Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

More from the biased source and even he did not believe that Ms. Arnelle was as sinister as she is portrayed on this board and he better not think himself my competition. :);):cool:

"Simpson and Starke had named Arnelle as the president of LBA because they could control her. When I spoke with Arnelle in her deposition, she repeatedly admitted that she was overwhelmed. I actually felt a little sorry for her. She knew the business purpose of the corporation, to promote and sell the If I Did It book, but she had no knowledge of the day-to-day operations. She admitted that Starke handled the company, and Starke himself testified that Arnelle was really just a “people person.” It was Starke’s job to run LBA, which effectively meant that Simpson was in control. It seemed to me that Arnelle did whatever Starke and her father told her to do."

[weezer]

I know I've just recently posted it twice and both work for me. :shrug:

Here it is again and will show exactly what I posted plus more.

http://www.georgiabankruptcyblog.com/LB%20Trustee%20Motion.pdf

thank you IJM -- the link works perfectly. maybe cockpit trouble? ;)

[Its just me]

I don't think you can be any clearer. Despite the fact that Jason was grown and Justin and Sydney near grown and they all agreed to have Simpson write and publish the book ands share in the profits (according to the information known), these are the only two you feel this way about, "OJ and Arnelle loved their self and money more."

Yep....I believe it was all about money with them two....so much so they had no respect for Nicole or her children. Nicole was dead and couldn't defend her rights and I think the smaller children were just too young to make the decision. I'm not letting Jason off the hook but in reading his deposition he didn't not appear to be greedy for money. He touched on the work ethics subject and he impressed me and his remark about not being able to talk loud to the lawyers about the deaths leads me to beleive he would not be crazy about letting the world read about it either. Reading the document where Arnelle is questioned in the bankruptcy case….it’s clear it’s about money. I have a much in depth opinion of OJ in the book deal but it's just too bad to post.

IMHOO

[martin II]

More from the biased source and even he did not believe that Ms. Arnelle was as sinister as she is portrayed on this board and he better not think himself my competition. :);):cool:

"Simpson and Starke had named Arnelle as the president of LBA because they could control her. When I spoke with Arnelle in her deposition, she repeatedly admitted that she was overwhelmed. I actually felt a little sorry for her. She knew the business purpose of the corporation, to promote and sell the If I Did It book, but she had no knowledge of the day-to-day operations. She admitted that Starke handled the company, and Starke himself testified that Arnelle was really just a “people person.” It was Starke’s job to run LBA, which effectively meant that Simpson was in control. It seemed to me that Arnelle did whatever Starke and her father told her to do."

Arnell was the president of Lba. She did not have to be expert at legal operations of the company as that was the function of the corporate lawyer. MR STARKE. There were no daily operations of the company other than to promote the sales of the book by engaging retailers to sell the book and supervise the accounting people to record income. So WTH is this guy talking about anyway.

[Its just me]

LBA can legally issue OJ a 1090 at the end of the year and not be responsible for quartely 941 tax.

The business expert is confused and just making up stuff. LBA PRECEIVED tax obligations were nonexistant and not mentioned in the case as a factor in the decision.

Doesn't change much and only a FWIW but I believe it's a 1099 you are posting about and not a 1090 and that would be for contracted labor and not a regular employee. just saying.

[Its just me]

Arnell was the president of Lba. She did not have to be expert at legal operations of the company as that was the function of the corporate lawyer. MR STARKE. There were no daily operations of the company other than to promote the sales of the book by engaging retailers to sell the book and supervise the accounting people to record income. So WTH is this guy talking about anyway.

Are you saying the President of a Corporation doesn't need to know if the corporation is doing something illegal.

For some reason Enron is popping between my ears. But there may be a difference in a CEO and a President. :eek:

[martin II]

Yep....I believe it was all about money with them two....so much so they had no respect for Nicole or her children. Nicole was dead and couldn't defend her rights and I think the smaller children were just too young to make the decision. I'm not letting Jason off the hook but in reading his deposition he didn't not appear to be greedy for money. He touched on the work ethics subject and he impressed me and his remark about not being able to talk loud to the lawyers about the deaths leads me to beleive he would not be crazy about letting the world read about it either. Reading the document where Arnelle is questioned in the bankruptcy case….it’s clear it’s about money. I have a much in depth opinion of OJ in the book deal but it's just too bad to post.

IMHOO
It is always about the money for everyone.


The fact that the sinpson family decided to take advantage of a 0nce in a lifetime business opportunity given them by HC means they had no respect for their mother? After a couple hundred books has been written about their
dad, you think they had no right for oj to write one himself for the benefit if their family, OJ made it clear that it was about money. Just as everyone that wrote a book did. OJ stated he was surprised that HC was willing to pay him all that money for his signature but since they were ge decided to take the money. Initially fred claimed he just wanted to prevent oj from publishing the book as it should NOT BE PUBLISHED. But when he realized there was a opportunity for him to get the rights to the book and realize money for himself he immediaterly made a full court press to get the money.

It did not matter that he was making money on a story about the death of his son. It did not matter that many thought that taking the money was disreaspectful to the memory of his son. The only issue was how much money could he get by getting the rights to the book it did not matter how his actions looked.
So why the complaint about oj and his kids making money. imo

one kid was 18 and the other 21.

[martin II]

Are you saying the President of a Corporation doesn't need to know if the corporation is doing something illegal.

For some reason Enron is popping between my ears. But there may be a difference in a CEO and a President. :eek:

What did LBA do that was illegal. Hire oj as a consultant? The decision stated that there was not enough distance between LBA and the consultant oj.
In your legal opinion what would have been the proper distance?

[William Anthony]

Yep....I believe it was all about money with them two....so much so they had no respect for Nicole or her children. Nicole was dead and couldn't defend her rights and I think the smaller children were just too young to make the decision. I'm not letting Jason off the hook but in reading his deposition he didn't not appear to be greedy for money. He touched on the work ethics subject and he impressed me and his remark about not being able to talk loud to the lawyers about the deaths leads me to beleive he would not be crazy about letting the world read about it either. Reading the document where Arnelle is questioned in the bankruptcy case….it’s clear it’s about money. I have a much in depth opinion of OJ in the book deal but it's just too bad to post.

IMHOO

Martin has posted that the beautiful Ms. NBS' children were 18 and 21. They made the decision and are as much to blame or to excuse as Simpson, Ms. Arnelle and Jason. However, for some reason Ms. Arnelle seems to bear the brunt of much of the attacks as with the recent one on her mother. Perhaps, someone will be kind enough to explain why? There is no information that Marguerite had a problem with any substance but Simpson's girlfriend admitted she did.

[William Anthony]

Arnell was the president of Lba. She did not have to be expert at legal operations of the company as that was the function of the corporate lawyer. MR STARKE. There were no daily operations of the company other than to promote the sales of the book by engaging retailers to sell the book and supervise the accounting people to record income. So WTH is this guy talking about anyway.

I think that he is saying that Ms. Arnelle was like the Queen, a figure head, but left the planning to Parliament.

[Its just me]

It is always about the money for everyone.


The fact that the sinpson family decided to take advantage of a 0nce in a lifetime business opportunity given them by HC means they had no respect for their mother? After a couple hundred books has been written about their
dad, you think they had no right for oj to write one himself for the benefit if their family, OJ made it clear that it was about money. Just as everyone that wrote a book did. OJ stated he was surprised that HC was willing to pay him all that money for his signature but since they were ge decided to take the money. Initially fred claimed he just wanted to prevent oj from publishing the book as it should NOT BE PUBLISHED. But when he realized there was a opportunity for him to get the rights to the book and realize money for himself he immediaterly made a full court press to get the money.

It did not matter that he was making money on a story about the death of his son. It did not matter that many thought that taking the money was disreaspectful to the memory of his son. The only issue was how much money could he get by getting the rights to the book it did not matter how his actions looked.
So why the complaint about oj and his kids making money. imo

one kid was 18 and the other 21.

You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I don't believe I've every asked you a "why" about yours. FWIW I'm not complaining about the kids "making" any money....because I don't believe they got a dime... the corp. went "bank" and what went into the corp before that OJ swindled it. IMHOO

[William Anthony]

Are you saying the President of a Corporation doesn't need to know if the corporation is doing something illegal.

For some reason Enron is popping between my ears. But there may be a difference in a CEO and a President. :eek:

If the illegal conduct is involved in the day to day operations and the President can show that he did not know or that there was no reason for he/she to have known, then I don't see how they can be brought up on charges and, if they are, how the charges will stick. I think the Enron people were in different postures.

[William Anthony]

You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I don't believe I've every asked you a "why" about yours. FWIW I'm not complaining about the kids "making" any money....because I don't believe they got a dime... the corp. went "bank" and what went into the corp before that OJ swindled it. IMHOO

I thought it was about the lack of respect and honor shown to the beautiful Ms. NBS and the desire of those, who did not show that respect, for money.

[Its just me]

Martin has posted that the beautiful Ms. NBS' children were 18 and 21. They made the decision and are as much to blame or to excuse as Simpson, Ms. Arnelle and Jason. However, for some reason Ms. Arnelle seems to bear the brunt of much of the attacks as with the recent one on her mother. Perhaps, someone will be kind enough to explain why? There is no information that Marguerite had a problem with any substance but Simpson's girlfriend admitted she did.

OK another "why" I see. I think I've explained why I have my opinions pretty good. Sorry I just can't do any better. As far as I know I haven't posted a thing about Marguerite having any kind of substance problem....Only that I agreed Simpson was under no obligation to support her and there is nothing wrong with working at Walmart. WaWaWaWa.....rolling on the floor kicking....Why am I attacked....WaWaWaWa. :D Just Kidding by the way.

[Its just me]

I thought it was about the lack of respect and honor shown to the beautiful Ms. NBS and the desire of those, who did not show that respect, for money.

I believe I've stated something similar in reference to Arnelle and OJ.

[martin II]

Doesn't change much and only a FWIW but I believe it's a 1099 you are posting about and not a 1090 and that would be for contracted labor and not a regular employee. just saying.

Sorry for the typo.
Just saying oj was listed as a consultant to LBA In the HC Contract. Independant contractor responsible for his own taxes. The company had not started employing people that would cause them to have 941 responsibilities and those are due on a monthly basis. Fred went to court and stopped that.

LBA was a new company set up as a result of the HC contract. They were not a company doing business daily before fred went to court. They were waiting to see if they had business based on HC actions.I can tell you that there are many companies that are set up with no current business that wait for business to come in. You should know that too.

So the idea that LBA had a string of unpaid taxes and that is the reason for the judges decisionis is just not true as the preceived tax situation youn speak about was not a consideration in the decision so i am not sure why you attempted to make it a issue.
imo

[Its just me]

What did LBA do that was illegal. Hire oj as a consultant? The decision stated that there was not enough distance between LBA and the consultant oj.
In your legal opinion what would have been the proper distance?

If you don't know the answer to your own question....I'm sorry I can't help you. Fraud and deception is fraud and deception no matter what the distance.

[martin II]

You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I don't believe I've every asked you a "why" about yours. FWIW I'm not complaining about the kids "making" any money....because I don't believe they got a dime... the corp. went "bank" and what went into the corp before that OJ swindled it. IMHOO

OJ seeking to make money was no differenmt that freds.So if oj had no respect for nicole i guess fred had none for his son. Or can you create a reason why they were different.Ojs money was dirty and freds was clean, right?oj deserves to bashed and fred ?

[Its just me]

Sorry for the typo.
Just saying oj was listed as a consultant to LBA In the HC Contract. Independant contractor responsible for his own taxes. The company had not started employing people that would cause them to have 941 responsibilities and those are due on a monthly basis. Fred went to court and stopped that.

LBA was a new company set up as a result of the HC contract. They were not a company doing business daily before fred went to court. They were waiting to see if they had business based on HC actions.I can tell you that there are many companies that are set up with no current business that wait for business to come in. You should know that too.

So the idea that LBA had a string of unpaid taxes and that is the reason for the judges decisionis is just not true as the preceived tax situation youn speak about was not a consideration in the decision so i am not sure why you attempted to make it a issue.
imo

Martin....You are way out yonder somewhere...and I don't know where. You are the one that started the OJ "employee" thing. I responded trying to help you but I'm beginning to think that's impossibe. Tell me where I've said one thing about any unpaid taxes for the corporation. I did post there were checks written to the IRS on OJ's behalf and IMHOO that would be taxes OJ owed personally not the corp. It just don't take a rocket scientist for some things. :rolleyes:

[martin II]

If you don't know the answer to your own question....I'm sorry I can't help you. Fraud and deception is fraud and deception no matter what the distance.

What was the fraud. taking oj on as a consultant. i have asked this before.
OH the judge had the right to dictate to LBA who they could hire as a consultant.That must be it.

[Its just me]

OJ seeking to make money was no differenmt that freds.So if oj had no respect for nicole i guess fred had none for his son. Or can you create a reason why they were different.Ojs money was dirty and freds was clean, right?oj deserves to bashed and fred ?

You can look at it another way.....Fred was not found liable for a death...OJ was.

[Its just me]

What was the fraud. taking oj on as a consultant. i have asked this before.
OH the judge had the right to dictate to LBA who they could hire as a consultant.That must be it.


Like I said Martin....I can't help you.

[martin II]

Martin....You are way out yonder somewhere...and I don't know where. You are the one that started the OJ "employee" thing. I responded trying to help you but I'm beginning to think that's impossibe. Tell me where I've said one thing about any unpaid taxes for the corporation. I did post there were checks written to the IRS on OJ's behalf and IMHOO that would be taxes OJ owed personally not the corp. It just don't take a rocket scientist for some things. :rolleyes:

OJ does not have the right to instruct who should receive money owed to him.
Do you have a court doc to back up your claim about that check? That would be helpful.imo

[martin II]

Like I said Martin....I can't help you.

ijm
i understand if don't have a answer to what the fraud was that LBA commited. I don't either.
But you did say there was fraud commited by LBA.

[Its just me]

OJ does not have the right to instruct who should receive money owed to him.
Do you have a court doc to back up your claim about that check? That would be helpful.imo


Yes and I posted the link. It was in the deposition where Arnelle was being questioned. If you had read it you would have seen it and I'm not about to do my work all over again. I stand by what I posted....there was a check written on the corp to the IRS and more than one to pay the mortage for OJ's house. ETA: These checks are not the fraud and deception but was a part of the evidence to show there was fraud and deception. There is much more evidence. IMHOO

Martin....You are making a big broad thing out of a small narrow thing. There was a corp. formed and the actions that transpired within that corporation was determined by the courts to be fraud and deception....that's just a fact where you accept it or not. My time is too valuable to waste trying to prove something to you by going to the trouble to provide links with information that you refuse to read or understand. I'm forced to put you on ignore on this subject....I can't help you anymore.

[martin II]

You can look at it another way.....Fred was not found liable for a death...OJ was.

Oj was found not guilty of murder of those people.
But that is not the issue.

You claijm OJ commited some moral offense by making money on his book, Yet
he did exactly what fred did.Or should i say fred did exactly what oj did.

[martin II]

Yes and I posted the link. It was in the deposition where Arnelle was being questioned. If you had read it you would have seen it and I'm not about to do my work all over again. I stand by what I posted....there was a check written on the corp to the IRS and more than one to pay the mortage for OJ's house.

Martin....You are making a big broad thing out of a small narrow thing. There was a corp. formed and the actions that transpired within that corporation was determined by the courts to be fraud and deception....that's just a fact where you accept it or not. My time is too valuable to waste trying to prove something to you by going to the trouble to provide links with information that you refuse to read or understand. I'm forced to put you on ignore on this subject....I can't help you anymore.

The problem with this case is the judge had the power to do what he did.
The only was he could assist fred was to do what he did. kill a legitamate FLORIDA corp.

But as KARMA may have it in the end all the judges assistance to fred did not prevent him from screwing up what the judge gave him. OJ received over $1,000,000 for his efforts and fred something close to $12,000.

How about that for equality of distribution of the money.:cool:

[Its just me]

Oj was found not guilty of murder of those people.
But that is not the issue.

You claijm OJ commited some moral offense by making money on his book, Yet
he did exactly what fred did.Or should i say fred did exactly what oj did.


:shrug: Whatever Martin....Just Whatever but I haven't changed my opinions. sorry. I've posted my opinion more than one time today and I'm just tired of posting mine and reading yours. FWIW what either of us thinks isn't worth a hill of beans as far as the out come of things. Mr. Goldman will answer for the things in his life and OJ will do the same with his life.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I was only speaking from my personal dealings and from the testimony. The follow up question should have been, "In what manner, if not as second mother, did you love the beautiful Ms. NBS?". However, that question was not asked and the Q & A then turned to music. It is from that personal experience that allowed me to draw the reasonable inference that Jason may have loved her in a manner more like an infatuation. It is alright for us to disagree. I have not read Dear's book but I am aware of his conclusion. I have not formed an opinion of the book or the conclusion. IIRC, this whole thing started when a poster remarked about bashing Jason and I pointed out that Dear had investigated and came up with evidence to support his conclusion but their has been no evidence to support that Ms. Arnelle was engaged in any criminal conduct in regard to the murders. Discussions on this board seem to take on a life of their own, which is alright as I enjoy discussing things with civil and respectful posters.

William,

IMO, Petrocelli could have had a field day with Jason and he let Jason skate on a few issues. IMO, I think Petrocelli always had it in his mind that he was going to link one of Simpson's older children to the murders, one way or the other. I think he realized that Jason would be too easy and there was evidence to support his possible involvement. Why he went after to Arnelle is obvious. But still, you think some members of G Nation would see this.

I have read his book and it is a great book. The only part that I don't agree with is that if Jason was the murderer, that Simpson would have covered for him.

However, I am becoming more inclined to believe that the person who left the footprints, again did so on purpose and hung around a lot longer then the less then 2 minutes the plaintiffs floated. IMO.

[GreenIce]

IJM, this is the thing -- it's okay with OJers to trash Nicole and Ron (accusing them of being drug users and dealers and Nicole of being a party girl and husband abuser), it's okay to blame Jason for killing Ron and Nicole and it's okay to hold Sydney and Justin fully responsible in the decision to write the book. In the NG world what is NOT okay is to criticize OJ Simpson or Arnelle Simpson in any way, shape or form -- in their world view the criminal trial verdict was just, the civil trial was a socio-political production, the judge 'stole' the book away from LBA for Fred Goldman and Judge Judy Glass violated Simpson's rights in the Vegas trial. The pattern here is that Simpson and his daughter Arnelle are incapable of making a bad decision, lying or committing criminal acts. Truly amazing.

TV Dinner,

This is the thing with you and G Nation

1-Never did an NG accuse Nicole of doing drugs. Her friends did that and it was in the their testimony, at least one of them.

2-No G ever accused Ron of using drugs.

3-Comments were made regarding the temptations of drug dealing. We all know the sales pitch---a lot of money, quickly and little risk of getting caught.

4-Comments were made that Ron and Nicole may have been victims of "Guilty by Association". Drugs were all around Ron and Nicole. They did not need to be users or abusers, they did not need to dealing drugs, however, because of who they were and what they did for a living and who their friends were, it would not be that great leap to assume they were involved with the drug scene.

5-The person who testified about being a drug addict has lied constantly, she was broke and homeless and was terrifed and wanted to leave the country. She forced into rehab and would only go into a facility that was a "lock down" facility--she wanted security---which she did not have at her rehabs at Betty Ford Clinic--I think she was there twice.

6-Since this person has lied to everybody, seems to me that she would like to drug dealer and say that Nicole would front her.

7-Sydney and Justin were asked about a book. They knew what they were doing, their ages had nothing to do with it. They did nothing at all wrong. Your opinon of them or anyone's does not matter. You have no proof that they did not love their mother or that they disrespected her. It is obvious they loved their mother. It is also obvious they were very aware that many, many people made a fortune off of these murders, however, death does bring in the cash. And it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. People have been making money off of death since the begining of time.
The Goldmans made money off of the death of their son, the Browns made money off of the death of Nicole and so on.

8-Jason Simpson did commit criminal acts, did have a history of mental illness, did have a history of drug abuse and did attack another human being with a knife.

9-Arnelle Simpson had none of this in her past but she is labeled as an accomplice to murder by G Nation because of 4 detectives lied about which door they entered and non-existent sweat suit. Only is the twisted world of G Nation does this make sense, IMO.

10-It is a fact, within an hour after the criminal trial verdict was read, the media already were reporting what the outcome of the civil trial verdict was going to be. They even predicted the racial make up the jury and the only real debate was how much money the families were going to win.

11-Even the most anti-Simpson talking heads, such as Geraldo had problems with the judge's ruling in the civil case, however, it was well known that this would be the last Simpson trial because of the state of CA just wanted this case to go a way.

