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Testimony of Mark Fuhrman --

WELL, DID SOMEBODY COME AND OPEN UP THIS BACK
25 DOOR AND LET YOU IN THEN, INTO THE FAMILY ROOM?
A I BELIEVE SO, BUT THE DOOR WAS OPENED.
26 Q IT WAS -- NOBODY NEEDED TO OPEN IT, OR IT WAS
OPENED --
27 A IT WAS OPENED FOR ME. AND I ASSUME THAT THAT IS
THE WAY THAT ARNELLE ENTERED THE RESIDENCE. BUT I DID NOT
28 KNOW. IT WAS JUST OPENED.

Testimony of Kato Kaelin --

Q All right. did Arnelle take some of the
26 officers into the house?
27 A I think so, because I don't have a key, so I
28 know I didn't open it, so someone did. I think so. I
0038
01 think she led them in the back doorway and I followed.

Oops! I forgot to add -- Arnelle lied. :rolleyes:

[bobaugust]

The detectives did not testify that they were mistaken as to Ms. Arnelle locking the door. Support the fact that they said they were mistaken or say it as your opinion, please?

They were either mistaken or they lied. Since there was no reason for them to lie then they were mistaken.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Will do, when you do.;):cool::cool: It was your claim that land line phone records would not show incoming calls from payphones in 1994, which I asked you to support. wink, smile cool.

I already supported my claim; it’s your turn to support yours.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

no proof
just stuff you made up.

No, I didn’t make it up; it’s the evidence in this case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The detectives testified that she unlocked the door. Please, provide the link to support your claim that the detectives testified they assumed she unlocked the door or admit this is your assumption?

See my previous post #17953

[bobaugust]

Ah, you try valiantly to simply the matter but you see it is you that claim that Simpson called the beautiful Ms. Arnelle and, now, you claim it was at 4:00am. When asked for evidence to support your claim, you say there is no evidence. You are stating as a fact that a phone call was made and stating as a fact that no records exist to show the phone call, because you are stating, in the negative, there is no evidence to show Ms.Arnelle had a cell phone. When you charge someone, as you have done with a crime, and make a statement of fact, the onus is on you to produce evidence that she did not have a cell phone, not on me, as the defense to prove she did, only to point out that what you say cannot be trusted, because you failed to provide evidence to support your claim as to why no such phone records exist. :);):cool:

It’s very simple; if you make a claim on this discussion group it’s your obligation to support it. You claimed that Arnelle had a cell phone in June 1994, support your claim, please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Who do we know for a fact that was in the house between the times that Simpson left for the airport and after Ms. Arnelle left to pick up her brother and sister? LE? Who claimed that socks were somewhere at a time when the video showed they weren't? LE? Who said that Ms. Arnelle unlocked the back door and the video showed there were no locks that could have been unlocked by Ms. Arnelle on any of the rear doors? LE?

Gee according to your convoluted logic maybe LE even committed the murders since they were also at the murder scene.

[bobaugust]

There WAS a reason for them to lie.
the washing machine lie.

What washing machine lie do you think the three detectives told?

[bobaugust]

Link please? No one asked Ms. Arnelle in the criminal trial or the socio political production if any underwear belonged to her.

Cochran seemed to believe they were Arnelle’s panties, don’t you? Or maybe you do believe Mr. Simpson wore panties around the house.

July 20, 1995 Gigi Guarin

MR. COCHRAN: I saw some panties in and around the washing machine. Mr. Simpson never wore any panties around that house, did he?
MS. GUARIN: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And you know that those clothes and that hamper, that was Arnelle's clothes; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes, they are.
MR. COCHRAN: And Arnelle would wash her clothes inside the house there; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Notice what part of your post I placed in bold. Kato testified that they followed behind Arnelle and the detectives. Here is what MF testified.

"Q: AND MEANWHILE THE OTHERS, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD LEFT AND GONE INTO THE MAIN HOUSE?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE.