12-The plaintiffs themselves made it clear in their motion that the rules of evidence were different in a civil trial and used them to his advantage. If he was so sure of his case, he would used the same rules of evidence in a murder case, however, his case would have blown up in his face. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I said a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit. Darden said wet laundry. I never claimed that Lange, Vannatter, or Phillips saw the freshly washed dark colored sweat suit. At the time the freshly washed laundry was found in Simpson’s washing machine none of the detectives in this case knew Simpson had been wearing a dark colored sweat suit the previous night about an hour before the murders were committed. I don’t believe that the detectives or the prosecutors realized why Arnelle lied about what door she opened or what it meant that the back door was unlocked or what it meant that the house alarm was not on so they never followed the logical inference that Simpson had called Arnelle to help him, by washing his sweat suit.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You are wrong, when the first search was conducted, they did know what Simpson was wearing that night. Simpson told them what he was wearing and so did Kato Kalin.

How do you know the door was unlocked? Are you saying that the alarm can't be set if the door is left unlocked? And didn't the different keypads have different features such as beeps and how much time you had to disarm them?

Also, the alarm was set. The four detectives would have known if the alarm was not set before they even knocked on Arnelle's door. In fact, they could have used the turned off alarm to back up their story but again, they declined not too.

BTW, Vanatter's show for Westec is just that, a show. He claims he may have hurt and injured people in the main house and only asks for Simpson's phone number? Did he really think the 15 minutes at the gate plus the how many minutes calling inside the home was going to raise the dead? Help the injured to crawl to the phone?

If was telling the truth he would have asked Westec if they had a key to the house. They would have busted the door in. They never would have used Arnelle and Kato as human shields.

One last thing, the 4 detectives lying about what door they entered was not going to be challenged by the DA's or the defense, it was not material to the case---at least that seems how Judge Ito was calling it. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Mark Fuhrman’s continuing false and misleading statements

Copyright © 1999 by Dan E. Moldea


I am the co-author of Evidence Dismissed: The Inside Story of the Police Investigation of O.J. Simpson, with LAPD Detectives Tom Lange and Philip Vannatter. (See: Chapter One.)

Last night, on Larry King Live, Mark Fuhrman made a series of false and misleading charges against my co-authors, which originally appeared in Fuhrman's book, Murder in Brentwood.

In response, I reprint my March 25, 1997, letter to Charles McGrath of the New York Times Book Review, regarding its review of Fuhrman’s book in which these charges were addressed. Not surprisingly, the Times refused to publish my defense of my partners.

Charles McGrath, Editor
New York Times Book Review
229 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036

Dear Sir:

Along with nearly everyone else in the media who is still writing about the O.J. Simpson case, Craig Wolff, in his March 23 review of Murder in Brentwood, makes much of former LAPD junior detective Mark Fuhrman's alleged discovery of a bloody fingerprint at the scene of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. As Wolff points out, Fuhrman referred to this supposed evidence in his crime-scene notes.

However, the issue should not be whether Fuhrman believes he saw a bloody fingerprint. The real question is whether this bloody fingerprint ever existed at all.

In his review, Wolff never mentions that Fuhrman, who is currently in the midst of three-years' probation for perjury, made several major mistakes in his crime-scene notes. In fact, the false claim of a bloody fingerprint was just one of the errors Fuhrman made.

For instance, Fuhrman wrongly speculated in his official notes that the two stabbed and slashed victims might have really died from gunshot wounds, and that their killer had possibly been bitten by a dog. Fuhrman also erroneously reported that a menu from a nearby Thai restaurant found under Brown's leg had come from a local pizzeria, and that a simple knit cap next to Goldman's body was a ski mask.

Along with the claim of a bloody fingerprint, all five of Fuhrman's independent observations were wrong. And, incredibly, they were the only new contributions Fuhrman had made to what was already known about this crime scene. Everything else in Fuhrman's notes had earlier been reported by other police officers who had logged in during the two-hour period before Fuhrman arrived.

As a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Wolff should have at least voiced some skepticism about Fuhrman's identification of a bloody fingerprint, considering the other mistakes in the detective's official crime-scene notes. Instead, Wolff embraces Fuhrman's far-fetched story, concealing Fuhrman's errors while touting "Mr. Fuhrman's allegiance to an unemotional step-by-step chronology . . . [that] returns the case to ground zero."

Assuming for a moment that Fuhrman did discover an actual bloody fingerprint, he would have been required, even as a junior investigator on the case, to protect such crucial evidence. But, by his own admission, he did nothing to secure it. He just walked away without even assigning a police officer to guard the area where he had supposedly made this discovery.

More importantly, Fuhrman had a responsibility to flag this alleged evidence, verbally, to a superior. Neither Fuhrman nor his partner, Brad Roberts--who has suddenly corroborated his old friend's discovery in the midst of Fuhrman's book-promotion tour--said anything to their supervisor, Detective Ronald Phillips, about finding a bloody fingerprint. And they certainly did not discuss this matter with the lead detectives, Tom Lange and Philip Vannatter, who arrived at the crime scene two hours after Fuhrman. If this evidence ever did exist, both Fuhrman and Roberts were negligent, at best, for not immediately telling the senior detectives what they had found.

On the morning after the murders, Phillips guided both Lange and Vannatter through their separate and routine "walkthroughs" of the crime scene--during which all of the known evidence was pointed out and described. But Phillips said nothing about an alleged bloody fingerprint--because he was unaware of it. Instead, Fuhrman--who spent the next two hours with Lange, Vannatter, and Phillips but never said a word about a bloody fingerprint--chose to hide his alleged discovery in his error-filled crime-scene notes, which senior detectives justifiably refused to take seriously.

[GreenIce]

Regardless, to reviewer Wolff, the culprit is not Fuhrman. Instead, he blames Lange and Vannatter, two honest detectives with a combined 56 years of spotless service to the LAPD. "Thus," Wolff writes, "the bloody fingerprint . . . was never pursued, and was ultimately lost."

Yet, according to the official report of the LAPD's Latent Print Section, none of the four fingerprint technicians at the Brown-Goldman crime scene, who made seventeen lifts, found a bloody fingerprint on or near the knob area of the rear gate--where Fuhrman claimed to have discovered it.

As everyone who followed the Simpson case knows, the killer wore gloves, one of which came off his left hand, which was injured in the midst of a struggle with Goldman. Would the killer, who is known to be right-handed, have handled the knob on the rear gate with his injured and ungloved left hand or with his gloved right hand?

Readers of the New York Times Book Review wouldn't know any of these discrepancies, because Wolff fails to mention them in his review. Wolff does express some healthy skepticism about Fuhrman's repeated denials of his racist past; but then, inexplicably, he accepts Fuhrman's account about crime-scene matters without question.

In short, the evidence remains overwhelming that Fuhrman and Roberts were simply mistaken in their identification of a bloody fingerprint--which came in the dead of night, at about 2:30 a.m., approximately four hours after the murders. It simply defies belief that these two junior detectives spotted evidence that no one else saw--particularly in view of the other mistakes in Fuhrman's crime-scene notes and the junior detectives' failure to notify their supervisor, as well as Lange and Vannatter, of this evidence.

Also, on page 17 of his book, Fuhrman describes this alleged bloody fingerprint as "identifiable, comparable, and high in quality," and, on page 218, Fuhrman continues, "The print was no doubt Simpson's, and it would have irrefutably connected him to the scene with his own blood, and possibly that of the two victims." Yet, during his sworn trial testimony in 1995, Fuhrman was nowhere near as sure, simply saying: "I saw a partial, possible fingerprint that was on that knob area."

How did a "partial, possible fingerprint" suddenly become "identifiable, comparable, and high in quality" that "irrefutably" connected Simpson to the crime scene? Didn't Wolff find this clear discrepancy rather odd? Wasn't it, at the very least, worth noting in his review?

In his book, Fuhrman makes other claims--which are not contained in his notes. He insists that he found blood streaks on the lower outside door panel of Simpson's Bronco, black sweat clothes in Simpson's washing machine, smudges of blood on a light switch near the washing machine, and an empty Swiss Army knife box on Simpson's bathtub.

But, once again, Fuhrman told no one in authority about these discoveries--assuming that they were any more real than his phantom bloody fingerprint or his wild speculation that Brown and Goldman might have been shot to death.

Wolff also fails to note that Fuhrman was only in charge of the Simpson case for about a half hour. Then, to his chagrin, Fuhrman was replaced by Lange and Vannatter of the LAPD's elite Robbery/Homicide Division, who, together and individually, had investigated over 500 homicides. After being taken off the case, Fuhrman did little more than stand and pout in the street outside the perimeter of the crime scene, waiting for the detectives from Robbery/Homicide to arrive.

Fuhrman remained under Lange and Vannatter's direct supervision for a two-hour period, between 5:00 and 7:00 a.m. During that time, Fuhrman performed well, finding a speck of blood above the outside door handle of Simpson's Bronco, as well as the famous bloody right-hand glove on a walkway on Simpson's estate. But, unlike his discovery of the alleged bloody fingerprint, Fuhrman, with considerable excitement, gave separate tours to Lange, Vannatter, and Phillips to show them the glove and to explain how he found it. Why didn't he do the same when he supposedly found the bloody fingerprint?

After 7:00 on the morning after the murders, Fuhrman's role was reduced to general detail work, far from the investigative and decision-making processes. In his book, Fuhrman is absolutely delusional about his importance to the Brown-Goldman murder investigation after that. Nevertheless, Wolff accepts without challenge and even praises Fuhrman's statements--many of which are wholly inaccurate--about details of the Simpson case in which he was not involved.

Demonstrating how truly uninformed he is about the overall Simpson investigation, Wolff concludes "that something was lost when Mr. Fuhrman fell out of the case. . . [which] he had worked so hard to build."

Significantly, Fuhrman had earlier applied for a transfer to the Robbery/Homicide Division, but his request was rejected by the LAPD's high command just before the Brown-Goldman murders. Even though Fuhrman--who was destined to remain a junior detective for the remainder of his twenty-year career--was angry and bitter after his promotion was denied, Wolff didn't bother to mention that either.

However, this rejection best explains the motive behind the unfounded attacks on detectives from the LAPD's Robbery/Homicide Division by Mark Fuhrman, an admitted perjurer who chose to take the Fifth Amendment rather than defend his brief role in this investigation.

The success of Fuhrman's book--as well as his own remarkable rehabilitation with the help of an uncritical media--is a classic victory of style over substance. But his newfound public acceptance--now with the help of the New York Times Book Review--has done nothing more than add to the confusion, disinformation, and circus atmosphere revolving around this bizarre murder case.

Sincerely,

Dan E. Moldea

[GreenIce]

Kate,

The above posts are about VA and Lange's response to MF's claims.

I share your opinon that MF is very arrogant. I also believe that not only is MF arrogant but he also loves the game of "chicken" and he doesn't care who he plays with, it doesn't matter if it is the LAPD or DA's or defense lawyers.

Because of these traits, I believe that MF knows the law better then some lawyers. He not only knows the law but he also knows how to work around it and how to bully his way around the system. MF is a product of the LAPD and he knows just how far they will go to avoid cleaning their own house.

I don't think MF ever makes any mistakes or makes any slips of the tongue. However, that being said, does not mean that he is lying nor does it mean he is telling the truth. He is throwing it down and he is daring anyone to challenge him. It is also clear that while on the stand, he can be petty and mean and has no regard for the people he trashes, even if they are supposed to be on his side.

I think it was William who made the comments that the things that MF got wrong on his notes was either his way of hiding how close he got to the bodies or it was the other detectives who were trying to hide this.

As I posted before, I think on two key issues he may have tweaked the descriptions to justify going to Simpson's home before RHD showed up. The biggest mistake made Lange and Vanatter was to deny that Simpson was the prime suspect.

I am convinced that MF did go to Rockingham before the alleged time because he not only had permission to do so but he was also on solid legal ground. I also believe that the permission he received (well actually Phillips) was three fold and again, was on solid ground.

I support my opinons not only on his comment about his being the most important witness in the trial of the century and what would happen if he went down, but also various comments in his book.

Also, some of MF's testimony took the detectives and the DA's by surprise, such as see the "wisps" blood on the door runner of the Bronco, the picture of the Bronco and his questioning how it was parked and his conduct regarding the pictures that were taken.

Fgump2 has always found very it odd that Simpson did not appear to show as much anger at MF and the LAPD as he did the Goldmans. I find it odd that even after all these years, MF is still very, very angry about VA and Lange not reading his notes. Notes, that according to other witnesses has glaring errors.

We these errors? Were these lies? And what did MF have to gain from them? Any ideas?

[GreenIce]

Unless I'm confussed on Sydney and Justin's ages I beleive they were too young to have much input or have a good understanding about anything. Jason touched on the book issue in his depostion but I don't remember enough to have an opinion of how much he was actually involved. I believe he said he did agree to the book at some point.

IJM,

I disagree in regards Sydney and Justin about having much of an input in the book or have any understanding about anything. Sydney and Justin lost their innocence long ago and it was not Simpson who took that away from them, it was family, friends and the media who did this.

I have never read the book and from what I understand, there was only one chapter about the murders and it appears that Simpson gave the writer free reign on this.

However, at least to my knowledge, has anyone challenged the truth of the book. I know one chapter about the murders contained many errors, at least that was what reported. Yet, no one challenges the truth of the other chapters. So, was the whole book a lie?

It has always been assumed that Sydney and Justin no knowing about the murders. IMO, that is not true. However, what is true is that Sydney and Justin knew their parents, knew how they felt about one another, etc. In other words they know truth about their parents.

Can anyone blame Sydney and Justin for agreeing to the book when they know the media has painted their parents' marriage so wrong? I think the biggest insult to Nicole and her children is to call her a "trophy" wife and there father's love for their mother was only based on the color of their mother's skin.

Sydney and Justin know that not all marriages are prefect and that their parents had their moments---however, there are also moments between their parents that they treasure.

I think much of the negative comments about Sydney and Justin is because people believe they know or believe that their father killed their mother. However, it appears to me that is not the case and that their involvement in the book is one way of saying they know their father is innocent. So what ever was written about the murders, doesn't matter because they know their father did not kill their mother, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

Have either of you read the testimony of the Westec person who testified in the criminal trial?

If I am reading it right, there was only one door entry where a beeping sound would be heard and the person would have 40 seconds to disarm the alarm. And that door was by the pool area.


It also appears that there was only one key pad on the outside of the house and that was at the front door. So, if this correct, there would have been nothing for the detectives to hear regarding a beeping noise.

Here is another question I just thought of. Was anybody asked who took the clothes out of the washer and then through them into the dryer?

[GreenIce]

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

Mr. August,

Your facts are wrong. The DA's believed Arnelle did enter through the front door and they needed this testimony to explain the blood trail leading from the Bronco to the front door.

The fact is, the DA's questioned the detectives about the doors that were locked and could not be entered which is explains why Simpson had to use his front door and that is why Allan Park saw him. They wanted the jury to believe that there was only one door Simpson could have entered.

The fact is, Marcia Clark, like many other DA's are part "cop". They need to make sense of their theories. I think it is a very logical for MC and the other DA's to ask themselves, if the glove was found over here, and there other doors in the back of house, would he not enter through a back door?

By the time Petrocelli got involved, he knew the answer to every question so by accusing Arnelle of this, he knew while there was no way he could prove it, he also knew there was no way to disprove it.

However, he is shot in the foot because there is no supporting evidence that the dark items in the washing machine were sweats or what color they were, or what they were made of or who they belonged to.

[GreenIce]

In Kato depo he said MF was in his room and the others were right outside the room and they had knocked on Arnelle's door which is just a few feet from Kato's room. Kato said it took several knockings on the door to get Arnelle up.. IMHOO Kato gave a good detailed explanation on what was happening. According to Kato they all went in the back door to the left with Arnelle and the other detectives going first and I believe he was next with MF behind him....IIRC Kato and MF were in Kato's room when Arnelle walked by going to the door.
Kato was sitting on the bar stool when Arnelle found out that Nicole had been murdered. That had to be before she got dressed to go get the children…there simply was no reason to get the children before she heard they were still at the house with their Mom lying outside almost decapitated. ETA: Arnelle did not know at that time how Nicole had died.

The thing is if Arnelle will help Simpson set up a fraudulent business to intentionally commit fraud and deceive for money I have NO Doubt she would lie for his Life. Just that simple IMHOO

I've posted the links to Arnelle being questioned about the business LORRAINE BROOKE ASSOCIATES, INC., and to the quote of what the courts had to say about the business.

IJM,

Funny, I noticed what Kato said about how long it took for Arnelle to answer the door because he said they were knocking so loud. However, that is not was the detectives testified to.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

I think a few important questions about the laundry have not been asked.

Was the maid responsible for washing Arnelle and Kato's clothes, or just Simpson's, Sydney and Justin and her own?

When clothes needed to be washed for Sydney and Justin when they visted, where would these items be put?

What were Arnelle's laundry habits? Did she bring them all over to the main house, separate them, like into darks, whites, lights, etc? And what about Kato's?

Also, who took the clothes out of the dryer after the police left? Who through them in the dryer and who folded them?

I don't remember, was Arnelle ever shown the picture and asked what those dark items were? What about the maid?

[GreenIce]

Martin,

I just read the maid's testimony. Darden asked her took look at a snippet of video tape regarding the contents of the washer. Darden never asks her to identify the "dark item". He only asks her if she would ever leave any clothes in the washer. She said no. Then she asked about panties and says they are Arnelle's.

Darden then asks her if she ever saw Simpson wearing black sweat pants, she says that she didn't think so. She was asked if she ever saw any in his closet and she said she didn't think ever saw them. However, she does say or at least gives the impression that part of her duties was to lay out what Simpson wanted to wear. She says normally his golf clothes and denims.

She is also responsible for making sure that Simpson's closest is kept organize and she said she was. IMO, she never saw any sweats because there was none to be seen.

Arnelle is never asked about the washing machine--at least I couldn't find it.

Please note, the DA's never ask Arnelle if she ever saw her father wearing sweats. In fact, I don't think anyone was asked, besides the maid, if they ever saw Simpson wear sweats.

Also, there appears to be a hamper in the laundry room that is Arnelle's.

IMO, by not asking Arnelle or the maid what the dark items speaks volumes.

[William Anthony]

OK another "why" I see. I think I've explained why I have my opinions pretty good. Sorry I just can't do any better. As far as I know I haven't posted a thing about Marguerite having any kind of substance problem....Only that I agreed Simpson was under no obligation to support her and there is nothing wrong with working at Walmart. WaWaWaWa.....rolling on the floor kicking....Why am I attacked....WaWaWaWa. :D Just Kidding by the way.

Stay on the floor as I wouldn't want you to get injured falling over :)but I confused your comments about Marguerite with that of another poster.

[William Anthony]

I believe I've stated something similar in reference to Arnelle and OJ.

But not Jason, Justin, Sydney and Mr. Goldman.

[Its just me]

IJM,

I disagree in regards Sydney and Justin about having much of an input in the book or have any understanding about anything. Sydney and Justin lost their innocence long ago and it was not Simpson who took that away from them, it was family, friends and the media who did this.

I have never read the book and from what I understand, there was only one chapter about the murders and it appears that Simpson gave the writer free reign on this.

However, at least to my knowledge, has anyone challenged the truth of the book. I know one chapter about the murders contained many errors, at least that was what reported. Yet, no one challenges the truth of the other chapters. So, was the whole book a lie?

It has always been assumed that Sydney and Justin no knowing about the murders. IMO, that is not true. However, what is true is that Sydney and Justin knew their parents, knew how they felt about one another, etc. In other words they know truth about their parents.

Can anyone blame Sydney and Justin for agreeing to the book when they know the media has painted their parents' marriage so wrong? I think the biggest insult to Nicole and her children is to call her a "trophy" wife and there father's love for their mother was only based on the color of their mother's skin.
Sydney and Justin know that not all marriages are prefect and that their parents had their moments---however, there are also moments between their parents that they treasure.

I think much of the negative comments about Sydney and Justin is because people believe they know or believe that their father killed their mother. However, it appears to me that is not the case and that their involvement in the book is one way of saying they know their father is innocent. So what ever was written about the murders, doesn't matter because they know their father did not kill their mother, IMO.

Let me tell you something....You really don't want to start pointing out what you "think" about me. I can give it back and so far I don't believe I have done much if any of that. Just be warned it might not all be pretty.

I did say I think Nicole was a trophy and I certainly do but YOU Green Ice is going to wear the shoes that it includes the color of Nicole's skin...You Green Ice NOT IJM because IJM didn't say one thing about the color of skin.

As far as the rest of your post.....You just don't know and like you said at the end "IMO" and neither do I know....but I'd say Sydney calling 911 to OJ shows everything was not hunkey dorey.

Carry on but don't attribute what you think to something I've said when I didn't. It appears you have the problem with the color of Nicole's skin because it's you that brought it up and not I. Have a good day.

[martin II]

IJM,

Funny, I noticed what Kato said about how long it took for Arnelle to answer the door because he said they were knocking so loud. However, that is not was the detectives testified to.

GI

IJM POST IS WRONG.

Testimony proves that Kato was in his room with mf when Arnell first entered the house, when she oassed his room to get dressed and kato and mf were outside katos room when Arnell walked back to the kitchen dressed to go get the kids.