Q: WELL, THEY WEREN'T WITH ARNELLE ANY MORE WHEN YOU CAME OUT, WERE THEY?

A: WELL, WHEN I CAME OUT, I LOOKED TO MY RIGHT AND I DIDN'T SEE THEM, SO I LOOKED TO MY LEFT AND I SAW AN OPEN DOOR.

Q: UH-HUH. KATO WENT WITH YOU INTO THE MAIN HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS YOU PASSED BY THE KITCHEN, YOU HAD ALREADY SEATED HIM IN THE BAR STOOL?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU SAW PHILLIPS ON THE PHONE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU KNOW HE WAS TALKING TO MR. SIMPSON?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS TALKING TO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU INQUIRE OF ANY OF THESE FELLOWS WHAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS DOING?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE COMFORTING ARNELLE?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE HIM DOING? DID YOU SEE HIM IN THE ROOM?

A: I BELIEVE HE WAS IN THE ROOM, BUT I SAW DETECTIVE VANNATTER. THAT IS WHO I FOCUSED ON.

Q: DID YOU SEE ARNELLE IN THE ROOM, MR. SIMPSON'S DAUGHTER?

A: I BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE. "

If we are to believe that MF could not see what was directly in front of him, according to you, then how are we to believe he found the glove behind Kato's quarters? It seems MF could find things in the most difficult places to see, which suggests all sorts of possibilities on the word them, IMHO. Let's not forget the bloody fingerprints that he allegedly saw.:);):cool:

There is no contradiction. Kaelin saw Arnelle and the detectives enter the house before Fuhrman looked in that direction. Kaelin and Fuhrman then followed Arnelle and the three detectives into the house through the back door.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

Although the idea of payphones have become somewhat antiquated, I do remember either dialing the number and and automated voice system telling me how much I had to pay to call a certain place or a long distance operator would come on the line. In any event there would have been a record made, which could have been subpoenaed.

Of course payphone records could be subpoenaed if who ever was requesting the subpoena knew which payphone Simpson used. But the fact is that during the criminal trial the prosecution never figured out why Arnelle told a story that was contradicted by the five witnesses. By the time Petrocelli got involved and realized what had happened it was even less possible to find that payphone record.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

After talking to oj on the phone twice,Arnell went to her room to get dressed. kato and mf were at katos room. When she came out of her room going back to the house, kato and mf were at katos door.Arnell went back to the house and kato and mf were not inside. Arnell left to go get the kids and mf brought kato into the house and placed him on the stool.

So katos testimony that he entered the house with Arnell,vannatter,lang and phillips was absolutely not true. He was at his room with mf when arnell and the others first entered the front door of the house.
So why did kato lie.

Kato didn’t lie, his testimony is corroborated. Either Arnelle intentionally lied or she was mistaken.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

BOB

I think it is too difficult a situation for you to know who the underwear belonged to.

Cochran didn’t find it difficult. Maybe you also believe Mr. Simpson wore panties around the house, right?

July 20, 1995 Gigi Guarin

MR. COCHRAN: I saw some panties in and around the washing machine. Mr. Simpson never wore any panties around that house, did he?
MS. GUARIN: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And you know that those clothes and that hamper, that was Arnelle's clothes; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes, they are.
MR. COCHRAN: And Arnelle would wash her clothes inside the house there; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Arnelle testified that she did no laundry that weekend correct? Well if she was called by Simpson to wash the sweat suit, then why did she say that she did no laundry that weekend? Doesn't it only make sense that she would have said that she did do some laundry?

There was no way for the detectives to know what time she started to wash the clothes.

In regards to the maid, why was Chris Darden asking her about the laundry? Why wasn't one state witness questioned about the washing machine?

Another point, Kato heard Arnelle come home, he heard her enter room, he did not hear her exit her room, which he would have. He did not get a good nights sleep because of the thumps and the ringing of a telephone inside the main house.