It was not possible for Kato to have entered the house with Arnell and the others because he was still in his room with mf.imo

[Its just me]

But not Jason, Justin, Sydney and Mr. Goldman.

That's correct. I think I've explained why with Justin and Sydney (their age) and have said I don't have an opinion about Jason and that is because I just have "nothing" about Jason in order to form an opinion except his statement about not being able to talk loud to the lawyers about the deaths and that makes me wonder if he would want the world to read about those personal things in a book by his dad. If you have information that shows something Jason has said that will help me form an opinion about Jason...put it on the board.

I could sit down and sort out and post exactly my opinions of Mr. Goldman if it's that important to you but I really don't think you would agree with or like what I would say so why waste my time. Hope you have a good day too.

[Its just me]

GI

IJM POST IS WRONG.

Testimony proves that Kato was in his room with mf when Arnell first entered the house, when she oassed his room to get dressed and kato and mf were outside katos room when Arnell walked back to the kitchen dressed to go get the kids.

It was not possible for Kato to have entered the house with Arnell and the others because he was still in his room with mf.imo

Well Martin, I'm just gonna take what Kato said in his deposition until you can prove your "opinion" is correct or until I read something that will change my mind until that happens IJM thinks.....MARTIN IS DEAD WRONG.

[martin II]

Let me tell you something....You really don't want to start pointing out what you "think" about me. I can give it back and so far I don't believe I have done much if any of that. Just be warned it might not all be pretty.

I did say I think Nicole was a trophy and I certainly do but YOU Green Ice is going to wear the shoes that it includes the color of Nicole's skin...You Green Ice NOT IJM because IJM didn't say one thing about the color of skin.

As far as the rest of your post.....You just don't know and like you said at the end "IMO" and neither do I know....but I'd say Sydney calling 911 to OJ shows everything was not hunkey dorey.

Carry on but don't attribute what you think to something I've said when I didn't. It appears you have the problem with the color of Nicole's skin because it's you that brought it up and not I. Have a good day.

Calling nicole a trophy indicates she was some woman that was only good for
having her picture talken for ojs benefit and nothing else. She did raise two kids into great smart young people which oj had great respect for her for.I did not see her as some dummy only good for pictures. TRPOHY is kinda disrespectful i think.imo

[martin II]

Well Martin, I'm just gonna take what Kato said in his deposition until you can prove your "opinion" is correct or until I read something that will change my mind until that happens IJM thinks.....MARTIN IS DEAD WRONG.

What i have posted is from testimony NOT MY OPINION. :read:

[Its just me]

What i have posted is from testimony NOT MY OPINION. :read:

I stand by my opinion that your opinion is "DEAD WRONG".

[tv]

Calling nicole a trophy indicates she was some woman that was only good for
having her picture talken for ojs benefit and nothing else. She did raise two kids into great smart young people which oj had great respect for her for.I did not see her as some dummy only good for pictures. TRPOHY is kinda disrespectful i think.imo

Oh really? When did your opinion about Nicole change? I seem to recall that you said "she didn't bring anything to the marriage".

OJ Simpson respectful of Nicole because of the children? Is that why he called her a fat pig when she was pregnant? Good grief.

[martin II]

that's correct. I think i've explained why with justin and sydney (their age) and have said i don't have an opinion about jason and that is because i just have "nothing" about jason in order to form an opinion except his statement about not being able to talk loud to the lawyers about the deaths and that makes me wonder if he would want the world to read about those personal things in a book by his dad. If you have information that shows something jason has said that will help me form an opinion about jason...put it on the board.

I could sit down and sort out and post exactly my opinions of mr. Goldman if it's that important to you but i really don't think you would agree with or like what i would say so why waste my time. Hope you have a good day too.

justin 18 sydney 21

[martin II]

Oh really? When did your opinion about Nicole change? I seem to recall that you said "she didn't bring anything to the marriage".

OJ Simpson respectful of Nicole because of the children? Is that why he called her a fat pig when she was pregnant? Good grief.

So do you agree that nicole was a trophy?

[Its just me]

Calling nicole a trophy indicates she was some woman that was only good for
having her picture talken for ojs benefit and nothing else. She did raise two kids into great smart young people which oj had great respect for her for.I did not see her as some dummy only good for pictures. TRPOHY is kinda disrespectful i think.imo

In my opinion there is enough evidence and I've pointed some out that Nicole was was a trophy for "OJ". That is nothing negative about Nicole but the opposite....I'm sorry she never got to enjoy a faithful husband who she wasn't afraid of. I base my opinion from Nicole's own hand written words.

[tv]

In my opinion there is enough evidence and I've pointed some out that Nicole was was a trophy for "OJ". That is nothing negative about Nicole but the opposite....I'm sorry she never got to enjoy a faithful husband who she wasn't afraid of. I base my opinion from Nicole's own hand written words.

martin is just trying to turn the tables on you and make it look like you're making negative comments about Nicole. He has demeaned Nicole so many times on this board that I'm surprised at his nerve in commenting to you about Nicole being a trophy wife. The blame for her being a trophy wife is on Simpson -- image was everything to him.

[Its just me]

justin 18 sydney 21


If you raised any kids you must not have paid much attention when they were this age and I guess you think you were in your prime in knowledge at that age. Sorry...I "know" better with young people.

[tv]

So do you agree that nicole was a trophy?

I think Nicole was not only a trophy -- I think she was a gem, a prize and way too good for OJ Simpson. Why don't you address the things you've said about Nicole in the past instead of questioning me?

[martin II]

Oh really? When did your opinion about Nicole change? I seem to recall that you said "she didn't bring anything to the marriage".

OJ Simpson respectful of Nicole because of the children? Is that why he called her a fat pig when she was pregnant? Good grief.

You just said you don't pay attention to my post, that you have me on ignore. i am not interested in getting involved in arguments with you.
thanks.

[tv]

Calling nicole a trophy indicates she was some woman that was only good for
having her picture talken for ojs benefit and nothing else. She did raise two kids into great smart young people which oj had great respect for her for.I did not see her as some dummy only good for pictures. TRPOHY is kinda disrespectful i think.imo

Here's what you really think of Nicole -- posted 9/25/07 at 10:20 pm --

"Nicole brought little education, special skill, work capability or money to this relationship. She did not like the society lifestyle of oj and showed no indicaiton that she was compatable living in the celebrity life that oj had created for himself.

They were togeather multiple years before the first child and she never 'HIT ONE LICK' at employment, school or training to prepare herself as a person.

Bad decision by oj.
martin II "

[Its just me]

martin is just trying to turn the tables on you and make it look like you're making negative comments about Nicole. He has demeaned Nicole so many times on this board that I'm surprised at his nerve in commenting to you about Nicole being a trophy wife. The blame for her being a trophy wife is on Simpson -- image was everything to him.

Oh Dear. For some reason Martin tries his best to twist and turn my posts. I don't know if he can't accept the truth or is just blind to it.

It's common knowledge how OJ treated Nicole and I fully believe Nicole finally became an adult...about the right age too and she had all of OJ she was going to take from OJ. Nicole was like every other person she was not perfect and I beleive they both were guilty of pushing revenge buttons. OJ caiming he was reporting Nicole to the IRS just a short time before the murders is a prime example....and Nicole giving OJ the cold shoulder at the recital is another. I don't know what happened but there was something about him not seeing Sydney like he wanted after the recital. Kato tells about him talking about it when he came home from the recital and said Nicole couldn't do that because they were his kids too....not a quote by far.
IMHOO Simpson was mad and I believe he left and went to Nicole's...was it to have it out with her....to not let her get the best of him and he went to see Sydney or did he go to kill her....I don't know but I fully believe he killed her and I believe the blood, hair and other evidence backs me up and look how many lives have been affected by (IMHOO) OJ letting his temper get the best of him.

[tv]

You just said you don't pay attention to my post, that you have me on ignore. i am not interested in getting involved in arguments with you.
thanks.

You're just not interested in being reminded of what you really think of Nicole -- some of us aren't fooled by your indignation at her being called a trophy wife. I had you on ignore but I foolishly took you off. Bad decision on my part. Bye again. :seeya:

[martin II]

If you raised any kids you must not have paid much attention when they were this age and I guess you think you were in your prime in knowledge at that age. Sorry...I "know" better with young people.

my kids are not the issue here so please leave my raising of them out of your post. thanks.

[martin II]

Here's what you really think of Nicole -- posted 9/25/07 at 10:20 pm --

"Nicole brought little education, special skill, work capability or money to this relationship. She did not like the society lifestyle of oj and showed no indicaiton that she was compatable living in the celebrity life that oj had created for himself.

They were togeather multiple years before the first child and she never 'HIT ONE LICK' at employment, school or training to prepare herself as a person.

Bad decision by oj.
martin II "


I did not call her a trophy.

[tv]

Oh Dear. For some reason Martin tries his best to twist and turn my posts. I don't know if he can't accept the truth or is just blind to it.

It's common knowledge how OJ treated Nicole and I fully believe Nicole finally became an adult...about the right age too and she had all of OJ she was going to take from OJ. Nicole was like every other person she was not perfect and I beleive they both were guilty of pushing revenge buttons. OJ caiming he was reporting Nicole to the IRS just a short time before the murders is a prime example....and Nicole giving OJ the cold shoulder at the recital is another. I don't know what happened but there was something about him not seeing Sydney like he wanted after the recital. Kato tells about him talking about it when he came home from the recital and said Nicole couldn't do that because they were his kids too....not a quote by far.
IMHOO Simpson was mad and I believe he left and went to Nicole's...was it to have it out with her....to not let her get the best of him and he went to see Sydney or did he go to kill her....I don't know but I fully believe he killed her and I believe the blood, hair and other evidence backs me up and look how many lives have been affected by (IMHOO) OJ letting his temper get the best of him.

I agree, IJM. Also, whether it can be proved or not I firmly believe that he talked to her on the phone that night. He threatened her or they argued -- I'm not sure what -- but it led directly to her being murdered. One of their close friends said that Simpson missed most of the children's activities and it was out of character for him to fly home just for the recital when he knew he'd be flying right out again. He had just missed something important in Justin's life a few days before. (maybe first communion, not sure) I've often wondered if the thought of killing her wasn't becoming an obsession with him and he acted on it. We'll never know.

[tv]

I did not call her a trophy.

That's about the only thing you didn't call her.

[Its just me]

I did not call her a trophy.

No you didn't call her a trophy...... by far. What skills did OJ have besides playing foot ball. As far as education....I doubt OJ ever impressed many with his IQ. No offense but it's the truth and another truth is Nicole was an asset for OJ to have by his side and he treated her badly. Nicole finally grew up and thou she may not have had an education she obtained enough wisdom to know she needed to get OJ out of her life.....So much so she did just that knowing he was most likely going "to kill her". Her Words not mine. She was pretty smart....she said he would kill her and get away with it because he was OJ.

[Its just me]

my kids are not the issue here so please leave my raising of them out of your post. thanks.

Where did I say "your" kids. I don't know if you have one, 2 or a dozen or None. My observation of your opinion with young people still stands. You don't know or understand. IMHOO of course.

[martin II]

No you didn't call her a trophy...... by far. What skills did OJ have besides playing foot ball. As far as education....I doubt OJ ever impressed many with his IQ. No offense but it's the truth and another truth is Nicole was an asset for OJ to have by his side and he treated her badly. Nicole finally grew up and thou she may not have had an education she obtained enough wisdom to know she needed to get OJ out of her life.....So much so she did just that knowing he was most likely going "to kill her". Her Words not mine. She was pretty smart....she said he would kill her and get away with it because he was OJ.

There is a thread set up specifically to discuss nicole.

[Its just me]

I agree, IJM. Also, whether it can be proved or not I firmly believe that he talked to her on the phone that night. He threatened her or they argued -- I'm not sure what -- but it led directly to her being murdered. One of their close friends said that Simpson missed most of the children's activities and it was out of character for him to fly home just for the recital when he knew he'd be flying right out again. He had just missed something important in Justin's life a few days before. (maybe first communion, not sure) I've often wondered if the thought of killing her wasn't becoming an obsession with him and he acted on it. We'll never know.

I don't know if killing her was becoming an obsession with him but he really had her on his mind because Kato tells about OJ talking about her Sat. and Sunday in his deposition. Outside of the trail of evidence OJ left Kato is the next best information available. He sets the timeline of 9:37 with the long distance phone call to his friend when they returned from McDonalds and Kato never saw OJ again until he left his room to go check the noise and let the limo inside the property.

It was interesting that OJ and someone had a three way call with Kato on Monday IIRC to see what he knew. OJ said to Kato at the house at some point in the first days...you did see me go inside the house after McDonald. Kato said he told OJ no he didn't see that.

Kato tells about telling the limo driver and OJ about the noise he heard. He and OJ went to get a flash light and OJ looks at the clock and stops every thing because it was late. As OJ was leaving he told Kato to turn on the alarm and Kato told him he didn't know how.....according to Kato after OJ left he went back to his room and was on the phone and 15 to 20 minutes (?)his call waiting beeped he had an incoming call and it was OJ saying he had forgot to turn on the alarm. OJ asked Kato to go turn it on and gave him the instructions.

Well IMHOO at some point in all this common sense has to click in. You have OJ who has been informed by Kato about the noise he heard....OJ is not a poor person and I'm sure he had lots of stuff to steal...but he just drives off and leaves the alarm on and calls Kato to turn on the alarm and still not concerned if someone went into his house while the alarm was off. That makes ZERO SENSE.

FWIW....I don't believe for a minute Kato is telling a lie...he had nothing to gain.

[Its just me]

There is a thread set up specifically to discuss nicole.

Why didn't you put your trophy posts on it then. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

That's correct. I think I've explained why with Justin and Sydney (their age) and have said I don't have an opinion about Jason and that is because I just have "nothing" about Jason in order to form an opinion except his statement about not being able to talk loud to the lawyers about the deaths and that makes me wonder if he would want the world to read about those personal things in a book by his dad. If you have information that shows something Jason has said that will help me form an opinion about Jason...put it on the board.

I could sit down and sort out and post exactly my opinions of Mr. Goldman if it's that important to you but I really don't think you would agree with or like what I would say so why waste my time. Hope you have a good day too.

I intend on having a good day and just want to make sure that the measuring stick to do people evaluations is used evenly.

[William Anthony]

Well Martin, I'm just gonna take what Kato said in his deposition until you can prove your "opinion" is correct or until I read something that will change my mind until that happens IJM thinks.....MARTIN IS DEAD WRONG.

Then you believe that Mf testilied, again, correct?

[William Anthony]

Ha, She may get by with it if I'm busy and don't have time to read thru all the posts but if catch it I'm going to call her hand. One thing I can not stand is an over active imagination where facts and truth get totally lost and down right lies.

I truly understand as with not wanting to attribute the same degree of culpability to all involved in a particular decision. ;)

[William Anthony]

Oh really? When did your opinion about Nicole change? I seem to recall that you said "she didn't bring anything to the marriage".

OJ Simpson respectful of Nicole because of the children? Is that why he called her a fat pig when she was pregnant? Good grief.

Are there any of us out here that have not said things in anger for which we later regretted?

[martin II]

Then you believe that Mf testilied, again, correct?

And that mf lied in his testimony. IF KATO told the truth, testimony proves he didn't, then mf lied when he testified.

Testimony means nothing for some only what they think.

[William Anthony]

If you raised any kids you must not have paid much attention when they were this age and I guess you think you were in your prime in knowledge at that age. Sorry...I "know" better with young people.

I knew at that age what was disrespectful or not and whether I would allow something I disapproved of to be done, because I needed or wanted money.

[Its just me]

I intend on having a good day and just want to make sure that the measuring stick to do people evaluations is used evenly.

I admit as hard as I try not to….my stick as you call it may be somewhat short when it comes to appraising family and friends but strangers.....never. I just call it like I see it. Can you say the same?

[William Anthony]

Oh Dear. For some reason Martin tries his best to twist and turn my posts. I don't know if he can't accept the truth or is just blind to it.

It's common knowledge how OJ treated Nicole and I fully believe Nicole finally became an adult...about the right age too and she had all of OJ she was going to take from OJ. Nicole was like every other person she was not perfect and I beleive they both were guilty of pushing revenge buttons. OJ caiming he was reporting Nicole to the IRS just a short time before the murders is a prime example....and Nicole giving OJ the cold shoulder at the recital is another. I don't know what happened but there was something about him not seeing Sydney like he wanted after the recital. Kato tells about him talking about it when he came home from the recital and said Nicole couldn't do that because they were his kids too....not a quote by far.
IMHOO Simpson was mad and I believe he left and went to Nicole's...was it to have it out with her....to not let her get the best of him and he went to see Sydney or did he go to kill her....I don't know but I fully believe he killed her and I believe the blood, hair and other evidence backs me up and look how many lives have been affected by (IMHOO) OJ letting his temper get the best of him.

I love that one line in your post where you admit that you don't know what happened. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I admit as hard as I try not to….stick as you call it may be somewhat short when it comes to appraising family and friends but strangers.....never. I just call it like I see it. Can you say the same?

Yes, and, as I see it, if there is a feeling that to write the book and accept money for so doing is a moral taboo, then all involved are responsible for the same moral taboo.

[William Anthony]

I agree, IJM. Also, whether it can be proved or not I firmly believe that he talked to her on the phone that night. He threatened her or they argued -- I'm not sure what -- but it led directly to her being murdered. One of their close friends said that Simpson missed most of the children's activities and it was out of character for him to fly home just for the recital when he knew he'd be flying right out again. He had just missed something important in Justin's life a few days before. (maybe first communion, not sure) I've often wondered if the thought of killing her wasn't becoming an obsession with him and he acted on it. We'll never know.

We know, Simpson will forever remain found not guilty of murder.

[William Anthony]

No you didn't call her a trophy...... by far. What skills did OJ have besides playing foot ball. As far as education....I doubt OJ ever impressed many with his IQ. No offense but it's the truth and another truth is Nicole was an asset for OJ to have by his side and he treated her badly. Nicole finally grew up and thou she may not have had an education she obtained enough wisdom to know she needed to get OJ out of her life.....So much so she did just that knowing he was most likely going "to kill her". Her Words not mine. She was pretty smart....she said he would kill her and get away with it because he was OJ.

The skill to make money and be the bread winner.

[Its just me]

I love that one line in your post where you admit that you don't know what happened. :);):cool:

At least I'm honest....can you say the same?

[Its just me]

The skill to make money and be the bread winner.

I can only hope you know there is much more to life than money and bread...thou the bread is important.

[William Anthony]

And that mf lied in his testimony. IF KATO told the truth, testimony proves he didn't, then mf lied when he testified.

Testimony means nothing for some only what they think.

The testimony can be easily dismissed, if one is so inclined, by saying it was irrelevant or they were mistaken and they made human error, while others lied.:);):cool:

[Its just me]

Yes, and, as I see it, if there is a feeling that to write the book and accept money for so doing is a moral taboo, then all involved are responsible for the same moral taboo.

I don't have a problem with you thinking that way....I just don't agree.

[William Anthony]

At least I'm honest....can you say the same?

I have said that none of us know what happened, to include me, but, judging from the prosecution, there was reasonable doubt, IMHO. So yes, I can be honest and brutally on some occasions.

[William Anthony]

I don't have a problem with you thinking that way....I just don't agree.

I understand that you reserve you negative feelings for Simpson and Ms. Arnelle and are willing to give others a free pass and I just don't agree with that or feel that it is fair.

[weezer]

Oh Dear. For some reason Martin tries his best to twist and turn my posts. I don't know if he can't accept the truth or is just blind to it.

It's common knowledge how OJ treated Nicole and I fully believe Nicole finally became an adult...about the right age too and she had all of OJ she was going to take from OJ. Nicole was like every other person she was not perfect and I beleive they both were guilty of pushing revenge buttons. OJ caiming he was reporting Nicole to the IRS just a short time before the murders is a prime example....and Nicole giving OJ the cold shoulder at the recital is another. I don't know what happened but there was something about him not seeing Sydney like he wanted after the recital. Kato tells about him talking about it when he came home from the recital and said Nicole couldn't do that because they were his kids too....not a quote by far.
IMHOO Simpson was mad and I believe he left and went to Nicole's...was it to have it out with her....to not let her get the best of him and he went to see Sydney or did he go to kill her....I don't know but I fully believe he killed her and I believe the blood, hair and other evidence backs me up and look how many lives have been affected by (IMHOO) OJ letting his temper get the best of him.

It's always been my opinion that when all else failed, orenthal exercised his control over Nicole by playing his 'daddy' card. It seems that at the time he murdered her, and especially that day and night, Nicole did not let him use that ploy. orenthal testified that he called Nicole earlier that day and 'offered' to take Justin so he 'would not be in the way.' She refused. orenthal showed up at the recital and Nicole was not waiting on him with his ticket and saved seat. after the recital, Nicole did not include orenthal in the family celebration dinner. It is my very firm belief that it was orenthal on the phone that night that made her cry -- probably ranting, raving, and threatening her. When I first started posting, I thought he went to Bundy to harrass her but after reading the facts, I am convinced he knew he was going there to hurt her and I believe she was also afraid that he would. I believe that is why the knife was on the counter.

[William Anthony]

I can only hope you know there is much more to life than money and bread...thou the bread is important.

It seems that those surrounding Simpson may not have understood that.

[martin II]

I don't know if killing her was becoming an obsession with him but he really had her on his mind because Kato tells about OJ talking about her Sat. and Sunday in his deposition. Outside of the trail of evidence OJ left Kato is the next best information available. He sets the timeline of 9:37 with the long distance phone call to his friend when they returned from McDonalds and Kato never saw OJ again until he left his room to go check the noise and let the limo inside the property.

It was interesting that OJ and someone had a three way call with Kato on Monday IIRC to see what he knew. OJ said to Kato at the house at some point in the first days...you did see me go inside the house after McDonald. Kato said he told OJ no he didn't see that.

Kato tells about telling the limo driver and OJ about the noise he heard. He and OJ went to get a flash light and OJ looks at the clock and stops every thing because it was late. As OJ was leaving he told Kato to turn on the alarm and Kato told him he didn't know how.....according to Kato after OJ left he went back to his room and was on the phone and 15 to 20 minutes (?)his call waiting beeped he had an incoming call and it was OJ saying he had forgot to turn on the alarm. OJ asked Kato to go turn it on and gave him the instructions.

Well IMHOO at some point in all this common sense has to click in. You have OJ who has been informed by Kato about the noise he heard....OJ is not a poor person and I'm sure he had lots of stuff to steal...but he just drives off and leaves the alarm on and calls Kato to turn on the alarm and still not concerned if someone went into his house while the alarm was off. That makes ZERO SENSE.

FWIW....I don't believe for a minute Kato is telling a lie...he had nothing to gain.


The alarm was not ON when oj left.
oj and kato went into the house and oj looked at the clock and asked kato "is that the time " or something like that.

Allen P was standing at the limo with ojs door open waiting for him to get in and told him 'WE MUST GO' . OJ got into the limo and they left. No reason for oj to miss his plane. he called kato and kato set the alarm. According to testimony.

[Its just me]

It seems that those surrounding Simpson may not have understood that.

Some maybe but not Nicole...remember she left him. According to Kato she needed the rent from Kato to help financially but OJ seems to not want her to have that because he let Kato move in Arnelle's old room for free...... but I think it probably had more to do with OJ being jealous than anything...."but I don't know" ;). I'm not looking up the link but the rent and living for free is in Kato's deposition for the civil trial.

[martin II]

Some maybe but not Nicole...remember she left him. According to Kato she needed the rent from Kato to help financially but OJ seems to not want her to have that because he let Kato move in Arnelle's old room for free...... but I think it probably had more to do with OJ being jealous than anything...."but I don't know" ;). I'm not looking up the link but the rent and living for free is in Kato's deposition for the civil trial.

Media reports state that kato was ready to leave nicoles as he had tired of her comming home late,waking him up to talk.imo

[Its just me]

The alarm was not ON when oj left.
oj and kato went into the house and oj looked at the clock and asked kato "is that the time " or something like that.

Allen P was standing at the limo with ojs door open waiting for him to get in and told him 'WE MUST GO' . OJ got into the limo and they left. No reason for oj to miss his plane. he called kato and kato set the alarm. According to testimony.

Sorry.....I should have said. OJ just drives off and leaves the alarm "off" but if one will consider my subject and the concept of what I was saying I think most will know it was a typo mistake. Any how thanks for pointing it out and it's in testimony.

[William Anthony]

It's always been my opinion that when all else failed, orenthal exercised his control over Nicole by playing his 'daddy' card. It seems that at the time he murdered her, and especially that day and night, Nicole did not let him use that ploy. orenthal testified that he called Nicole earlier that day and 'offered' to take Justin so he 'would not be in the way.' She refused. orenthal showed up at the recital and Nicole was not waiting on him with his ticket and saved seat. after the recital, Nicole did not include orenthal in the family celebration dinner. It is my very firm belief that it was orenthal on the phone that night that made her cry -- probably ranting, raving, and threatening her. When I first started posting, I thought he went to Bundy to harrass her but after reading the facts, I am convinced he knew he was going there to hurt her and I believe she was also afraid that he would. I believe that is why the knife was on the counter.

The knife that was on the counter was found there because it was left there and the "friend" on the phone who made the beautiful Ms. NBS cry, was not referred to as "daddy".

[tv]

It's always been my opinion that when all else failed, orenthal exercised his control over Nicole by playing his 'daddy' card. It seems that at the time he murdered her, and especially that day and night, Nicole did not let him use that ploy. orenthal testified that he called Nicole earlier that day and 'offered' to take Justin so he 'would not be in the way.' She refused. orenthal showed up at the recital and Nicole was not waiting on him with his ticket and saved seat. after the recital, Nicole did not include orenthal in the family celebration dinner. It is my very firm belief that it was orenthal on the phone that night that made her cry -- probably ranting, raving, and threatening her. When I first started posting, I thought he went to Bundy to harrass her but after reading the facts, I am convinced he knew he was going there to hurt her and I believe she was also afraid that he would. I believe that is why the knife was on the counter.

I also used to be of the opinion that he just went to Bundy to harrass her and things got out of hand. Now I feel the same way you do -- his intention was to do her harm before he even got there. We'll never know the exact sequence of events regarding Ron arriving and how it all played out unless Simpson fesses up on his death bed. The knife laying out in an otherwise immaculate kitchen...I think it's very relevant to the case.

[Its just me]

Media reports state that kato was ready to leave nicoles as he had tired of her comming home late,waking him up to talk.imo

Oh I see....the media only gets some things right...You think they got it right with Kato. That is not what Kato said so I'm just gonna stick with Kato for now.

[William Anthony]

Some maybe but not Nicole...remember she left him. According to Kato she needed the rent from Kato to help financially but OJ seems to not want her to have that because he let Kato move in Arnelle's old room for free...... but I think it probably had more to do with OJ being jealous than anything...."but I don't know" ;). I'm not looking up the link but the rent and living for free is in Kato's deposition for the civil trial.

I think you should look it up and reread it, since, IMHO, this does not square with Kato's testimony.

[weezer]

I also used to be of the opinion that he just went to Bundy to harrass her and things got out of hand. Now I feel the same way you do -- his intention was to do her harm before he even got there. We'll never know the exact sequence of events regarding Ron arriving and how it all played out unless Simpson fesses up on his death bed. The knife laying out in an otherwise immaculate kitchen...I think it's very relevant to the case.

actually, I think orenthal pretty much told us in his confession book if you leave 'charlie' out of it. Nicole may have had the knife out for protection -- she may have heard the argument outside -- she did hit herself on the back of the head on the steps and did not move around the scene while orenthal was murdering Ron. his rendition, of course, has some inconsistencies but I think that is what he believes he subtle subterfuge and excusing himself for what he did.

[William Anthony]

I also used to be of the opinion that he just went to Bundy to harrass her and things got out of hand. Now I feel the same way you do -- his intention was to do her harm before he even got there. We'll never know the exact sequence of events regarding Ron arriving and how it all played out unless Simpson fesses up on his death bed. The knife laying out in an otherwise immaculate kitchen...I think it's very relevant to the case.

A bloody knife or a clean knife with blood found on a rag maybe relevant but a knife found in the kitchen is just that and leads to make anything else of it is just speculation, IMHO.

[weezer]

Of course everyone knows it was a typo. Maybe that poster would like all of his mistakes pointed out but I'm not sure anyone has that kind of time to spare.

I think the reason Simpson didn't set the alarm, which would only have taken a few seconds, is because he was a little rattled after killing two people. Very understandable.

his reaction absolutely makes no sense. he's told by kato that something/someone hit against a wall hard enough to move a picture on the wall inside. orenthal's house is full of valuables that he is willing to stash in store rooms and friends/family homes to keep from Mr. Goldman BUT on that night he drives off into the sunset to catch a plane but FORGOT to set the alarm. this kinda goes along with his testimony that he never hit Nicole. riiiiiiight.

[William Anthony]

actually, I think orenthal pretty much told us in his confession book if you leave 'charlie' out of it. Nicole may have had the knife out for protection -- she may have heard the argument outside -- she did hit herself on the back of the head on the steps and did not move around the scene while orenthal was murdering Ron. his rendition, of course, has some inconsistencies but I think that is what he believes he subtle subterfuge and excusing himself for what he did.

If it does not fit, edit away.:)

[William Anthony]

his reaction absolutely makes no sense. he's told by kato that something/someone hit against a wall hard enough to move a picture on the wall inside. orenthal's house is full of valuables that he is willing to stash in store rooms and friends/family homes to keep from Mr. Goldman BUT on that night he drives off into the sunset to catch a plane but FORGOT to set the alarm. this kinda goes along with his testimony that he never hit Nicole. riiiiiiight.

And from this, he is guilty of double murder. :);)

[Its just me]

I think you should look it up and reread it, since, IMHO, this does not square with Kato's testimony.

I'll finally get around to reading all I can read but right now it does square with what I've read from Kato. OJ's attorney Baker tried to show Kato was lying but Kato stuck to what he knew and explained why his testimony was not exactly like what he was saying in the deposition. To put it the way I understand it....Kato answered precisely what he was asked during the trial when he could have added more and it would match what he was saying in the deposition. IMHOO Baker failed to show Kato told any lies.

[martin II]

Sorry.....I should have said. OJ just drives off and leaves the alarm "off" but if one will consider my subject and the concept of what I was saying I think most will know it was a typo mistake. Any how thanks for pointing it out and it's in testimony.

The driver told oj we must go now.

[martin II]

I'll finally get around to reading all I can read but right now it does square with what I've read from Kato. OJ's attorney Baker tried to show Kato was lying but Kato stuck to what he knew and explained why his testimony was not exactly like what he was saying in the deposition. To put it the way I understand it....Kato answered precisely what he was asked during the trial when he could have added more and it would match what he was saying in the deposition. IMHOO Baker failed to show Kato told any lies.

Kato did not enter the house with Arnell and the others. Two witnesses testimony proves that, One of which was MF.:read:

[weezer]

I'll finally get around to reading all I can read but right now it does square with what I've read from Kato. OJ's attorney Baker tried to show Kato was lying but Kato stuck to what he knew and explained why his testimony was not exactly like what he was saying in the deposition. To put it the way I understand it....Kato answered precisely what he was asked during the trial when he could have added more and it would match what he was saying in the deposition. IMHOO Baker failed to show Kato told any lies.

IIRC, Nicole talked about orenthal not wanting kato living in her house and insisted that kato could move to Rockingham. I would think the real inducement for kato would be the part 'rent free' and also I think he was afraid of orenthal -- maybe not as much physically as professionally. At any rate, I believe Nicole no longer considering kato a friend and not wanting to be around him was exactly as she said -- her friends would sell her out.

[Its just me]

Kato did not enter the house with Arnell and the others. Two witnesses testimony proves that, One of which was MF.:read:

I disagree....One needs to be willing to think beyond a box. I don't think Kato said he went in "with" Arnelle but after and IMHOO based on what I've read Arnelle and the 3 det. went in the back door....Kato left his room after Arnelle walked past his door and was next inside the house at some point and I believe it was seconds and after Kato left his room.... MF followed him and was the last one in the house. It only takes a few seconds to walk from the room to the house. Arnelle and the dets could already been inside the house before Kato and MF left Kato's room a few seconds after Arnelle walked by.
Think beyond a box.

[William Anthony]

I'll finally get around to reading all I can read but right now it does square with what I've read from Kato. OJ's attorney Baker tried to show Kato was lying but Kato stuck to what he knew and explained why his testimony was not exactly like what he was saying in the deposition. To put it the way I understand it....Kato answered precisely what he was asked during the trial when he could have added more and it would match what he was saying in the deposition. IMHOO Baker failed to show Kato told any lies.

Is this what you are talking about?

February 20th,

"Q: The tea conversations, as we referred to them, where Nicole indicated to you some personal areas of her life, did they continue after she had began reconciliation with Mr. Simpson?

A: I had conversation with her all the way up until I moved.

Q: So the conversations continued from January of '93 to January of 94. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And after the conversations that you had with Miss Simpson concerning her personal life--

(Telephone interruption.)

Q: After the conversations that you had with Miss Simpson about her personal life, did you feel that you were a very close friend of hers in December of 1993?

A: Yes.

Q: And then in January of 1994 you moved in with Mr. Simpson and your friendship ended as you had previously known it. Is that true?

MR. PETROCELLI: Friendship with Nicole?

MR. ROBERT BAKER: With Nicole. I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. ROBERT BAKER:

Q: In terms of your relationship with Nicole, she had given you a place to live for approximately a year. Had she not with the reduced rental rate?

A: Yes.

Q: And she had brought you into her circle of friends so that you knew Cora Fishman, you knew Cici; you knew Faye Resnick. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And you then went to Mr. Simpson s house because you didn't have to pay any rent at all. True?

A: Yes.

Q: So it was a better deal and you forsook Miss Simpson for $500 a month. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And you then after you had done that, you -- Well, strike that.

Q: Did you have any social dates that you went out with Nicole Brown Simpson and Marcus Allen before January of 1994?

A: Before January of 1994--

Q: Sure.

A: --if I had gone out with--

Q: With Marcus Allen, Nicole, yourself and a date?

A: Yes.

Q: How many occasions?

A: Once. "

[William Anthony]

IIRC, Nicole talked about orenthal not wanting kato living in her house and insisted that kato could move to Rockingham. I would think the real inducement for kato would be the part 'rent free' and also I think he was afraid of orenthal -- maybe not as much physically as professionally. At any rate, I believe Nicole no longer considering kato a friend and not wanting to be around him was exactly as she said -- her friends would sell her out.

I think the first law of the land is self-preservation, or at least Kato thought so.

[William Anthony]

I disagree....One needs to be willing to think beyond a box. I don't think Kato said he went in "with" Arnelle but after and IMHOO based on what I've read Arnelle and the 3 det. went in the back door....Kato left his room after Arnelle walked past his door and was next inside the house at some point and I believe it was seconds and after Kato left his room.... MF followed him and was the last one in the house. It only takes a few seconds to walk from the room to the house. Arnelle and the dets could already been inside the house before Kato and MF left Kato's room a few seconds after Arnelle walked by.
Think beyond a box.

Careful, because I have been spoken of negatively for thinking outside the box, but the measuring stick may not be evenly used.:);):cool:

[Its just me]

IIRC, Nicole talked about orenthal not wanting kato living in her house and insisted that kato could move to Rockingham. I would think the real inducement for kato would be the part 'rent free' and also I think he was afraid of orenthal -- maybe not as much physically as professionally. At any rate, I believe Nicole no longer considering kato a friend and not wanting to be around him was exactly as she said -- her friends would sell her out.

I agree and I think OJ let Kato live there free because that was a good way he could keep him from living at Bundy. According to Kato's deposition after he moved with OJ he and Nicole were no longer friends and it was Nicole that cut the friendship.

[William Anthony]

I agree and I think OJ let Kato live there free because that was a good way he could keep him from living at Bundy. According to Kato's deposition after he moved with OJ he and Nicole were no longer friends and it was Nicole that cut the friendship.

If that is true, it seems that the beautiful Ms. NBS did not want Simpson to have any friends or may have been jealous of him.

[Its just me]

Is this what you are talking about?

February 20th,

"Q: The tea conversations, as we referred to them, where Nicole indicated to you some personal areas of her life, did they continue after she had began reconciliation with Mr. Simpson?

A: I had conversation with her all the way up until I moved.

Q: So the conversations continued from January of '93 to January of 94. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And after the conversations that you had with Miss Simpson concerning her personal life--

(Telephone interruption.)

Q: After the conversations that you had with Miss Simpson about her personal life, did you feel that you were a very close friend of hers in December of 1993?

A: Yes.

Q: And then in January of 1994 you moved in with Mr. Simpson and your friendship ended as you had previously known it. Is that true?

MR. PETROCELLI: Friendship with Nicole?

MR. ROBERT BAKER: With Nicole. I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. ROBERT BAKER:

Q: In terms of your relationship with Nicole, she had given you a place to live for approximately a year. Had she not with the reduced rental rate?

A: Yes.

Q: And she had brought you into her circle of friends so that you knew Cora Fishman, you knew Cici; you knew Faye Resnick. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And you then went to Mr. Simpson s house because you didn't have to pay any rent at all. True?

A: Yes.

Q: So it was a better deal and you forsook Miss Simpson for $500 a month. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And you then after you had done that, you -- Well, strike that.

Q: Did you have any social dates that you went out with Nicole Brown Simpson and Marcus Allen before January of 1994?

A: Before January of 1994--

Q: Sure.

A: --if I had gone out with--

Q: With Marcus Allen, Nicole, yourself and a date?

A: Yes.

Q: How many occasions?

A: Once. "

NO.....what you just posted does not show Kato explaining things.

[Its just me]

If that is true, it seems that the beautiful Ms. NBS did not want Simpson to have any friends or may have been jealous of him.

I don't know how you get that....if that was true Nicole could have let Kato live with her for free. I think Nicole was hurt because Kato allowed OJ to manipulate him.

One can jump too far out of the box. IMHOO

[Its just me]

Careful, because I have been spoken of negatively for thinking outside the box, but the measuring stick may not be evenly used.:);):cool:

Actually I can't understand this measuring stick you seem to have.....May be I'm just dumb. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

NO.....what you just posted does not show Kato explaining things.

"Originally Posted by Its just me View Post
Some maybe but not Nicole...remember she left him. According to Kato she needed the rent from Kato to help financially but OJ seems to not want her to have that because he let Kato move in Arnelle's old room for free...... but I think it probably had more to do with OJ being jealous than anything...."but I don't know" . I'm not looking up the link but the rent and living for free is in Kato's deposition for the civil trial."

I saw this in regard to rent and rent free. Can you post it?

[William Anthony]

Actually I can't understand this measuring stick you seem to have.....May be I'm just dumb. :shrug:

Believe me, it is not my measuring stick and I apply the one I have evenly.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I don't know how you get that....if that was true Nicole could have let Kato live with her for free. I think Nicole was hurt because Kato allowed OJ to manipulate him.

One can jump too far out of the box. IMHOO

I may be guilty of judging others by the way I evaluate things. To me, I would understand, if one of my friends was offered a chance to save money, and would not get upset. I would tell them I understood and that our friendship would continue as it had and they could visit me anytime they wanted.

[Its just me]

"Originally Posted by Its just me View Post
Some maybe but not Nicole...remember she left him. According to Kato she needed the rent from Kato to help financially but OJ seems to not want her to have that because he let Kato move in Arnelle's old room for free...... but I think it probably had more to do with OJ being jealous than anything...."but I don't know" . I'm not looking up the link but the rent and living for free is in Kato's deposition for the civil trial."

I saw this in regard to rent and rent free.

OK now I'm getting it....and it's a perfect example of what I said about Kato's testimony not matching up. He answered precisely about the free rent but if you read all the deposition Kato goes beyond that. MY meaning of outside that one short answer to the rent free box. Maybe it should be you have to look inside all of the box. Don't know but all kind of things can be proved if you just stick to a few words. Kind of like OJ and the deputy/guard. I believe it was argued the guard may have just heard part of the conversation OJ's had with the minister and there could have been much more to it.

[William Anthony]

OK now I'm getting it....and it's a perfect example of what I said about Kato's testimony not matching up. He answered precisely about the free rent but if you read all the deposition Kato goes beyond that. MY meaning of outside that one short answer to the rent free box. Maybe it should be you have to look inside all of the box. Don't know but all kind of things can be proved if you just stick to a few words. Kind of like OJ and the deputy/guard. I believe it was argued the guard may have just heard part of the conversation OJ's had with the minister and there could have been much more to it.

Please, post anything you think that supports your original post in regard to the rent and I remind you that in your original post you said it was from Kato's deposition testimony. Here is one excerpt I found from February 20th, where Kato claims to want to explain things. Is this what you call explaining?

"BY MR. ROBERT BAKER: "Question By Miss Clark: You stated an opinion that the defendant and Nicole had a good relationship from the time you knew them. Do you recall that?" "Answer: Yes." Now. that was your testimony on March 27, 1995. Correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And you wouldn't call a good relationship what you've testified here relative to the concerns that you've expressed Miss Simpson had about O.J. Simpson. True?

A: Well, what I--

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Argumentative.

THE WITNESS: What I just said, though, was covering it by saying when I say "good relationship," when Miss Clark asked me, it wasn't--it was one question. She went unto another one. I wanted to explain that. When they were in love, they were a great couple in love. When it was stormy, it was a bad couple. And I can't answer exactly what goes on in someone's mind, but it was this thing that if they were in love, it was great, but if they were going to be apart and -- it was a stormy relationship. It was never a set thing. It was always if they were in love, great, stay in love, but then something else would come up and it would draw them apart. And so the question that she asked me in court was a yes, and it wasn't a continued --it wasn't continued by her. Now that I can say in the deposition, that's what it was. It was very stormy.