You can't have Kato hearing entering her room, but not hear her exit it a few minutes later and then re-enter her room again a few more minutes after that.

Arnelle's items of clothing play no role in this. The only clothes that mattered were the dark item or items. By looking that picture, there is on way to say how many dark items were in the washer. It could have been one, it could have two and maybe even three or more.

You also can't tell from that picture what color the dark items were nor can you tell what fibers made up this garment.

Arnelle would not admit doing the laundry because she had destroyed blood evidence when she washed her father’s dark colored sweat suit.

The detectives never said what time the clothing was washed. I’m saying what time she did the laundry based on the fact that she got home around 1:00, 1:30 am and Simpson’s plane landed in Chicago at about 3:30 am LA time.

Kaelin didn’t hear Arnelle leave her room because he was sleeping. When Kaelin said he kept hearing a phone ringing Arnelle was already back in her room. Kaelin heard the police ringing Simpson’s gate trying to get a response.

1:00, 1:30 am to 3:30, 4:00 am is not a matter of minutes.

Mark Fuhrman wrote about the dark colored sweat suit that was found in Simpson’s washing machine in his book and provided a photograph to support what he said.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You are wrong. Kaelin nor MF testified to what door they went into. Neither did Phillips or Lange.

Clark only focuses on the front door.

tvdinner responded to you first but I will add to it.

No, I am not wrong. I said through the back of the house, but the fact is there was only one door that could be opened into the back of the house. It doesn’t matter what Clark focused on, you claimed no one testified to this in the preliminary hearing and you were wrong.

July 5, 1994 Mark Fuhrman

Q So you brought Kato into the house?
A Yes.
Q Where did you put him?
A There's a bar inside that looks like a recreation room, a billiard room, and just to the right of that as you're entering the rear of the residence, there's four or five bar stools.


July 6, 1994 Vannatter

Q When you went to Arnelle's room, what A She answered the door, and I believe detective Phillips had come up. And detective Phillips told her that we needed to get in touch with her father, did she know where he was at, and she responded -- she answered
the question with another question. She pointed toward the house and said, "isn't he here?"
Q Indicating the house when she said "here."
A Yes. And I asked her, "well, is he? I don't know. Is he here?"
And she looked sort of quizzical and she says at that point -- either -- I believe myself, I asked her, "do you have a key? Can we check to see if your father is here? We need to get in touch with him." And she said, "yes, I have a key," and she took us into the house.

Q So she opened the door with a key?
A Yes.
Q And invited you in?
A Yes.
Q Once you got in the house, what did you do?
A I immediately asked her -- knowing that there was supposed to be a maid there, I asked her, "where is the maid's quarters? Isn't there supposed to be a maid here?" And she took me through the back of the house into the kitchen to an area off the utility room that
would be on the south side of the kitchen.


July 6, 1994 Kato Kaelin

Q All right. did Arnelle take some of the officers into the house?
A I think so, because I don't have a key, so I know I didn't open it, so someone did. I think so. I think she led them in the back doorway and I followed.

bobaugust

[martin II]

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Testimony of Mark Fuhrman --

WELL, DID SOMEBODY COME AND OPEN UP THIS BACK
25 DOOR AND LET YOU IN THEN, INTO THE FAMILY ROOM?
A I BELIEVE SO, BUT THE DOOR WAS OPENED.
26 Q IT WAS -- NOBODY NEEDED TO OPEN IT, OR IT WAS
OPENED --
27 A IT WAS OPENED FOR ME. AND I ASSUME HE DID SAY HE ASSUMEDTHAT THAT IS
THE WAY THAT ARNELLE ENTERED THE RESIDENCE. BUT I DID NOT
28 KNOW. IT WAS JUST OPENED.