BY MR. ROBERT BAKER:

Q: Okay. So it wasn't a good relationship. It was a very stormy relationship. Right?

MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates his testimony. Argumentative.

BY MR. ROBERT BAKER:

Q: You can answer the question.

A: When they were together and in love, it was a good relationship. When there was troubles going on. it was a bad relationship.

Q: So the troubles that you saw going on, as I understand it, was on October 25, 1993 and on Christmas of 1993. Correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: That he personally observed.

MR. ROBERT BAKER: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: Yes. "

[GreenIce]

Let me tell you something....You really don't want to start pointing out what you "think" about me. I can give it back and so far I don't believe I have done much if any of that. Just be warned it might not all be pretty.

I did say I think Nicole was a trophy and I certainly do but YOU Green Ice is going to wear the shoes that it includes the color of Nicole's skin...You Green Ice NOT IJM because IJM didn't say one thing about the color of skin.

As far as the rest of your post.....You just don't know and like you said at the end "IMO" and neither do I know....but I'd say Sydney calling 911 to OJ shows everything was not hunkey dorey.

Carry on but don't attribute what you think to something I've said when I didn't. It appears you have the problem with the color of Nicole's skin because it's you that brought it up and not I. Have a good day.

IJM,

I thought I made myself pretty clear, I was referring to what Sydney and Justin heard and read about their parents' relationship. I said nothing about any comments that you made.

I did not know that you ever called Nicole a "trophy wife". The lawyer who represented the Brown Family in the civil trial, John Q. Kelley, referred to Nicole as a trophy wife. I think that is an insult to Nicole and to her children because there is no evidence to support it. In fact, Nicole refused to be a trophy wife and she felt very uncomfortable in the "fame" side of her marriage to Simpson. It has been written in books that Nicole could not tolerate the phonies and had a hard time dealing with people that she did not like.

I don't know how you got the impression that I said you mentioned something about skin color---you didn't, I was talking about the media, the family and friends.

[Its just me]

I may be guilty of judging others by the way I evaluate things. To me, I would understand, if one of my friends was offered a chance to save money, and would not get upset. I would tell them I understood and that our friendship would continue as it had and they could visit me anytime they wanted.

I think I would feel exactly the same way but I've never been in a sitution similar to the one with Kato going to live with OJ..... so I'm not sure how I would handle that but for some reason I'm thinking it would not be too pretty in some form or another. But I don't know. ;)

[William Anthony]

I think I would feel exactly the same way but I've never been in a sitution similar to the one with Kato going to live with OJ..... so I'm not sure how I would handle that but for some reason I'm thinking it would not be too pretty in some form or another. But I don't know. ;)

I think I would handle it just as I said and I have friends that I met through women I have known and remained friends with them and they remained friends with the women long after the women and my relationships ended. I would have looked pretty stupid saying or feeling that if you are her friend you can't be mine.

[GreenIce]

If that is true, it seems that the beautiful Ms. NBS did not want Simpson to have any friends or may have been jealous of him.

William,

I think Nicole could make a pretty strong case against a few of her friends that they were only friends with her, Nicole, because of who her husband is or was. Nicole felt used, especially by Kato and Faye. Not saying this is true about Kato, but I do believe she had valid reasons for feeling this way.

It has been a long time since I read that book that Kato gave interviews but I am pretty sure he said that Nicole told him that she was falling him and that he did not return the same feelings. IMO, I think that may have been one of the reasons why Kato did go to OJ's, he did not that type of relationship with her and maybe he felt she was too demanding in certain areas.

In all honestly, they met in Aspen, Kato goes to her place, asks about guest house, they make a deal, the world is good. Nicole's moves and Kato leaves to go with Simpson.

However, did Kato ever testify that he would have continued to live with Nicole, even if his room was inside the condo? I would think that Kato would have realized had he moved inside with Nicole, that he would really have no privacy. Would he want to live inside the condo know that Nicole had romantic feelings for him?

Would have moved in with her because Nicole liked to entertain and Kato was not into that scene.

I don't think it has been established what Kato would have done if Simpson did not offer him the guest house.

[William Anthony]

William,

I think Nicole could make a pretty strong case against a few of her friends that they were only friends with her, Nicole, because of who her husband is or was. Nicole felt used, especially by Kato and Faye. Not saying this is true about Kato, but I do believe she had valid reasons for feeling this way.

It has been a long time since I read that book that Kato gave interviews but I am pretty sure he said that Nicole told him that she was falling him and that he did not return the same feelings. IMO, I think that may have been one of the reasons why Kato did go to OJ's, he did not that type of relationship with her and maybe he felt she was too demanding in certain areas.

In all honestly, they met in Aspen, Kato goes to her place, asks about guest house, they make a deal, the world is good. Nicole's moves and Kato leaves to go with Simpson.

However, did Kato ever testify that he would have continued to live with Nicole, even if his room was inside the condo? I would think that Kato would have realized had he moved inside with Nicole, that he would really have no privacy. Would he want to live inside the condo know that Nicole had romantic feelings for him?

Would have moved in with her because Nicole liked to entertain and Kato was not into that scene.

I don't think it has been established what Kato would have done if Simpson did not offer him the guest house.

GreenIce,

I was unaware that the beautiful Ms. NBS (I hope that my referring to Ms. NBS as beautiful is not in any manner upsetting anyone but, if it is let me know) had romantic feelings for Kato and, if she did, I understand, as hell hath no furry..."

[Its just me]

IJM,

I thought I made myself pretty clear, I was referring to what Sydney and Justin heard and read about their parents' relationship. I said nothing about any comments that you made.

I did not know that you ever called Nicole a "trophy wife". The lawyer who represented the Brown Family in the civil trial, John Q. Kelley, referred to Nicole as a trophy wife. I think that is an insult to Nicole and to her children because there is no evidence to support it. In fact, Nicole refused to be a trophy wife and she felt very uncomfortable in the "fame" side of her marriage to Simpson. It has been written in books that Nicole could not tolerate the phonies and had a hard time dealing with people that she did not like.

I don't know how you got the impression that I said you mentioned something about skin color---you didn't, I was talking about the media, the family and friends.

Thank you for acknowledging that I did not say anything about skin color and explaining where the "trophy" wife came from. Since I had recently posted about Nicole being OJ's trophy, and on the subject of Sydney and Justin agreeing to the book and considering you had replied to me I assumed you were referring to my posts.


This is a snip from your post that caused the confussion.
Can anyone blame Sydney and Justin for agreeing to the book when they know the media has painted their parents' marriage so wrong? I think the biggest insult to Nicole and her children is to call her a "trophy" wife and there father's love for their mother was only based on the color of their mother's skin.

[Its just me]

I think I would handle it just as I said and I have friends that I met through women I have known and remained friends with them and they remained friends with the women long after the women and my relationships ended. I would have looked pretty stupid saying or feeling that if you are her friend you can't be mine.

I understand what you are saying but OJ and Nicole's relationship had not ended. If they were not trying to get back together they were pushing each other's buttons.

[William Anthony]

I understand what you are saying but OJ and Nicole's relationship had not ended. If they were not trying to get back together they were pushing each other's buttons.

My point is that the picture painted, if true, is that the beautiful Ms. NBS attempted to be a controlling type and showed some jealousy.

[Its just me]

Please, post anything you think that supports your original post in regard to the rent and I remind you that in your original post you said it was from Kato's deposition testimony. Here is one excerpt I found from February 20th, where Kato claims to want to explain things. Is this what you call explaining?

"BY MR. ROBERT BAKER: "Question By Miss Clark: You stated an opinion that the defendant and Nicole had a good relationship from the time you knew them. Do you recall that?" "Answer: Yes." Now. that was your testimony on March 27, 1995. Correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And you wouldn't call a good relationship what you've testified here relative to the concerns that you've expressed Miss Simpson had about O.J. Simpson. True?

A: Well, what I--

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Argumentative.

THE WITNESS: What I just said, though, was covering it by saying when I say "good relationship," when Miss Clark asked me, it wasn't--it was one question. She went unto another one. I wanted to explain that. When they were in love, they were a great couple in love. When it was stormy, it was a bad couple. And I can't answer exactly what goes on in someone's mind, but it was this thing that if they were in love, it was great, but if they were going to be apart and -- it was a stormy relationship. It was never a set thing. It was always if they were in love, great, stay in love, but then something else would come up and it would draw them apart. And so the question that she asked me in court was a yes, and it wasn't a continued --it wasn't continued by her. Now that I can say in the deposition, that's what it was. It was very stormy.

BY MR. ROBERT BAKER:

Q: Okay. So it wasn't a good relationship. It was a very stormy relationship. Right?

MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates his testimony. Argumentative.

BY MR. ROBERT BAKER:

Q: You can answer the question.

A: When they were together and in love, it was a good relationship. When there was troubles going on. it was a bad relationship.

Q: So the troubles that you saw going on, as I understand it, was on October 25, 1993 and on Christmas of 1993. Correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: That he personally observed.

MR. ROBERT BAKER: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: Yes. "

William I'm not getting into another pissing contest with you about anything. I've not posted anything that Kato stated and my opinions on what he stated from any place except his deposition from the civil trial so you don't have to remind me of anything. I posted what I posted and I stand by what I posted and if you have a problem with it....prove me wrong. I don't have a problem with being wrong if in fact I am wrong and I don't believe I am on anything I've posted about Kato's deposition. To be specific so you won't try to screw that up.

[Its just me]

My point is that the picture painted, if true, is that the beautiful Ms. NBS attempted to be a controlling type and showed some jealousy.

I may not use the same words but I don't disagree. OJ and Nicole's relationship has been described as stromy. I beleive the wind blew in all directions but where you and I disagree is I don't believe anything justified OJ killing her and you don't think he did.

ETA: :seeya: I'm letting OJ ruin my week-end.

[William Anthony]

I may not use the same words but I don't disagree. OJ and Nicole's relationship has been described as stromy. I beleive the wind blew in all directions but where you and I disagree is I don't believe anything justified OJ killing her and you don't think he did.

I thought we were examining things in order to discover what the truth may be, as some have called this adventure, a search for truth. Operating under that premise, then the picture of the beautiful Ms. Arnelle as a submissive and subdued housewife becomes blurred and we now may have two people jockeying for control and we have a new consideration as to how that may have played into the murders. I think there is reasonable doubt that Simpson committed the murders and Kato's changed testimony about the nature of the relationship makes me think that some have a reason to slant the truth.

Kato launched into a rather long and uncalled for explanation, if one wants to call it that, when he could have said in response to Ms. Clark's question that she was not correct and that they had a stormy relationship. I do not doubt that their relationship had it ups and downs as with any but I think Kato answered truthfully that it was a good relationship and for some reason later wanted to make it seem otherwise.

[William Anthony]

William I'm not getting into another pissing contest with you about anything. I've not posted anything that Kato stated and my opinions on what he stated from any place except his deposition from the civil trial so you don't have to remind me of anything. I posted what I posted and I stand by what I posted and if you have a problem with it....prove me wrong. I don't have a problem with being wrong if in fact I am wrong and I don't believe I am on anything I've posted about Kato's deposition. To be specific so you won't try to screw that up.

My, my calm down! I just asked you to post it so that I can see what you are talking about since I was unable to find it.

[martin II]

I disagree....One needs to be willing to think beyond a box. I don't think Kato said he went in "with" Arnelle but after and IMHOO based on what I've read Arnelle and the 3 det. went in the back door....Kato left his room after Arnelle walked past his door and was next inside the house at some point and I believe it was seconds and after Kato left his room.... MF followed him and was the last one in the house. It only takes a few seconds to walk from the room to the house. Arnelle and the dets could already been inside the house before Kato and MF left Kato's room a few seconds after Arnelle walked by.
Think beyond a box.

Please believe what you want.
kato came into the house the first time when arnell and ac was leaving or left to go get the kids. MF did not "follow "kato any place.
That is the testimony.

[William Anthony]

Please believe what you want.
kato came into the house the first time when arnell and ac was leaving or left to go get the kids. MF did not "follow "kato any place.
That is the testimony.

Martin,

I have tried to see from whence the belief comes, only to get confused,

"MY meaning of outside that one short answer to the rent free box. Maybe it should be you have to look inside all of the box." By IJM

"Think beyond a box." By IJM

:);):cool:

[martin II]

I thought we were examining things in order to discover what the truth may be, as some have called this adventure, a search for truth. Operating under that premise, then the picture of the beautiful Ms. Arnelle as a submissive and subdued housewife becomes blurred and we now may have two people jockeying for control and we have a new consideration as to how that may have played into the murders. I think there is reasonable doubt that Simpson committed the murders and Kato's changed testimony about the nature of the relationship makes me think that some have a reason to slant the truth.

Kato launched into a rather long and uncalled for explanation, if one wants to call it that, when he could have said in response to Ms. Clark's question that she was not correct and that they had a stormy relationship. I do not doubt that their relationship had it ups and downs as with any but I think Kato answered truthfully that it was a good relationship and for some reason later wanted to make it seem otherwise.

Older poster that have read all the testimony and read all the post know that kATO and others testified differently at different times. Some read a direct testimony that they like and go with that ignoring the following cross where that testimnony is proven to be untrue.

The truth is always in the details of all testimony not some.
A good example is Martz. Rubin, AM and for sure VANNATTER, PHILIP and Park. Look at Katos testimony on what bags he and others loaded into the limo AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
It is easy to have half the truth and know one is right.imo:cool:

[martin II]

Martin,

I have tried to see from whence the belief comes, only to get confused,

"MY meaning of outside that one short answer to the rent free box. Maybe it should be you have to look inside all of the box." By IJM

"Think beyond a box." By IJM

:);):cool:

That has become a favorite saying when a wrong one believes they are right and everyone else is wrong. Thinking out of the box can mean just do a little twisting of the facts.:cool:

[martin II]

My point is that the picture painted, if true, is that the beautiful Ms. NBS attempted to be a controlling type and showed some jealousy.

OJ
Kato
The maid
PB big time.

A few instances that i remember off hand.

[William Anthony]

Older poster that have read all the testimony and read all the post know that kATO and others testified differently at different times. Some read a direct testimony that they like and go with that ignoring the following cross where that testimnony is proven to be untrue.

The truth is always in the details of all testimony not some.
A good example is Martz. Rubin, AM and for sure VANNATTER, PHILIP and Park. Look at Katos testimony on what bags he and others loaded into the limo AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
It is easy to have half the truth and know one is right.imo:cool:

How do they look on this, I wonder?

"....It was never a set thing. It was always if they were in love, great, stay in love, but then something else would come up and it would draw them apart. And so the question that she asked me in court was a yes, and it wasn't a continued --it wasn't continued by her. Now that I can say in the deposition, that's what it was. It was very stormy."

Sounds set to me or, IMHO, a testilie. Stormy means stormy and peaceful means peaceful and never the twain shall meet.:)

[William Anthony]

That has become a favorite saying when a wrong one believes they are right and everyone else is wrong. Thinking out of the box can mean just do a little twisting of the facts.:cool:

But how can you think outside the box and stay inside the box, if the testimony is not what the person likes?:);):cool:

[martin II]

I understand what you are saying but OJ and Nicole's relationship had not ended. If they were not trying to get back together they were pushing each other's buttons.

William
I am choosing who i post to to evade the abrasive stuff.

After the divoice they did have a up and down relationship. At times Nicole wanted freedom to see others and she would, not enjoying herself, run to oj
with various schemes asking him to take her back, Her letter. Without notice she would meet a guy and do her thing. At some point she and Fay hooked up on the big time party scene and Oj rekindeled his relationshjip with Paula.
They agreed to a year try out and Nicole immediately asked oj to allow her to move back to Rockingham. He refused. Oj told Cora he did not know what nicole wanted to do but he did find a way to know what he was going to do
So he had his lawyer write the IRS letter which IMO was his strongest statement to Nicole that he had moved on and with PB and nicole would not be returning to rockingham. He proved this the night of 6/11 with PB at the charity event.
imo

[martin II]

But how can you think outside the box and stay inside the box, if the testimony is not what the person likes?:);):cool:

Only the secure can use testimony that they don't like if it contains the truth.
Those that see truth and reject it because it is not to their liking can be found in the box and some times out, doing little streatching and talking ruff.imo:cool:

[martin II]

I may not use the same words but I don't disagree. OJ and Nicole's relationship has been described as stromy. I beleive the wind blew in all directions but where you and I disagree is I don't believe anything justified OJ killing her and you don't think he did.

ETA: :seeya: I'm letting OJ ruin my week-end.

The testimony in the court room proved that oj was not guilty.Which is why the jury said so.

[martin II]

GreenIce,

I was unaware that the beautiful Ms. NBS (I hope that my referring to Ms. NBS as beautiful is not in any manner upsetting anyone but, if it is let me know) had romantic feelings for Kato and, if she did, I understand, as hell hath no furry..."

Kato got tired of the late nite wake ups to talk.

Nicoles anger at Kato extended to her making some signs for the kids that were taken to Rockingham. She had the kids go to Katos room and show him the signs. They read "kato is a bum. He does not work" as they shouted at him.

She had ordered oj that on any further visits to his house she did not want to see Michaell or Katos face.
O.J. Simpson

[martin II]

I found this little piece of info.

If oj was in the walkway where the glove was found why would he walk out to his front door and be seen by park? The door that leads into the laundry room near the maids room was right there at the steps. All he had to do was open that door and walk into the house.imo

[martin II]

William
How Kato changes his testimony.

In the civil trial Kato testified that upon returning from Mc Donalds he walked to the knook, looked around and did see OJ any more.

Later oj spoke to Kato and told him 'KATO you saw me go into the house right" kato said no.


Baker pulls up prelim testimony.

Q. Okay. And you told the officers at that time, that you drove to McDonald's and O.J. ate in the car, they ordered through the drive-through, ordered from -- it says MA male Hispanic, female Hispanic gave them the food; is that correct? Male Hispanic and female Hispanic?

A. Pretty sure.

MR. PETROCELLI: I object to the reading of this report. This is a hearsay document. It's not his report. He can show it to him to refresh his recollection, but he can't read a report to him prepared by somebody else.

MR. BAKER: This is a report made in the ordinary course of business.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) O.J. ordered double meat hamburger, fries, no drink, witness ordered chicken sandwich meal, witness paid for food, O.J. ate while driving, they returned to O.J.'s house, witness entered through side of the house into his room, O.J. entered through front.

Did you tell them that about 15 hours after you had gone to McDonald's, Mr. Kaelin?

A. Best of my recollection, no. I think they're assuming that.

Q. The rest of it you told them that's the only thing in the paragraph I read to you you didn't tell them, right.

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is there anything else that I read to you, sir, that you say you didn't tell the police?

A. I don't know.

A. Correct.

Kato had told petro he never socolized with Kato.

Baker ask questions.

Q. You had gone on a date with Nicole, Marcus and a friend of yours, had you not?

A. Correct.

Q. You had actually -- I think you indicated in examination by Mr. Petrocelli, you never socialized with O.J.

You and your kids -- you and your son actually went out with O.J. and his kids, did you not?

A. My daughter.

Q. Daughter. I'm sorry.

A. With Sydney and Justin, yes.

Q. So you did at least socialize at some time with him before June 12, 1994?

A. At one time, yes.

Q. Relative to the issue, sir, of you moving into 360 North Rockingham, you --

MR. BAKER: Would you pull that up on the Elmo.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were certainly aware that Nicole had requested you not to move into the guest house; yes or no?

A. Yes and no. Yes and no. It was mixed.

I think -- can I explain?

Q. Sure. Go ahead.

A. There was a point where she said, he's -- he manipulated you. He got you to go to his house.

Q. That was before -- that was after you moved in, was it not?

A. That was during that January when I moved in.

Q. But you were aware that if you moved in, the relationship that Nicole Brown Simpson and you had would certainly decline, correct?

A. I didn't know it would decline, but it did decline, yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, you knew it was going to decline, and you forsook Nicole Brown Simpson for $500 a month rent?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Pull that up.

MR. PETROCELLI: I would like page references before he starts.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: 496, lines 7 through 9.

No. Wait till he's had a chance to look at it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Thanks.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you testified:

Question: "And when you went to Mr. Simpson's house, you didn't have to pay rent at all, true?

"A. Yes."

"So it was a better deal and you forsook Ms. Simpson for $500 a month, right?"

And your answer was yes; isn't that true sir?

A. That's what I say there, yes.

Q. That is true; you forsook Nicole Brown Simpson for $500 a month, after she had met you in Aspen and given you a place to live for basically one year, true?

A. I guess I didn't interpret the "forsook" for that -- the negative connotation; but yes, I lived at O.J.'s for free.

Q. And Nicole wouldn't come over if you were at O.J.'s correct?

A. No, she came by.

Q. And asked you to leave, for example, if in fact the kids were going to swim; isn't that true?

A. Sometimes, yes.

Q. Sometimes? Every time; isn't that correct?

A. Not if my daughter was there.

Q. Now, you and Nicole never were friends after you moved into O.J.'s house on January -- first week of January of 1994, correct?