Testimony of Kato Kaelin --

Q All right. did Arnelle take some of the
26 officers into the house?
27 A I think so, because I don't have a key, so I
28 know I didn't open it, so someone did.ARNELL DID WHEN SHE UNLOCKED THE DOOR FROM THE INSIDE AND WENT TO DRESS. I think so. I
0038
01 think she led them in the back doorway and I followed.

MARTINii

[William Anthony]

Put in 12 quarters and i will put your call through. Record of transaction made.

Yes siree, bob (pun intended).:)

[martin II]

Cochran didn’t find it difficult. Maybe you also believe Mr. Simpson wore panties around the house, right?

July 20, 1995 Gigi Guarin

MR. COCHRAN: I saw some panties in and around the washing machine. Mr. Simpson never wore any panties around that house, did he?
MS. GUARIN: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And you know that those clothes and that hamperIN the HAMPER NOT IN THE WASHING MACHINE, that was Arnelle's clothes; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes, they are.
MR. COCHRAN: And Arnelle would wash her clothes inside the house there; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.

bobaugust
cLARKE ALSO SAID THE CLOTHES WERE IN THE HAMPER. NO ONE IN YOUR POST SAID ARNELL WASHED THOSE UNDERWEARONE. NOW DID THEY?

[William Anthony]

Martin,

It makes no sense that Simpson would call Arnelle for help and Arnelle waiting until about 2 hours to come and do this. It also makes sense that if he planned to involved Arnelle, he would ask Kato to set the alarm. It also makes no sense that Simpson did not ask Arnelle to look in other rooms, mainly his bedroom to see if he left any thing or that there was some evidence of his involvement in the crime, like blood or dark socks.

GreenIce,

ITA and to try to accuse Ms. Arnelle, without one shred of evidence, is a supreme act of desperation, IMHO.

[martin II]

tvdinner responded to you first but I will add to it.

No, I am not wrong. I said through the back of the house, but the fact is there was only one door that could be opened into the back of the house. It doesn’t matter what Clark focused on, you claimed no one testified to this in the preliminary hearing and you were wrong.

July 5, 1994 Mark Fuhrman

Q So you brought Kato into the house?
A Yes.
Q Where did you put him?
A There's a bar inside that looks like a recreation room, a billiard room, and just to the right of that as you're entering the rear of the residence, there's four or five bar stools.


July 6, 1994 Vannatter

Q When you went to Arnelle's room, what A She answered the door, and I believe detective Phillips had come up. And detective Phillips told her that we needed to get in touch with her father, did she know where he was at, and she responded -- she answered
the question with another question. She pointed toward the house and said, "isn't he here?"
Q Indicating the house when she said "here."
A Yes. And I asked her, "well, is he? I don't know. Is he here?"
And she looked sort of quizzical and she says at that point -- either -- I believe myself, I asked her, "do you have a key? Can we check to see if your father is here? We need to get in touch with him." And she said, "yes, I have a key," and she took us into the house.

Q So she opened the door with a key?
A Yes.
Q And invited you in?
A Yes.
Q Once you got in the house, what did you do?
A I immediately asked her -- knowing that there was supposed to be a maid there, I asked her, "where is the maid's quarters? Isn't there supposed to be a maid here?" And she took me through the back of the house into the kitchen to an area off the utility room that
would be on the south side of the kitchen.


July 6, 1994 Kato Kaelin

Q All right. did Arnelle take some of the officers into the house?
A I think so, because I don't have a key, so I know I didn't open it, so someone did. I think so. I think she led them in the back doorway and I followed.

bobaugust

kATO WAS AT HIS ROOM TALKING TO MF WHEN the Beautiful Ms Arnell and the others entered the front door so he did not follow her in any door.

[William Anthony]

William,

Was this MF's testimony from the prelim hearing or criminal trial?

If it was from the prelim hearing, what is interesting is that MF says that after he found the glove, he used the path and was going to the front of the house. He references the front of house quite a bit.

Does it make sense to you MF stopped his questioning of Kato when he found out about thumps, he says he walked Kato into the house because he knew a door was open, dropped Kato off and then exited the front of house.

Yet when he exits, he says he uses the front door. Doesn't it only make sense you are going to leave house from the same door you came in? BTW, Phillips testifies in the civil trial that he saw MF leave through the same door that they entered, MF's testimony contradicts this.

Imagine that---detectives again contradict each other! :)

GreenIce,

The testimony is from the criminal trial. I seems LE didn't get their stories straight.:)

[William Anthony]

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Testimony of Mark Fuhrman --

WELL, DID SOMEBODY COME AND OPEN UP THIS BACK
25 DOOR AND LET YOU IN THEN, INTO THE FAMILY ROOM?
A I BELIEVE SO, BUT THE DOOR WAS OPENED.
26 Q IT WAS -- NOBODY NEEDED TO OPEN IT, OR IT WAS
OPENED --
27 A IT WAS OPENED FOR ME. AND I ASSUME THAT THAT IS
THE WAY THAT ARNELLE ENTERED THE RESIDENCE. BUT I DID NOT
28 KNOW. IT WAS JUST OPENED.

Testimony of Kato Kaelin --

Q All right. did Arnelle take some of the
26 officers into the house?
27 A I think so, because I don't have a key, so I
28 know I didn't open it, so someone did. I think so. I
0038
01 think she led them in the back doorway and I followed.

Sounds like Kato was assuming and MF was preoccupied with other thoughts. IMHO, getting to the back of KATo's quarters, where MF allegedly found the glove, was foremost in his mind.

[martin II]

Kato didn’t lie, his testimony is corroborated. Either Arnelle intentionally lied or she was mistaken.

bobaugust

There is plenty of testimony that when Arnell,vannatter,lang and phillips entered the house MF held Kato in/at his room questioning him about whether he was high,gave him some quick test and Kato talked to him about the noise he had heard. The others were already in the house. So he lied or he was confused by the questions. He did come in the back door that Arnell opened from the inside BUT IT WAS MUCH LATER AFTER THE OTHERS HAD ENTERED AND MF BROUGHT HIM IN.

[William Anthony]

They were either mistaken or they lied. Since there was no reason for them to lie then they were mistaken.

bobaugust

Ah, but there was a reason for them to lie. That reason was to try to implicate someone in washing a bloody sweatsuit that mysteriously disappeared after they were there to collect evidence. Therefore, IMHO, they lied. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I already supported my claim; it’s your turn to support yours.

bobaugust

Where is the link or is just because you think you say something that it is the truth? How many times have I shown things you have said to be incorrect, remember?

[martin II]

Sounds like Kato was assuming and MF was preoccupied with other thoughts. IMHO, getting to the back of KATo's quarters, where MF allegedly found the glove, was foremost in his mind.

Willian

I believe bob knows that his post of mf and Kato proves absolutely nothing. But that is all he has.I assume. I don't know. I don't know. MF had Kato in his room giving him the third degree making sure what Kato was telling him and thanking him for giving him a excuse to do what he did in the walkway. Otherwise he would have to find a way to get into the bronco.

[William Anthony]

See my previous post #17953

See my response #17975

[martin II]

Sounds like Kato was assuming and MF was preoccupied with other thoughts. IMHO, getting to the back of KATo's quarters, where MF allegedly found the glove, was foremost in his mind.

Look at Katos different testimonies about what bags he loaded and what others loaded into the limo and you will be completely confused at how his story changed. Also when Kato and his girl testified 2-3 times about the time he heard the noise BOB is the first to say he was mistaken. So that is definately selective acceptance of Katos testimony only when it is thought that it helps ones claims. That dosen't work.imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

It’s very simple; if you make a claim on this discussion group it’s your obligation to support it. You claimed that Arnelle had a cell phone in June 1994, support your claim, please.