A. I think --

Q. Correct?

A. -- I was still a friend.

Q. And she wouldn't talk to you, true?

A. Off and on, yes.

Q. Now, after you got to Mr. Simpson's house and lived in his guest house (indicating to Exhibit 116 with overlay), you weren't great pals with O.J. Simpson, were you?

A. Correct.

Q. But you shared some conversation -- some conversations and some social discourse with him, did you not?

A. Yes.

[William Anthony]

William
How Kato changes his testimony.

In the civil trial Kato testified that upon returning from Mc Donalds he walked to the knook, looked around and did see OJ any more.

Later oj spoke to Kato and told him 'KATO you saw me go into the house right" kato said no.


Baker pulls up prelim testimony.

Q. Okay. And you told the officers at that time, that you drove to McDonald's and O.J. ate in the car, they ordered through the drive-through, ordered from -- it says MA male Hispanic, female Hispanic gave them the food; is that correct? Male Hispanic and female Hispanic?

A. Pretty sure.

MR. PETROCELLI: I object to the reading of this report. This is a hearsay document. It's not his report. He can show it to him to refresh his recollection, but he can't read a report to him prepared by somebody else.

MR. BAKER: This is a report made in the ordinary course of business.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) O.J. ordered double meat hamburger, fries, no drink, witness ordered chicken sandwich meal, witness paid for food, O.J. ate while driving, they returned to O.J.'s house, witness entered through side of the house into his room, O.J. entered through front.

Did you tell them that about 15 hours after you had gone to McDonald's, Mr. Kaelin?

A. Best of my recollection, no. I think they're assuming that.

Q. The rest of it you told them that's the only thing in the paragraph I read to you you didn't tell them, right.

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is there anything else that I read to you, sir, that you say you didn't tell the police?

A. I don't know.

A. Correct.

Kato had told petro he never socolized with Kato.

Baker ask questions.

Q. You had gone on a date with Nicole, Marcus and a friend of yours, had you not?

A. Correct.

Q. You had actually -- I think you indicated in examination by Mr. Petrocelli, you never socialized with O.J.

You and your kids -- you and your son actually went out with O.J. and his kids, did you not?

A. My daughter.

Q. Daughter. I'm sorry.

A. With Sydney and Justin, yes.

Q. So you did at least socialize at some time with him before June 12, 1994?

A. At one time, yes.

Q. Relative to the issue, sir, of you moving into 360 North Rockingham, you --

MR. BAKER: Would you pull that up on the Elmo.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were certainly aware that Nicole had requested you not to move into the guest house; yes or no?

A. Yes and no. Yes and no. It was mixed.

I think -- can I explain?

Q. Sure. Go ahead.

A. There was a point where she said, he's -- he manipulated you. He got you to go to his house.

Q. That was before -- that was after you moved in, was it not?

A. That was during that January when I moved in.

Q. But you were aware that if you moved in, the relationship that Nicole Brown Simpson and you had would certainly decline, correct?

A. I didn't know it would decline, but it did decline, yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, you knew it was going to decline, and you forsook Nicole Brown Simpson for $500 a month rent?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Pull that up.

MR. PETROCELLI: I would like page references before he starts.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: 496, lines 7 through 9.

No. Wait till he's had a chance to look at it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Thanks.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you testified:

Question: "And when you went to Mr. Simpson's house, you didn't have to pay rent at all, true?

"A. Yes."

"So it was a better deal and you forsook Ms. Simpson for $500 a month, right?"

And your answer was yes; isn't that true sir?

A. That's what I say there, yes.

Q. That is true; you forsook Nicole Brown Simpson for $500 a month, after she had met you in Aspen and given you a place to live for basically one year, true?

A. I guess I didn't interpret the "forsook" for that -- the negative connotation; but yes, I lived at O.J.'s for free.

Q. And Nicole wouldn't come over if you were at O.J.'s correct?

A. No, she came by.

Q. And asked you to leave, for example, if in fact the kids were going to swim; isn't that true?

A. Sometimes, yes.

Q. Sometimes? Every time; isn't that correct?

A. Not if my daughter was there.

Q. Now, you and Nicole never were friends after you moved into O.J.'s house on January -- first week of January of 1994, correct?

A. I think --

Q. Correct?

A. -- I was still a friend.

Q. And she wouldn't talk to you, true?

A. Off and on, yes.

Q. Now, after you got to Mr. Simpson's house and lived in his guest house (indicating to Exhibit 116 with overlay), you weren't great pals with O.J. Simpson, were you?

A. Correct.

Q. But you shared some conversation -- some conversations and some social discourse with him, did you not?

A. Yes.

Thanks Martin. Kato didn't know what to say, IMHO, as he forsook her in the kindest way. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Is Marcus Marcus Allen?

Q. You had gone on a date with Nicole, Marcus and a friend of yours, had you not?

[martin II]

Thanks Martin. Kato didn't know what to say, IMHO, as he forsook her in the kindest way. :);):cool:

Kato had spent i think 8 or 16 (not sure)hours being prompted by petro. kATO would give the prosecution and the plaintiff what they wanted to hear only to be caught and forced to tell the truth on cross.
Baker seemed as if he could not wait to get to kato to get the truth out of him.

[bobaugust]

IMHO, they lied about the back door when they knew there was a video showing some dark clothing on or in the washing machine. You say the detectives "mistakenly thought", "they never realized", "nor did they realize" and I say they were not mistaken, the realized and IMHO they testilied

If I remember correctly the video you are referring to was found by the defense stored in a drawer since it was never intended to be used as evidence in this case. It was made for insurance purposes only, to show what Simpson’s house looked like after the police were finished with their search and all the evidence was collected. The portion of the video showing Simpson’s laundry room and washing machine was first shown in court on July 20, 1995, over a year after Kaelin, Fuhrman, and Vannatter testified in the preliminary hearing to entering Simpson’s house through the back of the house, not the front of the house. And four to five months after the four detectives and Kato Kaelin all testified in the criminal trial they had entered Simpson’s house through a back door of the house.

You opinion is wrong and your accusation that the detectives lied about this is false.

bobaugust

[martin II]

William
i had not seen your kato testimony when i posted mine.
it was marcus allen.

[bobaugust]

Oh, what a tangled web you weave... but step into my parlor...The original statement was whether or not there were "phone records" and I reminded you there was a difference between phone records and phone bills. You now want to say "telephone bill". With all due respect, the answer to your question is none of your business.

Telephone bills are telephone records and all the telephone records used in this case were telephone bills. As to other records in June 1994 that you say do show incoming calls I have asked you to support that claim yet you have failed to do so.

The only reason I asked you if you have a land line telephone is if you do then all you have to do is look at your telephone bill and you will see the proof that my statement is correct that land line telephone bills do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have never said that Ms.Arnelle had a cell phone but I did point out that she may have based on a "logical supposition", a term you use and allowed yourself. The bottom line, be it cellular or land, is that there is no evidence to support you so-claimed logical supposition that Simpson called Ms. Arnelle and asked her to do anything.:);):cool:

I was incorrect to have used the word “supposition” and since then I have said it is a logical inference based on the evidence. The evidence in this case, despite your refusal to admit it, is that Arnelle opened the back door to let the detectives into the house, not the front door. The evidence is that the back door was not locked and the house alarm was not on when she opened it. Based on that evidence as well as other evidence found in Simpson’s laundry room all points to Arnelle Simpson as the person who washed that laundry and that leads to the logical inference that Simpson called Arnelle Simpson to help him by destroying incriminating blood evidence.

There is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Exactly, Kato contradicted MF. Do you believe that MF was walking with his eyes closed or looking around for some place to say he found evidence when Kato testified to this,

"Q: Did you follow them while they were going in?

A: All of us walked in, right. I followed them. ", ?

"All of us walked in while they were going in", the testimony is what it is.

I assume this testimony by Kaelin was from the civil trial since you didn’t post the date or who he was questioned by. Kaelin’s criminal trial testimony was far more detailed than his civil trial testimony regarding this issue and Kaelin’s recollection of minor details evidently differed slightly as time passed or were influenced by the questions he was asked. The important fact here is Kaelin clearly and consistently testified every time he was asked about this that he followed Arnelle and the detectives through the back door into Simpson’s house and corroborated the four detectives’ testimony. All five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s story that she opened the front door to let them in the house and proved Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Is this a long way of saying yes to my question, "it took Petrocelli to realize what that LE did not have that much sense, correct"?

My response to your post addressed all the issues you raised and yes I have never seen any evidence at the time of the criminal trial that suggests the prosecutors or the detectives ever figured out why Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I agree and I think OJ let Kato live there free because that was a good way he could keep him from living at Bundy. According to Kato's deposition after he moved with OJ he and Nicole were no longer friends and it was Nicole that cut the friendship.

Kato was tired of the late night talks and $500.00 was a lot to a broke actor.

Why did it matter so much to nicole?

[martin II]

NO.....what you just posted does not show Kato explaining things.

It does.:read:

[martin II]

If that is true, it seems that the beautiful Ms. NBS did not want Simpson to have any friends or may have been jealous of him.

Same thing happened when nicole accused OJ of trying to steal her friend
FAYE.

[martin II]

Anyway Kato had much better facilities at ojs house swimming pool, hot tub, tennis court. At GG he was living in the back yard garage like room.

[martin II]

Katos testimony civil trial.

Kato tried not to have to say it.

Q. And she told you things, for example, in February or March of 1993, you would have these little conversations with her, would you not?

A. Yeah. I don't know the exact dates but we had conversations.

Q. And she indicated to you by March of 1993 that she wanted to get back and remarry O.J. Simpson, didn't she?

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object as beyond the scope and can I have a continuing objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. It was back and forth.

Q. She told you she wanted to remarry O.J. Simpson and the best times of her life was when she was with O.J., isn't that true?

A. I think it was that good time and bad times.

Q. Did she not tell you that the best times of her life were with O.J. Simpson; yes or no, sir?

A. I mean the conversations -- there were times she said that, yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

[weezer]

I think I would feel exactly the same way but I've never been in a sitution similar to the one with Kato going to live with OJ..... so I'm not sure how I would handle that but for some reason I'm thinking it would not be too pretty in some form or another. But I don't know. ;)

obviously Nicole felt betrayed by kato going to live with orenthal -- however he justified it. :shrug:

[weezer]

I'm wondering why anyone is having difficulty understanding that a marriage is made of good and bad. When it's good, it can be very good and when it's bad it can be very bad. I believe Nicole's and orenthal's marriage went to very bad and stayed there.

[martin II]

oj jealous? NO


THE COURT: I'm going to overrule it. You offered evidence as to his state of mind, and I'll permit examination at this point.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had communication with Nicole Brown Simpson throughout the year of 1993, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you had some communication with O.J. Simpson in 1994, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And your state of mind -- and you testified to the grand jury in June of 1994, within two weeks of these murders, that O.J. Simpson was not jealous of Nicole Brown Simpson dating Marcus Allen or anybody else; isn't that true?

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object on relevance grounds, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I didn't know anything that was going on between the two.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I didn't ask you what you knew, sir; I asked you what you testified to.

A. I -- I -- if I could see it -- I don't remember.

Q. All right.

MR. BAKER: May I now read the --

THE COURT: You may.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) (Reading:)

"Q. Did you testify at the grand jury proceeding that O.J. Simpson didn't care whether or not Nicole Brown Simpson was dating or not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And did you think that was a sign of jealousy or lack of jealousy?

"A. I don't know. I didn't know in someone's mind.

"Q. Did you testify at the preliminary hearing that O.J. Simpson didn't care whether Nicole Brown Simpson dated anybody, including Marcus Allen?

"A. Yes. That was going on. I mean, they were dating at both ends, and it seemed like it was okay for them to date.

"Q. And it certainly didn't bother O.J., did it? "

MR. PETROCELLI: Object.

MR. BAKER: "Objection."

"Q. As far as you are aware, Mr. Kaelin?

"A. Yes.

"Q. It did or did not bother O.J. Simpson?

"A. It didn't."

Now, that's what you testified to in your deposition, is it not, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And I take it you were under penalty of perjury in that testimony as to your truthful opinion at that time, correct?

A. My opinion, yes.

Q. And I take it that was your opinion when you testified at the grand jury, in the preliminary hearing, true?

A. True.

Q. All right.

[martin II]

Q. Earlier in your testimony today, you didn't mean to imply to this jury that you didn't have any idea that a limo was going to be at the gate at some time on the evening of June 12, 1994, did you?

A. Well, what it was, when I say a limo before --

Q. Did you mean to imply when this jury --

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. PETROCELLI: He was in the middle of an answer.

MR. BAKER: I wish he'd answer the question.

THE COURT: You may answer.

THE WITNESS: The answer would be normally, the limo driver would be inside the gate. That was the first time I'd seen the limo driver outside the gate.

Q. Had you seen the limos there at all between the months of May and June, when Mr. Simpson was actually in residence at 360 North Rockingham?

A. Yes, I think I've seen it maybe twice.

Q. And you didn't mean to imply to these ladies and gentlemen of the jury, when you testified earlier today, that you didn't have any idea a limo was going to come and pick up Mr. Simpson on June -- the evening of June 12, 1994?

A. I assumed there would be a limo picking him up.

Q. Now, on the 12, after Mr. Simpson returned from the recital, it's your testimony that you then were with him again for a period of time before you went out and got in the jacuzzi, true?

A. That was the time of the recital. After the recital was -- I was in the nook area before I entered the jacuzzi, correct.

Q. And then you chatted with him about the recital and he was very happy about Sydney's performance, correct?

A. Right.

Q. And he indicated to you that he was going to pack, correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. And you went out and got into the jacuzzi, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you don't know where Mr. Simpson was?

A. When I was in the jacuzzi?

Q. Correct.

A. No.

Q. In fact, you didn't know where Mr. Simpson was about 99 percent of the time you were on the grounds of 360 North Rockingham; that would be true, correct?

A. Correct.

[Its just me]

I'm wondering why anyone is having difficulty understanding that a marriage is made of good and bad. When it's good, it can be very good and when it's bad it can be very bad. I believe Nicole's and orenthal's marriage went to very bad and stayed there.

I don't know either. May be they are not familiar with marriage. The marriage was very bad at the time of the murders....but who knows if OJ had not killed her and he had straightened up his act he may have been able to get her back....because at the time he nearly sliced her head off she was finished with him. I think when she gave him back the expensive jewelry he was figuring it out and when she snubbed him at the recital he knew it.

[weezer]

I don't know either. May be they are not familiar with marriage. The marriage was very bad at the time of the murders....but who knows if OJ had not killed her and he had straightened up his act he may have been able to get her back....because at the time he nearly sliced her head off she was finished with him. I think when she gave him back the expensive jewelry he was figuring it out and when she snubbed him at the recital he knew it.

I believe one of the clues as to how desperate he was about Nicole was the fact that he bought her a very expensive lighter and jewelry for her birthday. she gave back the jewelry and kept the lighter. I think she sent a message loud and clear.

[martin II]

obviously Nicole felt betrayed by kato going to live with orenthal -- however he justified it. :shrug:

Why would Nicole feel betrayed because kato had better quarters and was saving $500.00 per mo? That makes no sense.

[weezer]

KATO QUESTIONS ALIBI
By MICHELLE CARUSO in Los Angeles and JERE HESTER in New York

Wednesday, February 28th 1996, 1:95AM

O.J. Simpson's ex-houseguest Brian (Kato) Kaelin said he feared early on that the football legend may have killed his ex-wife and her friend, according to sworn testimony obtained by the Daily News.

Kaelin also claimed that Simpson tried to bully him into providing him an alibi a day after the June 12, 1994, slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

The 700-page deposition marked Kaelin's most complete account yet of the Simpson saga filling in details of his sketchy trial testimony.

Kaelin said he began having "bad thoughts" when he saw his benefactor the morning after the slayings, holding his bleeding middle finger.

"I thought it was possibly that . . . O.J. could have done something," Kaelin testified.

"You mean like murder his wife?" asked Daniel Petrocelli, a lawyer for Goldman's father.

"Possible," Kaelin replied. "I mean it crossed my mind."

The actor, who was summoned to Simpson's Brentwood mansion the day after the killings, said he tried to offer his condolences but suggested Simpson was more interested in firming up his alibi. . ."

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1996/02/28/1996-02-28_kato_questions_alibi.html

[weezer]

maybe she felt betrayed because he knew

". . .Nicole Simpson feared her former husband would kill her with scissors and "get away with it because he's O.J. Simpson." . . .

[martin II]

I don't know either. May be they are not familiar with marriage. The marriage was very bad at the time of the murders....but who knows if OJ had not killed her and he had straightened up his act he may have been able to get her back....because at the time he nearly sliced her head off she was finished with him. I think when she gave him back the expensive jewelry he was figuring it out and when she snubbed him at the recital he knew it.

The first signal to Nicole that oj had move on was the IRS letter and when he
pranced around town with PB.

[weezer]

". . .Nicole Brown Simpson once predicted O.J. Simpson would murder her with scissors and get away with it "because he's O.J. Simpson," Brian "Kato" Kaelin said in his deposition testimony.

Kaelin also told lawyers that Nicole Simpson believed her jealous former husband was spying on her, videotaping her and tapping her telephone.

Questioned for three days earlier this month as part of the wrongful death lawsuits brought against O.J. Simpson, Kaelin also testified that Simpson was upset when he returned from a dance recital hours before the June 12, 1994, stabbing deaths of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. . ."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, WI) Article date:February 28, 1996

[martin II]

maybe she felt betrayed because he knew

". . .Nicole Simpson feared her former husband would kill her with scissors and "get away with it because he's O.J. Simpson." . . .

kato testified that oj did not care that Nicole was going out with Marcus Allen
and didn't care who she was seeing. That oj was not jealous of what Nicole was doing.imo

See above testimony Kato.

[weezer]

". . .MARCH 23
The prosecution concluded its direct examination of Brian "Kato" Kaelin, with Marcia Clark pressing him about his reasons for not moving in with Nicole Brown Simpson at her condominium.

The intense questioning was aimed at portraying Simpson as a possessive ex-husband who would do almost anything to keep men away from his former wife.

Kaelin testified that Simpson had told him it "wasn't right" that Kaelin live under the same roof with Nicole Simpson while the two were trying to reconcile. But Clark tried to get Kaelin to admit that Simpson was really worried about a possible sexual relationship between Kaelin and Nicole Simpson.

Kaelin previously testified that he planned to move into a room in Nicole Simpson's condominium that she purchased in Janaury 1994.

"Did she try to get you to move out of (Simpson's estate on) Rockingham?" Clark asked.

"Yes," he said.

When Clark again asked him why didn't move, Kaelin said, Simpson "didn't say, because of having romance with her. That didn't come up like that because I think it was a given that I wasn't. But he was saying it wasn't right for you to be, a man-to-man thing, where you are going to be in the same house with his children and Nicole. They're trying to work things out, so, I moved out."

Clark countered: "And he never said 'I don't like the idea of a man living under the same roof with Nicole?' He never said that?"

"That it wasn't right for me, to be in the same house, a man, in that same house with Nicole and the children," he said.

"What did you take that to mean, Mr. Kaelin?" Clark asked again.

"That it could possibly have been that he was thinking that I might be with Nicole," Kaelin said.

"Sexually?" Clark asked.

"Possibly, that he was thinking that, yes," Kaelin said. . ."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.simpson3/index.html

[Its just me]

kato testified that oj did not care that Nicole was going out with Marcus Allen
and didn't care who she was seeing. That oj was not jealous of what Nicole was doing.imo

See above testimony Kato.

MIAMI - O.J. Simpson's violent jealous streak didn't die with his ex-wife, Nicole Brown.



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/love_fury_is_deja_juice_WHL1Onsw33aMa2yUIH3r3M

[weezer]

MIAMI - O.J. Simpson's violent jealous streak didn't die with his ex-wife, Nicole Brown.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/love_fury_is_deja_juice_WHL1Onsw33aMa2yUIH3r3M

the article is right -- deja juice all over again:

". . .The standoff lasted less than 15 minutes, ending when the wife dialed police. The Juice then drove off. . ."

run orenthal, run. :punch:

[martin II]

". . .Nicole Brown Simpson once predicted O.J. Simpson would murder her with scissors and get away with it "because he's O.J. Simpson," Brian "Kato" Kaelin said in his deposition testimony.

Kaelin also told lawyers that Nicole Simpson believed her jealous former husband was spying on her, videotaping her and tapping her telephone.

Questioned for three days earlier this month as part of the wrongful death lawsuits brought against O.J. Simpson, Kaelin also testified that Simpson was upset when he returned from a dance recital hours before the June 12, 1994, stabbing deaths of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. . ."Katos testimoy proves that oj was not angry,jealous,upset,mad or anything but
pleased with his daughters performance.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, WI) Article date:February 28, 1996

The reporter read half of katos testimony. hahaha

[weezer]

this has to be my favorite post of the day!

"The first signal to Nicole that oj had move on was the IRS letter and when he pranced around town with PB. . ."

the mystery of whose panties were in the wash has been solved. ;)

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I was unaware that the beautiful Ms. NBS (I hope that my referring to Ms. NBS as beautiful is not in any manner upsetting anyone but, if it is let me know) had romantic feelings for Kato and, if she did, I understand, as hell hath no furry..."

William,

According to his "non-book", yes, Nicole did have romantic feelings for Kato.

[GreenIce]

In my opinion there is enough evidence and I've pointed some out that Nicole was was a trophy for "OJ". That is nothing negative about Nicole but the opposite....I'm sorry she never got to enjoy a faithful husband who she wasn't afraid of. I base my opinion from Nicole's own hand written words.

IJM,

For the record, if Nicole was a trophy wife, she would still be still be living at Rockingham.

[GreenIce]

The knife that was on the counter was found there because it was left there and the "friend" on the phone who made the beautiful Ms. NBS cry, was not referred to as "daddy".

William,

In Lange and VA's book, Lange makes an interesting comment. He feels that is was very possible that Nicole was given a warning that she was in danger that night and that is why she took the knife out. Okay, so who gave her the warning?

What I find so interesting about G Nation, even when Faye Resnick tells the world that she was the one on the phone with Nicole and that Nicole was giggling, not crying, G's still insist on saying it was Simpson.

Even Nicole's family had to back off their statements about this. It is obvious the police knew who this person was. Granted, they couldn't force Faye to testify about this but it does make you wonder why they ignored this and showed no interest in Nicole that night. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I don't know how you get that....if that was true Nicole could have let Kato live with her for free. I think Nicole was hurt because Kato allowed OJ to manipulate him.

One can jump too far out of the box. IMHOO

IJM,

Kato was a grown man. He went with the better deal. OJ did not force Kato to accept his offer. Kato was not forced to live at Rockingham.

I can understand why Nicole may have felt that way but her feelings do not mean it is the truth of the matter.

[GreenIce]

Thank you for acknowledging that I did not say anything about skin color and explaining where the "trophy" wife came from. Since I had recently posted about Nicole being OJ's trophy, and on the subject of Sydney and Justin agreeing to the book and considering you had replied to me I assumed you were referring to my posts.


This is a snip from your post that caused the confussion.
Can anyone blame Sydney and Justin for agreeing to the book when they know the media has painted their parents' marriage so wrong? I think the biggest insult to Nicole and her children is to call her a "trophy" wife and there father's love for their mother was only based on the color of their mother's skin.

IJM,

Sometimes I don't read all of the posts---only because I see a sentence or two and post to that.

I will watch it in the future. Fgump2 is one person that I make sure I always read the whole post because, I have made this mistake before.

However, I still think it is an insult to call any woman a trophy wife, unless she freely admits that she is one.

[GreenIce]

If I remember correctly the video you are referring to was found by the defense stored in a drawer since it was never intended to be used as evidence in this case. It was made for insurance purposes only, to show what Simpson’s house looked like after the police were finished with their search and all the evidence was collected. The portion of the video showing Simpson’s laundry room and washing machine was first shown in court on July 20, 1995, over a year after Kaelin, Fuhrman, and Vannatter testified in the preliminary hearing to entering Simpson’s house through the back of the house, not the front of the house. And four to five months after the four detectives and Kato Kaelin all testified in the criminal trial they had entered Simpson’s house through a back door of the house.

You opinion is wrong and your accusation that the detectives lied about this is false.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

It was the DA's who tried to say that the video was only for insurance purposes and therefore it should not be used. I believe that was their position because of the socks.

However, unless the LAPD is known for destroying washing machines and dryers or their is a problem of cops stealing laundry, it is fair to say that the video was taken not just for insurance purposes, IMO.

[Its just me]

IJM,

For the record, if Nicole was a trophy wife, she would still be still be living at Rockingham.


Very interesting comment.

[GreenIce]

Kato got tired of the late nite wake ups to talk.

Nicoles anger at Kato extended to her making some signs for the kids that were taken to Rockingham. She had the kids go to Katos room and show him the signs. They read "kato is a bum. He does not work" as they shouted at him.

She had ordered oj that on any further visits to his house she did not want to see Michaell or Katos face.
O.J. Simpson

Martin,

I never knew about this. Was this in the testimony? Was this in a depo?

[GreenIce]

Very interesting comment.

IJM,

Do you care to know why? It won't hurt my feelings if you say no.

Since you insisted:)

If Nicole was a trophy wife, she would not have cared what Simpson did. She never would have been so devastated by his affairs. She never would have had to divorce Simpson to live the life she wanted to live. IMO.

[GreenIce]

My response to your post addressed all the issues you raised and yes I have never seen any evidence at the time of the criminal trial that suggests the prosecutors or the detectives ever figured out why Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

There was nothing to figure out by the DA's--Arnelle was telling the truth. She had nothing to gain by lying about anything.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

It was the DA's who tried to say that the video was only for insurance purposes and therefore it should not be used. I believe that was their position because of the socks.

However, unless the LAPD is known for destroying washing machines and dryers or their is a problem of cops stealing laundry, it is fair to say that the video was taken not just for insurance purposes, IMO.

You are incorrect. Ford was instructed to video tape every room in the house including the laundry room, after evidence was collected.

July 19, 1995 Willie Ford

MR. COCHRAN: And did Detective Harper give you some instructions or tell you what he wanted you to do with regard to that location?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what was that?
MR. FORD: To videotape the personal property of Mr. Simpson outside--from outside as well as the interior of his home, starting outside first.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so your idea, your role was to videotape all the personal property, both outside and inside Mr. Simpson's residence; is that correct?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And what you were trying to do in going through the exterior and interior of the house was to shoot anything that was out; isn't that correct?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And your instructions were to shoot any and all objects that were out and any and all clothes that were out--
MR. FORD: Yes.

*

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you didn't go to Rockingham to videotape evidence, did you?
MR. FORD: This is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape the collection process, did you?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape Fung, right?
MR. FORD: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Or Mazzola?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: Or the detectives?
MR. FORD: Right.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to record conversations, did you?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: Tell the jury, Mr. Ford, why did you go out to Rockingham that day?
MR. FORD: I was called by the request of the detectives at the Rockingham location to videotape all the personal effects of Mr. Simpson, just in case when they are getting ready to lock up--
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FORD: --they are getting ready to lock up the location, just in case any of the items were reported missing, and the tape was never to be used as evidence; it was only a record to show what was there when LAPD finished their investigation, and to leave.
MR. DARDEN: When Mr. Cochran asked you if you were there to shoot anything and everything, that was true, correct?
MR. FORD: That was true.
MR. DARDEN: You were there to shoot valuables, right?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: You were there to document the way the house looked after LAPD completed a search; is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: That assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Did you videotape the property to show the way it looked after the search--
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor.
MR. DARDEN: --was completed?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: After the search was completed, sir?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And you told Mr. Neufeld at that time, didn't you, that you only shot rooms after they were processed by the criminalist?
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, that is hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: That is no secret, is it?
MR. FORD: No secret.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you didn't go there to assist in any criminal investigation, did you?
MR. FORD: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Or in any criminal prosecution, right?
MR. FORD: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: You weren't there as an agent of the D.A.'s office were you, Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD: That's correct.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

There was nothing to figure out by the DA's--Arnelle was telling the truth. She had nothing to gain by lying about anything.

You are incorrect. Five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated story that she opened the front door to let the detectives into the house and proved that Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

If I remember correctly the video you are referring to was found by the defense stored in a drawer since it was never intended to be used as evidence in this case. It was made for insurance purposes only, to show what Simpson’s house looked like after the police were finished with their search and all the evidence was collected. The portion of the video showing Simpson’s laundry room and washing machine was first shown in court on July 20, 1995, over a year after Kaelin, Fuhrman, and Vannatter testified in the preliminary hearing to entering Simpson’s house through the back of the house, not the front of the house. And four to five months after the four detectives and Kato Kaelin all testified in the criminal trial they had entered Simpson’s house through a back door of the house.

You opinion is wrong and your accusation that the detectives lied about this is false.

bobaugust

Whether it was intended to be used as evidence or not it was used to impeach the testimony of the detectives, who, IMHO, testilied.

[William Anthony]

Telephone bills are telephone records and all the telephone records used in this case were telephone bills. As to other records in June 1994 that you say do show incoming calls I have asked you to support that claim yet you have failed to do so.

The only reason I asked you if you have a land line telephone is if you do then all you have to do is look at your telephone bill and you will see the proof that my statement is correct that land line telephone bills do not show incoming calls unless they are collect calls.

bobaugust

Having been actually involved in trying to supoena phone records, which come from phone companies from which they prepare customer phone bills, I know the difference. A bill is a record showing how much one owes whereas a record is a list of all incoming and outgoing calls. :);):cool:

[Its just me]

IJM,

Do you care to know why? It won't hurt my feelings if you say no.

Since you insisted:)

If Nicole was a trophy wife, she would not have cared what Simpson did. She never would have been so devastated by his affairs. She never would have had to divorce Simpson to live the life she wanted to live. IMO.


We Americans are probably the worst people in the world to take words and change the definition….start using them and they become next to Webster. In my neck of the woods……Ann is John’s trophy means just that…it’s John’s no matter how Ann feels about it. On the flip side John is Ann’s prize catch…..no matter how John feels about it.

Just saying because us Southern folks can be misunderstood…..to be truthful some stranger may come thru and hear a few folks talking and they wouldn’t know what in the hell they were talking about. :eek: All kind of adjectives, pronouns, verbs and nouns used. I think that’s true with different regions here in the US and all over the world. I know it is in Mexico.

So with all that mess I said up above and since you brought the trophy subject up again........I'm just saying......I disagree with your post. :)

[William Anthony]

I was incorrect to have used the word “supposition” and since then I have said it is a logical inference based on the evidence. The evidence in this case, despite your refusal to admit it, is that Arnelle opened the back door to let the detectives into the house, not the front door. The evidence is that the back door was not locked and the house alarm was not on when she opened it. Based on that evidence as well as other evidence found in Simpson’s laundry room all points to Arnelle Simpson as the person who washed that laundry and that leads to the logical inference that Simpson called Arnelle Simpson to help him by destroying incriminating blood evidence.

There is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994.

bobaugust

IMHOm you spoke the truth when you said supposition, as with many witnesses in the case when they said certain things. For instance, the detectives that said the beautiful Ms. Arnelle (if my use of the word beautiful in describing Ms. Arnelle is in anyway upsetting to anyone please let me know, as I believe it may be) unlocked the door, as she testified and the technology showed that the only door that could be unlocked was the front, as she testified.

There is no evidence that she did not and to prove that there was an absence of a phone record indicating a phone call, then the onus is on the one making the claim to show that she did not own a cell phone.

[William Anthony]

I assume this testimony by Kaelin was from the civil trial since you didn’t post the date or who he was questioned by. Kaelin’s criminal trial testimony was far more detailed than his civil trial testimony regarding this issue and Kaelin’s recollection of minor details evidently differed slightly as time passed or were influenced by the questions he was asked. The important fact here is Kaelin clearly and consistently testified every time he was asked about this that he followed Arnelle and the detectives through the back door into Simpson’s house and corroborated the four detectives’ testimony. All five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s story that she opened the front door to let them in the house and proved Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

Interesting, you have said that Park's memory improved over age, even though their is evidence showing that his memory was suggested and his testimony coached but here you want to credit Kato's testimony as being improved.

[William Anthony]

My response to your post addressed all the issues you raised and yes I have never seen any evidence at the time of the criminal trial that suggests the prosecutors or the detectives ever figured out why Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

Oh, Petrocelli had more sense than all LE at the crime scenes and he never even went there and does not know for sure whether or not there was ever a freshly washed or wet sweatsuit in a washing machine. I think I understand why you believe Petrocelli.:);):cool:

[Its just me]

IMHOm you spoke the truth when you said supposition, as with many witnesses in the case when they said certain things. For instance, the detectives that said the beautiful Ms. Arnelle (if my use of the word beautiful in describing Ms. Arnelle is in anyway upsetting to anyone please let me know, as I believe it may be) unlocked the door, as she testified and the technology showed that the only door that could be unlocked was the front, as she testified.

There is no evidence that she did not and to prove that there was an absence of a phone record indicating a phone call, then the onus is on the one making the claim to show that she did not own a cell phone.

Using beautiful to describe Arnelle doesn't upset me because I've always felt you used it to agitate someone for some reason. You bringing it up and saying you believe it may upset someone confirm IMHOO that I have been correct all along. You continuing to do so even thou you believe it upsets someone doesn't make you look too beautiful so much so I’m discrediting what you said in our discussion of how good you would actually be with the free rent. But that's just me and my opinion.

ETA: You did say to let you know.

[weezer]

Using beautiful to describe Arnelle doesn't upset me because I've always felt you used it to agitate someone for some reason. You bringing it up and saying you believe it may upset someone confirm IMHOO that I have been correct all along. You continuing to do so even thou you believe it upsets someone doesn't make you look too beautiful so much so I’m discrediting what you said in our discussion of how good you would actually be with the free rent. But that's just me and my opinion.

ETA: You did say to let you know.

using the word 'beautiful' to describe arnelle and/or Nicole adds nothing -- it is simply being used to agitate. I also understand that 'agitating' is also the reason some posters are here. :shrug:

[martin II]

Martin,

I never knew about this. Was this in the testimony? Was this in a depo?

its in "if i did it?

[William Anthony]

Using beautiful to describe Arnelle doesn't upset me because I've always felt you used it to agitate someone for some reason. You bringing it up and saying you believe it may upset someone confirm IMHOO that I have been correct all along. You continuing to do so even thou you believe it upsets someone doesn't make you look too beautiful so much so I’m discrediting what you said in our discussion of how good you would actually be with the free rent. But that's just me and my opinion.

ETA: You did say to let you know.

Of course I said to let me know and since you have I see no reason to stop using it, since it does not upset you and I see you have no objection to me using it with Ms. NBS (you applied that measuring stick thing evenly, even though you did not speak to my use of it with Ms. NBS:);)). I was agitated that Ms. Arnelle was called a liar and implicated in criminal conduct without their being one shred of proof but I never voice my agitation, just my protestation, as I realized that, IMHO, being agitated is just a way of life so long if no rules have been violated. You may try to discredit what I said in regard to Kato accepting free rent and Ms. NBS' reaction thereto, but one has nothing to do with the other, although I think I understand why you would like to discredit it.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

using the word 'beautiful' to describe arnelle and/or Nicole adds nothing -- it is simply being used to agitate. I also understand that 'agitating' is also the reason some posters are here. :shrug:

Please, explain how my calling a woman beautiful can agitate you, if it does? There have been many posts and links on the Ms. NBS thread in regard to her beauty and none of those were redacted, because they added nothing, which I do believe you posted some of those.

[William Anthony]

William,

According to his "non-book", yes, Nicole did have romantic feelings for Kato.

GreenIce,

Would this be Kato's non-book?

[martin II]

We Americans are probably the worst people in the world to take words and change the definition….start using them and they become next to Webster. In my neck of the woods……Ann is John’s trophy means just that…it’s John’s no matter how Ann feels about it. On the flip side John is Ann’s prize catch…..no matter how John feels about it.

Just saying because us Southern folks can be misunderstood…..to be truthful some stranger may come thru and hear a few folks talking and they wouldn’t know what in the hell they were talking about. :eek: All kind of adjectives, pronouns, verbs and nouns used. I think that’s true with different regions here in the US and all over the world. I know it is in Mexico.

So with all that mess I said up above and since you brought the trophy subject up again........I'm just saying......I disagree with your post. :)

As you know this is a international message board. most took your trpohy wife as a insult to nicole meaning that their use of the word had very different conotations than what you claim is common where you are.

[Its just me]

Of course I said to let me know and since you have I see no reason to stop using it, since it does not upset you and I see you have no objection to me using it with Ms. NBS (you applied that measuring stick thing evenly, even though you did not speak to my use of it with Ms. NBS:);)). I was agitated that Ms. Arnelle was called a liar and implicated in criminal conduct without their being one shred of proof but I never voice my agitation, just my protestation, as I realized that, IMHO, being agitated is just a way of life so long if no rules have been violated. You may try to discredit what I said in regard to Kato accepting free rent and Ms. NBS' reaction thereto, but one has nothing to do with the other, although I think I understand why you would like to discredit it.:);):cool:
I have noticed you using beautiful with Nicole but since that was not part of your post I didn't address it.

I'm glad this is out in the open.....Your right agitation is a part of all our lives and we all tend to handle it with revenge toward the one that agitated. Life is short at the longest and IMHOO we should strive to make it as peasant as possible.....because I love people and that includes you and everyone everywhere.....I wish each of us would consider forgiveness to those we feel have offended us and learn that revenge is not ours but that belongs only to God.

Since it's a beautiful Sunday morning and I'm on my way to church I thought I throw that little jewel in there....I sincerely pray "I" learn to fully practice every day what I preach on Sunday. :) May God Bless and have a good day. :rose: No offense intended.... truly.... it's all from the depth of my heart with good intentions to possible make this short life more pleasant.

[weezer]

of course we all understood what 'trophy wife' meant in IJM's post but you must remember that at least one poster obviously lives in an area where manufacturer labels can't be removed by the owner after purchasing an article and that the 'jaws of life' used to free victims in car crashes is known as 'lockjaws of life'. I'm just saying. . . .:shrug:

trophy wife –noun the young, often second, wife of a rich middle-aged man.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1985–90, Americanism
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

trophy wife
n. An attractive, young wife married to a usually older, affluent man.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[William Anthony]

obviously Nicole felt betrayed by kato going to live with orenthal -- however he justified it. :shrug:

Why would she feel betrayed if she was not controlling?

[William Anthony]

I'm wondering why anyone is having difficulty understanding that a marriage is made of good and bad. When it's good, it can be very good and when it's bad it can be very bad. I believe Nicole's and orenthal's marriage went to very bad and stayed there.

Not according to Kato, who I believe was closer than any of us.

[William Anthony]

I don't know either. May be they are not familiar with marriage. The marriage was very bad at the time of the murders....but who knows if OJ had not killed her and he had straightened up his act he may have been able to get her back....because at the time he nearly sliced her head off she was finished with him. I think when she gave him back the expensive jewelry he was figuring it out and when she snubbed him at the recital he knew it.

There was no marriage at the time of the murders.

[William Anthony]

I have noticed you using beautiful with Nicole but since that was not part of your post I didn't address it.

I'm glad this is out in the open.....Your right agitation is a part of all our lives and we all tend to handle it with revenge toward the one that agitated. Life is short at the longest and IMHOO we should strive to make it as peasant as possible.....because I love people and that includes you and everyone everywhere.....I wish each of us would consider forgiveness to those we feel have offended us and learn that revenge is not ours but that belongs only to God.

Since it's a beautiful Sunday morning and I'm on my way to church I thought I throw that little jewel in there....I sincerely pray "I" learn to fully practice every day what I preach on Sunday. :) May God Bless and have a good day. :rose: No offense intended.... truly.... it's all from the depth of my heart with good intentions to possible make this short life more pleasant.

I too am off to church this morning but I did in a separate post ask the identical thing about Ms. NBS. Maybe, you missed it. I do not handle it as revenge or see it that way. I see it as fair play. I hope that all of us will hold God's love and word in our hearts and minds each and every day. I hope the church doesn't fall over when I step in. :)

[William Anthony]

of course we all understood what 'trophy wife' meant in IJM's post but you must remember that at least one poster obviously lives in an area where manufacturer labels can't be removed by the owner after purchasing an article and that the 'jaws of life' used to free victims in car crashes is known as 'lockjaws of life'. I'm just saying. . . .:shrug:

trophy wife –noun the young, often second, wife of a rich middle-aged man.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1985–90, Americanism
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

trophy wife
n. An attractive, young wife married to a usually older, affluent man.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

n. An attractive

[weezer]

I find any reference to anyone believing orenthal guilty of butchering two human beings as being the 'G nation' offensive unless of course it is applied fairly. In which case, the opposing side would have a moniker.

[weezer]

I find unsubstantiated/unsupported posts regarding Nicole and kato having a 'romantic/sexual' relationship to be offensive unless there are links supplied.

[martin II]

I find unsubstantiated/unsupported posts regarding Nicole and kato having a 'romantic/sexual' relationship to be offensive unless there are links supplied.

Why are you offended. Are you offended by the word trophy wife to describe her.
I think it was reported in katos book.

[GreenIce]

You are incorrect. Ford was instructed to video tape every room in the house including the laundry room, after evidence was collected.

July 19, 1995 Willie Ford

MR. COCHRAN: And did Detective Harper give you some instructions or tell you what he wanted you to do with regard to that location?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what was that?
MR. FORD: To videotape the personal property of Mr. Simpson outside--from outside as well as the interior of his home, starting outside first.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so your idea, your role was to videotape all the personal property, both outside and inside Mr. Simpson's residence; is that correct?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And what you were trying to do in going through the exterior and interior of the house was to shoot anything that was out; isn't that correct?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And your instructions were to shoot any and all objects that were out and any and all clothes that were out--
MR. FORD: Yes.