bobaugust

We need no go back and post everything and did not make a claim that Ms. Arnelle had a cell phone. You used the term "logical supposition", which I quoted to say that Ms. Arnelle would have had a cell phone. Here is the definition of supposition, which negates the idea that a claim was made.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supposition

You were are the one that claims that a phone call was made by Simpson to the beautiful Ms. Arnelle at 4:00am but do not have any evidence to support that, which I would term rank speculation, and you further speculate that, because there is no evidence in the form of phone records to support your claim, then there is no evidence that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone. I ask you to support your claim that there is no evidence the beautiful Ms. Arnelle had a cell phone by indicating something in the record that LE searched for the alleged 4:00am phone call and couldn't find it, because it was made to a land line from a payphone and no records were kept and that a search revealed that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone.

[martin II]

Arnelle would not admit doing the laundry because she had destroyed blood evidence when she washed her father’s dark colored sweat suit.

The detectives never said what time the clothing was washed. I’m saying what time she did the laundry based on the fact that she got home around 1:00, 1:30 am and Simpson’s plane landed in Chicago at about 3:30 am LA time.

Kaelin didn’t hear Arnelle leave her room because he was sleeping. When Kaelin said he kept hearing a phone ringing Arnelle was already back in her room. Kaelin heard the police ringing Simpson’s gate trying to get a response.

1:00, 1:30 am to 3:30, 4:00 am is not a matter of minutes.

Mark Fuhrman wrote about the dark colored sweat suit that was found in Simpson’s washing machine in his book and provided a photograph to support what he said.

bobaugust

bob
Please give me proof that oj called Arnell after she arrived home and before the detectives arrived. If you are going to continue to make that claim you should just give phone records. Without that you are just making stuff up.imo

[William Anthony]

Gee according to your convoluted logic maybe LE even committed the murders since they were also at the murder scene.

Not those nervous, sleepy, careless ones that were there, who, according to you, were prone to making mistakes and human errors.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Cochran seemed to believe they were Arnelle’s panties, don’t you? Or maybe you do believe Mr. Simpson wore panties around the house.

July 20, 1995 Gigi Guarin

MR. COCHRAN: I saw some panties in and around the washing machine. Mr. Simpson never wore any panties around that house, did he?
MS. GUARIN: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And you know that those clothes and that hamper, that was Arnelle's clothes; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes, they are.
MR. COCHRAN: And Arnelle would wash her clothes inside the house there; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.

bobaugust

Have you ever heard of the best evidence rule? The beautiful Ms. Arnelle was on the stand but she was not asked if the panties belonged to her.

[martin II]

The bottom line is in court when the video zoomed in on all the back doors knobs that was proof that Ms Arnell did not unlock that s back door from the outside to let anyone in.

[William Anthony]

There is no contradiction. Kaelin saw Arnelle and the detectives enter the house before Fuhrman looked in that direction. Kaelin and Fuhrman then followed Arnelle and the three detectives into the house through the back door.

bobaugust

If you follow someone, then you see someone in front of you whether they are off to the left or right. You can't follow that which you do not see.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Of course payphone records could be subpoenaed if who ever was requesting the subpoena knew which payphone Simpson used. But the fact is that during the criminal trial the prosecution never figured out why Arnelle told a story that was contradicted by the five witnesses. By the time Petrocelli got involved and realized what had happened it was even less possible to find that payphone record.

bobaugust

According to you, the detectives saw a wet sweatsuit, Simpson was a suspect due to the blood and the bloody glove found on his property, they were collecting item of clothing, so they did not have the sense to send a subpoena to Chicago asking for the records of all payphone long distance phone calls made to Los Angeles in the AM hours on June 13th, 1994 and it took Petrocelli to realize what that LE did not have that much sense, correct?:);):cool:

[martin II]

We need no go back and post everything and did not make a claim that Ms. Arnelle had a cell phone. You used the term "logical supposition", which I quoted to say that Ms. Arnelle would have had a cell phone. Here is the definition of supposition, which negates the idea that a claim was made.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supposition

You were are the one that claims that a phone call was made by Simpson to the beautiful Ms. Arnelle at 4:00am but do not have any evidence to support that, which I would term rank speculation, and you further speculate that, because there is no evidence in the form of phone records to support your claim, then there is no evidence that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone. I ask you to support your claim that there is no evidence the beautiful Ms. Arnelle had a cell phone by indicating something in the record that LE searched for the alleged 4:00am phone call and couldn't find it, because it was made to a land line from a payphone and no records were kept and that a search revealed that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone.

A call from chicago to la by credit card, cell phone or pay phone would generate a record. But none was found so no call was made.imo

[William Anthony]

Kato didn’t lie, his testimony is corroborated. Either Arnelle intentionally lied or she was mistaken.

bobaugust

Did you say that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle could be mistaken? Are you becoming infatuated? :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

GreenIce,

The testimony is from the criminal trial. I seems LE didn't get their stories straight.:)

Correction-It seems LE didn't get their stories straight.

[martin II]

According to you, the detectives saw a wet sweatsuit, Simpson was a suspect due to the blood and the bloody glove found on his property, they were collecting item of clothing, so they did not have the sense to send a subpoena to Chicago asking for the records of all payphone long distance phone calls made to Los Angeles in the AM hours on June 13th, 1994 and it took Petrocelli to realize what that LE did not have that much sense, correct?:);):cool:

They only had to ask for all payphone records from ojs hotel. They were already in touch with chicago le. The Hertz person that was waiting for oj at the airport could testify if oj used a payphone when he got off the plane until he deposited oj in his hotel room. It is possible they did check those records
and found no call to oj house so they just forgot about that dead end.imo

[William Anthony]

Willian

I believe bob knows that his post of mf and Kato proves absolutely nothing. But that is all he has.I assume. I don't know. I don't know. MF had Kato in his room giving him the third degree making sure what Kato was telling him and thanking him for giving him a excuse to do what he did in the walkway. Otherwise he would have to find a way to get into the bronco.

I see that you have drawn a reasonable inference from the evidence.

[William Anthony]

look at katos different testimonies about what bags he loaded and what others loaded into the limo and you will be completely confused at how his story changed. Also when kato and his girl testified 2-3 times about the time he heard the noise bob is the first to say he was mistaken. So that is definately selective acceptance of katos testimony only when it is thought that it helps ones claims. That dosen't work.imo:cool:

ditto.

[martin II]

If you follow someone, then you see someone in front of you whether they are off to the left or right. You can't follow that which you do not see.:);):cool:

BOB

One cannot continue to ignore the fact backed by testimony that Kato and MF were in Katos room as Mf was questioning him and asking him about where and when he heard the noise when the others entered the house and be believed. imo

[William Anthony]

A call from chicago to la by credit card, cell phone or pay phone would generate a record. But none was found so no call was made.imo

In the minds of some there had to be one of they couldn't say negative things about the beautiful Ms. Arnelle. Wait!! Wasn't there a post made that the beautiful Ms. Arnelle washed the magical sweatsuit without a call from her father, thinking her father had been involved in something. and when she found out that Ms. NBS and Mr. RG had been so brutally murdered and, thinking her father guilty, she kept silent. I guess no evidence is needed to support negative suppositions in some cases.

[William Anthony]

They only had to ask for all payphone records from ojs hotel. They were already in touch with chicago le. The Hertz person that was waiting for oj at the airport could testify if oj used a payphone when he got off the plane until he deposited oj in his hotel room. It is possible they did check those records
and found no call to oj house so they just forgot about that dead end.imo

Not Petrocelli and his disciples. :patriot: (:biggrin: & :rolleyes:)

[GreenIce]

kATO DID NOT ENTER THE HOUSE WITH Ms Arnell,vannater,lang and phillip.He did not enter the house when "she led them in."



Arnell ,vannater,lang and phillip entered the house by the front door. Kato and MF were at Katos room talking. After the beautiful Ms Arnell was asked to go get the kids she opened the south small door from the inside and walked to her room. Kato and MF were at Katos room door talking.She left her room dressed and Kato and MF were still around Katos room door talking.
She came back into the house, and she and AC left to go get the kids.
Mf THEN brought Kato from katos room to the small south door THAT HAD BEEN OPENED BY The Beautiful Ms Arnell FROM THE INSIDE when she left the house (kitchen) to go to her room to get dressed. That is the first time MF and Kato had entered the house through the door Ms Arnell had opened from the inside.

That is the testimony.

Martin,

I don't think Vanatter was there when they entered the house. Arnelle has always testified that only two officers came to her door. One was with Kato and one was by the Patio or something like that.

It is possible that VA did jump on the tail end of the group and Arnelle may not have noticed. However, she had nothing to gain about how many detectives followed her into the house. Clark in the prelim hearing backs up every she says. The detectives constant use of the front door as their main entrance.

If you read VA's grand jury testimony, you can see just how vague he is. He does not ever committ himself to being with the group at that time.

IMO, Ito had to know that Vanatter and the other detectives were lying about this because he had to wonder how is it that VA said he was where he was and still wrote lies on the search warrant?

The only explaination for the lies of Vanatter is that he was not with the group so he has no idea what Arnelle said and that he was not there when Arnelle called Cathy Randa.

However, as you know, I have always posted they knew where Simpson was, they knew when he left and they knew that he did not get rid of any evidence at his house or at the airport.

I also believe MF and RP did go over to Rockingham long before the official time given and quite frankly, they were ordered to as well as had every legal right to do so.

Once they started lying, that is when it became an illegal search, IMO.

[martin II]

Arnelle would not admit doing the laundry because she had destroyed blood evidence when she washed her father’s dark colored sweat suit.

The detectives never said what time the clothing was washed. I’m saying what time she did the laundry based on the fact that she got home around 1:00, 1:30 am and Simpson’s plane landed in Chicago at about 3:30 am LA time.

Kaelin didn’t hear Arnelle leave her room because he was sleeping. When Kaelin said he kept hearing a phone ringing Arnelle was already back in her room. Kaelin heard the police ringing Simpson’s gate trying to get a response.

1:00, 1:30 am to 3:30, 4:00 am is not a matter of minutes.

Mark Fuhrman wrote about the dark colored sweat suit that was found in Simpson’s washing machine in his book and provided a photograph to support what he said.

bobaugust

So why didn't MF collect the sweats.? He was looking to collect everything else.If he saw then i am sure he would have collected them.What excuse do you have for him not collecting them?

[GreenIce]

Not Petrocelli and his disciples. :patriot: (:biggrin: & :rolleyes:)

William and Martin,

OJ's defense team did a records search. His team of investigators went out and pounded the pavement and were able to track down witnesses, etc. Of course, many of these witnesses wanted nothing to do the trial but Pat McKenna was clear. He set up Simpson with little things to see if he was lying. He wanted to know if Simpson made phone calls back to LA because he felt that if Simpson would have been making at least 1 phone call to find out how far the police were behind him.

They found nothing.

[William Anthony]

So why didn't MF collect the sweats.? He was looking to collect everything else.If he saw then i am sure he would have collected them.What excuse do you have for him not collecting them?

IMHO, he was interested in earning the nic, bloody glove MF.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

OJ's defense team did a records search. His team of investigators went out and pounded the pavement and were able to track down witnesses, etc. Of course, many of these witnesses wanted nothing to do the trial but Pat McKenna was clear. He set up Simpson with little things to see if he was lying. He wanted to know if Simpson made phone calls back to LA because he felt that if Simpson would have been making at least 1 phone call to find out how far the police were behind him.

They found nothing.

Nothing from nothing usually leaves nothing but not in the minds of Petrocelli and his followers.