*

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you didn't go to Rockingham to videotape evidence, did you?
MR. FORD: This is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape the collection process, did you?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape Fung, right?
MR. FORD: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Or Mazzola?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: Or the detectives?
MR. FORD: Right.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to record conversations, did you?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: Tell the jury, Mr. Ford, why did you go out to Rockingham that day?
MR. FORD: I was called by the request of the detectives at the Rockingham location to videotape all the personal effects of Mr. Simpson, just in case when they are getting ready to lock up--
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FORD: --they are getting ready to lock up the location, just in case any of the items were reported missing, and the tape was never to be used as evidence; it was only a record to show what was there when LAPD finished their investigation, and to leave.
MR. DARDEN: When Mr. Cochran asked you if you were there to shoot anything and everything, that was true, correct?
MR. FORD: That was true.
MR. DARDEN: You were there to shoot valuables, right?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: You were there to document the way the house looked after LAPD completed a search; is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: That assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Did you videotape the property to show the way it looked after the search--
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor.
MR. DARDEN: --was completed?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: After the search was completed, sir?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And you told Mr. Neufeld at that time, didn't you, that you only shot rooms after they were processed by the criminalist?
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, that is hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: That is no secret, is it?
MR. FORD: No secret.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you didn't go there to assist in any criminal investigation, did you?
MR. FORD: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Or in any criminal prosecution, right?
MR. FORD: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: You weren't there as an agent of the D.A.'s office were you, Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD: That's correct.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

So Mr. Ford is confirming that the LAPD is known to steal clothes from homes where they are conducting a search? They are known for stealing clothes from a washing machine? They are known for destroying washers and dryers.

Reality check, if those dark items were sweats, the DA's would have been told a different story and insisted the tape was done to record evidence.

[martin II]

William

This is another example of katos conflicting testimony leaning towards helping the plantiff BUT caught in his different testimony.
Baker--civil trial.
Di kato make stuff up about the bag?????

Q. And you told Mark Elliott on December 27, 1994 you went into the kitchen area with Mr. Simpson, right behind him or a little bit behind him, true?

A. Right, never fully into the kitchen though. I wasn't in the kitchen.

Q. If you're in the kitchen area, you're in the kitchen, fair enough, can we agree at least on that?

A. Okay.

Q. Thanks.

Now, then, is it your testimony in this courtroom today, that after you left the kitchen, you then went out and then there was some deal about who picks up a duffel bag around the Bentley?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many times have you testified, Mr. Kaelin, before today, that when Mr. Simpson left the kitchen area, he stopped, talked to you and said "It's late, you set the alarm," and got right into the limo? How many times?

A. I don't know.

I don't think those are the exact words.

Q. Well, you certainly testified that from the kitchen area Mr. Simpson talked to you about the alarm. You didn't testify to that this morning either, did you?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

MR. BAKER: Let me go back and lay a foundation.

A. Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you testified here today, sir, you testified that after you, quote, didn't go into the kitchen and Mr. Simpson did go into the kitchen, you then walked out, there was a duffel bag or some bag behind the Bentley, you went to go get it. You of course didn't know whether he even wanted that bag when you attempted to go get it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, argumentative, it misstates the record, it's a speech. I think if Mr. Baker goes back and reviews the testimony --

MR. BAKER: I don't need a speech from you, Mr. Petrocelli.

MR. PETROCELLI: Anyway, misstates the testimony.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you walked out of the kitchen, you didn't know if he wanted any bag because you had no conversation about any bag behind the Bentley, isn't that true, sir?

A. True.

Q. And you testified that after you -- both of you left the house, you started to walk over to the Bentley to pick up a bag, right, and he said, oh no, don't do that?

A. He said that, yes.

Q. And you have heretofore testified --

MR. BAKER: Can you bring that up.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page and line, please.

MR. P. BAKER: 19912.

MR. PETROCELLI: Is this the trial testimony?

MR. BAKER: It is.

MR. PETROCELLI: One second, please.

199 what?

MR. P. BAKER: 19912, line 15.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

(Transcript displayed.)

MR. BAKER: Pull it up.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Question by Ms. Clark in the criminal trial was -- (Reading.)

After you had the conversation about the alarm control panel, what happened next? Your answer: Hum, he got into the limo to catch the flight.

That's what you testified to, was it not, sir?

A. Right.

Q. And you didn't testify to any attempt to get a duffel bag or anything else, did you?

A. I thought I did. Somewhere in the trial it came up.

Q. I see.

And you didn't testify that the first time you knew the alarm wasn't set is when you got a telephone call from O.J. Simpson while you were on the phone to Rachel Ferrara, isn't that true?

A. Correct, called me to set the alarm.

Q. You testified here in the courtroom today that the first time you knew that you had the duty to set the alarm is when you got a phone call from Mr. Simpson, after you'd gone back to your room, isn't that true?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Question is vague as to duty. He testified as to --

MR. BAKER: A request.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- two conversations about the alarm.

MR. BAKER: Well, I'm going to object.

THE COURT: Sustained. There's no testimony that -- regarding beauty -- duty.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know what that means.

MR. BAKER: Request. Let me -- I apologize.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You testified, sir, in this courtroom today, that the first time Mr. Simpson made a request of you to set the alarm was after he had left in the limousine and you had walked back around the property and gone back to your room and you were on the phone with Rachel Ferrara and you got beeped in on your call waiting service, correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No.

THE COURT: That's not correct. You may tell him it's not correct.

A. That's not correct.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you testified in the criminal trial that as you were going out the front door, Mr. Simpson had requested of you to set the alarm, that he would call you on the telephone and tell you the alarm code number, got into the limo and left, true?

A. Not true.

Q. Now, you were awoken at approximately 6 a.m. on the morning of the 13th, somewhere around there.

MR. PETROCELLI: All beyond the scope of direct. Object. All new area.

THE COURT: Assuming you're going to finish today, Mr. Baker, I'll let you proceed. But if you're going to have him come back, then I will sustain it.

MR. BAKER: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) We're going to finish today, Mr. Kaelin, okay?

A. Okay.

Q. Got it. Those are our marching orders.

Now, 6 o'clock, you're awakened by banging on the door, correct?

A. Approximately, right.

Q. And when you gained consciousness, you go to the door, open the door, and there is Mark Fuhrman, true?

A. Four officers. Mark Fuhrman was one of them.

Q. Mark Fuhrman is the one that comes into your room, is he not?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mark Fuhrman is the one who interrogates you in your room, is he not?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when that door opens and there are four police officers, they identify themselves, do they not, as police officers, correct?

A. They did.

Q. And your -- the very next words out of your mouth is, what's wrong, did O.

[martin II]

I find any reference to anyone believing orenthal guilty of butchering two human beings as being the 'G nation' offensive unless of course it is applied fairly. In which case, the opposing side would have a moniker.

Do you plan to give proof to all the unproven claims you make against oj and his family members?

[GreenIce]

You are incorrect. Five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated story that she opened the front door to let the detectives into the house and proved that Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

No, you are incorrect. At least four of these witnesses have been proven to be liars and often contradict each other on key points. It has been proven that they entered the front door and the lack of beeping noise is proof of that. At least two of these witnesses contradict what door they went through by describing the rooms they walked through.

At least one of these has made mistakes in his testimony and to be honest, did lie about a book that he swore he was not doing. While he refused to see it through. He still lied about it---which leads me to believe that he and Clark had made some sort of agreement. Come to think of it, it was very weak when she made him a hostile witness. That was the time to nail Kato between eyes, but she didn't.

You have never, ever explained why Arnelle would lie about how many detectives would followed her into the house.

And you have never addressed the fact that Arnelle should never have been allowed to unlock the front door and enter the house first.

Never did the police give Arnelle any sense of urgency of getting inside the main house and they showed no concern for anyone who may have injured inside the home.

The detectives again cook their lying gooses when they don't even bother to search the whole house. For the detectives to feel relief that OJ was accounted for means they knew before they were at Rockingham where Simpson wass or they listened to both Kato and Arnelle that Simpson was out of town.

[weezer]

wonder why arnelle didn't turn to the detectives and say, "Hey, the alarm is on -- the house is secure. Wait one sec while I turn it off."

[martin II]

wonder why arnelle didn't turn to the detectives and say, "Hey, the alarm is on -- the house is secure. Wait one sec while I turn it off."

NO reason to do that. She was only truning off a alarm and allowing them to enter.

[weezer]

wonder why arnelle didn't turn to the detectives and say, "Hey, the alarm is on -- the house is secure. Wait one sec while I turn it off."

I believe anyone else would have said it out of pure relief. "The house alarm is on so 'daddy' is okay."

[weezer]

wonder why arnelle didn't turn to the detectives and say, "Hey, the alarm is on -- the house is secure. Wait one sec while I turn it off."

odd that arnelle didn't answer that of course she had to unlock the door -- and the detectives had to wait for her to turn the alarm off and then unlock the door. surely someone would have noticed the wait and said something about it. :punch:

[martin II]

wonder why arnelle didn't turn to the detectives and say, "Hey, the alarm is on -- the house is secure. Wait one sec while I turn it off."

Wonder why the detectives made no notes of what they did at rockingham?
They did not want to have a written record??

[weezer]

wonder why arnelle didn't turn to the detectives and say, "Hey, the alarm is on -- the house is secure. Wait one sec while I turn it off."

or maybe, "The house alarm is on so the maid is okay." :rolleyes:

[rovaan]

All this speculation about whether Arnelle washed a sweatsuit for OJ has prompted me to do some research. If detectives found a sweatsuit of a size to fit OJ in a washing machine with Arnelle’s clothing, they should be fired if they did not collect it. I don’t buy the reasoning that they did not know what OJ was wearing that night. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t know what he was wearing. You see a man’s seatsuit in a washing machine with woman’s clothes at your second crime scene, you collect it and check the washing machine pipes for blood. So I started checking out the stories coming out at the time. This is what I found:


LA Times
Friday, June 17, 1994
Home Edition
Section: PART A
Page: A-1
By: JIM NEWTON and CARLA HALL
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

“Investigators also are combing clothing, shoes and other items seized from Simpson's home to determine whether any of them contain bloodstains and to see whether the treads
on any of his shoes match tracks found at the crime scene, sources said. At least some of that clothing was taken from a washing machine at Simpson's home, sources said,
adding that detectives are trying to determine whether he was trying to wash out bloodstains.”

Simpson's Ex-Wife and Her Friend Are Buried Mourning: Separate...
Pay-Per-View - Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Jun 17, 1994
At least some of that clothing was taken from a washing machine at Simpson's home, sources said, adding that detectives are trying to determine whether he ...

OJ's DEFENSE GOES ON THE OFFENSE // Team wants to show `he didn't …
Pay-Per-View - USA TODAY - ProQuest Archiver - Jul 21, 1994
District Attorney Gil Garcetti says reports of blood found in Simpson's washing machine are false. Police are still hopeful that more conclusive DNA tests ...


In Vanatter and Lange’s book, p. 204:

“Lange continues, “Marcia, there’re always rumors about leaks. Hell, we hear there’s a leak in the DA’s office. The fact is that people are talking about this case. And most of the talk is based on ‘overhear’-somebody overhears something walking past your desk or mine or anyone else involved in this case. I mean, look what is coming out: half-truths. Look at that story about the bloody clothes in Simpson’s washing machine. That’s just another reason why I’m asking you to push for the gag order.”

If the sweatsuit would have been for a man the size of OJ, we would have heard about it at the criminal trial and its fibers would have been check to see if they were consistant with fibers found at the crime scene. As for whether Arnelle took the detectives to the back door or the front door, I think she would have done what was typical for her to do in her just woken state. At that time of the morning, she would have assumed the alarm was set and gone to the front door. UNLESS, the detectives had Westec turn off the alarm and already been inside the house. They may have opened the back door.

[rovaan]

I also found this testimony interesting.

From the May 30 Criminal testimony of Westec:
Q NOW, ARE THERE ALSO SECURITY SENSORS?
A YES. THERE ARE SENSORS ON MANY OF THE DOORS.
Q OKAY.
BEFORE I ASK YOU WHERE THEY ARE, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE MAID'S QUARTERS AND KAELIN'S ROOM IN THE
LOWER PORTION OF THE DIAGRAM THERE, ARE THERE ANY SECURITY SENSORS OR ENTRY
PANELS LOCATED IN ANY OF THOSE ROOMS?
A NO. THERE IS -- WE AT ONE TIME BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF A
SENSOR. BUT WHEN -- THE DAY I WAS OUT AT THE PROPERTY, THE SENSOR WAS NOT
CONNECTED TO THE STAIR ROOM OR THE ROOMS FROM KATO'S ROOM TO THE BILLIARD
ROOM, BUT THERE IS NO ON AND OFF KEYPAD OF ANY TYPE TO DEACTIVATE THE ALARM
SYSTEM WITH THE SAME TYPE OF KEYPADS THAT ARE INSTALLED AT ANY ONE OF THESE
FOUR LOCATIONS.
Q OKAY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS THEN, THERE IS NO -- THERE ARE NO SECURITY SENSORS
ANYWHERE FROM THE OFFICE HERE TO THE MAID'S ROOM?
A THAT'S CORRECT.

My recollection is that the back door is between Kato's room and the billard room.

[weezer]

All this speculation about whether Arnelle washed a sweatsuit for OJ has prompted me to do some research. If detectives found a sweatsuit of a size to fit OJ in a washing machine with Arnelle’s clothing, they should be fired if they did not collect it. I don’t buy the reasoning that they did not know what OJ was wearing that night. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t know what he was wearing. You see a man’s seatsuit in a washing machine with woman’s clothes at your second crime scene, you collect it and check the washing machine pipes for blood. So I started checking out the stories coming out at the time. This is what I found:


LA Times
Friday, June 17, 1994
Home Edition
Section: PART A
Page: A-1
By: JIM NEWTON and CARLA HALL
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

“Investigators also are combing clothing, shoes and other items seized from Simpson's home to determine whether any of them contain bloodstains and to see whether the treads
on any of his shoes match tracks found at the crime scene, sources said. At least some of that clothing was taken from a washing machine at Simpson's home, sources said,
adding that detectives are trying to determine whether he was trying to wash out bloodstains.”

Simpson's Ex-Wife and Her Friend Are Buried Mourning: Separate...
Pay-Per-View - Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Jun 17, 1994
At least some of that clothing was taken from a washing machine at Simpson's home, sources said, adding that detectives are trying to determine whether he ...

OJ's DEFENSE GOES ON THE OFFENSE // Team wants to show `he didn't …
Pay-Per-View - USA TODAY - ProQuest Archiver - Jul 21, 1994
District Attorney Gil Garcetti says reports of blood found in Simpson's washing machine are false. Police are still hopeful that more conclusive DNA tests ...


In Vanatter and Lange’s book, p. 204:

“Lange continues, “Marcia, there’re always rumors about leaks. Hell, we hear there’s a leak in the DA’s office. The fact is that people are talking about this case. And most of the talk is based on ‘overhear’-somebody overhears something walking past your desk or mine or anyone else involved in this case. I mean, look what is coming out: half-truths. Look at that story about the bloody clothes in Simpson’s washing machine. That’s just another reason why I’m asking you to push for the gag order.”

If the sweatsuit would have been for a man the size of OJ, we would have heard about it at the criminal trial and its fibers would have been check to see if they were consistant with fibers found at the crime scene. As for whether Arnelle took the detectives to the back door or the front door, I think she would have done what was typical for her to do in her just woken state. At that time of the morning, she would have assumed the alarm was set and gone to the front door. UNLESS, the detectives had Westec turn off the alarm and already been inside the house. They may have opened the back door.

I'm assuming the last paragraph is your speculation?

[weezer]

I also found this testimony interesting.

From the May 30 Criminal testimony of Westec:
Q NOW, ARE THERE ALSO SECURITY SENSORS?
A YES. THERE ARE SENSORS ON MANY OF THE DOORS.
Q OKAY.
BEFORE I ASK YOU WHERE THEY ARE, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE MAID'S QUARTERS AND KAELIN'S ROOM IN THE
LOWER PORTION OF THE DIAGRAM THERE, ARE THERE ANY SECURITY SENSORS OR ENTRY
PANELS LOCATED IN ANY OF THOSE ROOMS?
A NO. THERE IS -- WE AT ONE TIME BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF A
SENSOR. BUT WHEN -- THE DAY I WAS OUT AT THE PROPERTY, THE SENSOR WAS NOT
CONNECTED TO THE STAIR ROOM OR THE ROOMS FROM KATO'S ROOM TO THE BILLIARD
ROOM, BUT THERE IS NO ON AND OFF KEYPAD OF ANY TYPE TO DEACTIVATE THE ALARM
SYSTEM WITH THE SAME TYPE OF KEYPADS THAT ARE INSTALLED AT ANY ONE OF THESE
FOUR LOCATIONS.
Q OKAY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS THEN, THERE IS NO -- THERE ARE NO SECURITY SENSORS
ANYWHERE FROM THE OFFICE HERE TO THE MAID'S ROOM?
A THAT'S CORRECT.

My recollection is that the back door is between Kato's room and the billard room.

not sure what point you are making. . .can you please explain.

[William Anthony]

I find any reference to anyone believing orenthal guilty of butchering two human beings as being the 'G nation' offensive unless of course it is applied fairly. In which case, the opposing side would have a moniker.

I would like to pose the moniker wise ones.

[rovaan]

I'm assuming the last paragraph is your speculation?

The last paragraph is my opinion.

[William Anthony]

William

This is another example of katos conflicting testimony leaning towards helping the plantiff BUT caught in his different testimony.
Baker--civil trial.
Di kato make stuff up about the bag?????

Q. And you told Mark Elliott on December 27, 1994 you went into the kitchen area with Mr. Simpson, right behind him or a little bit behind him, true?

A. Right, never fully into the kitchen though. I wasn't in the kitchen.

Q. If you're in the kitchen area, you're in the kitchen, fair enough, can we agree at least on that?

A. Okay.

Q. Thanks.

Now, then, is it your testimony in this courtroom today, that after you left the kitchen, you then went out and then there was some deal about who picks up a duffel bag around the Bentley?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many times have you testified, Mr. Kaelin, before today, that when Mr. Simpson left the kitchen area, he stopped, talked to you and said "It's late, you set the alarm," and got right into the limo? How many times?

A. I don't know.

I don't think those are the exact words.

Q. Well, you certainly testified that from the kitchen area Mr. Simpson talked to you about the alarm. You didn't testify to that this morning either, did you?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

MR. BAKER: Let me go back and lay a foundation.

A. Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you testified here today, sir, you testified that after you, quote, didn't go into the kitchen and Mr. Simpson did go into the kitchen, you then walked out, there was a duffel bag or some bag behind the Bentley, you went to go get it. You of course didn't know whether he even wanted that bag when you attempted to go get it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, argumentative, it misstates the record, it's a speech. I think if Mr. Baker goes back and reviews the testimony --

MR. BAKER: I don't need a speech from you, Mr. Petrocelli.

MR. PETROCELLI: Anyway, misstates the testimony.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you walked out of the kitchen, you didn't know if he wanted any bag because you had no conversation about any bag behind the Bentley, isn't that true, sir?

A. True.

Q. And you testified that after you -- both of you left the house, you started to walk over to the Bentley to pick up a bag, right, and he said, oh no, don't do that?

A. He said that, yes.

Q. And you have heretofore testified --

MR. BAKER: Can you bring that up.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page and line, please.

MR. P. BAKER: 19912.

MR. PETROCELLI: Is this the trial testimony?

MR. BAKER: It is.

MR. PETROCELLI: One second, please.

199 what?

MR. P. BAKER: 19912, line 15.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

(Transcript displayed.)

MR. BAKER: Pull it up.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Question by Ms. Clark in the criminal trial was -- (Reading.)

After you had the conversation about the alarm control panel, what happened next? Your answer: Hum, he got into the limo to catch the flight.

That's what you testified to, was it not, sir?

A. Right.

Q. And you didn't testify to any attempt to get a duffel bag or anything else, did you?

A. I thought I did. Somewhere in the trial it came up.

Q. I see.

And you didn't testify that the first time you knew the alarm wasn't set is when you got a telephone call from O.J. Simpson while you were on the phone to Rachel Ferrara, isn't that true?

A. Correct, called me to set the alarm.

Q. You testified here in the courtroom today that the first time you knew that you had the duty to set the alarm is when you got a phone call from Mr. Simpson, after you'd gone back to your room, isn't that true?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Question is vague as to duty. He testified as to --

MR. BAKER: A request.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- two conversations about the alarm.

MR. BAKER: Well, I'm going to object.

THE COURT: Sustained. There's no testimony that -- regarding beauty -- duty.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know what that means.

MR. BAKER: Request. Let me -- I apologize.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You testified, sir, in this courtroom today, that the first time Mr. Simpson made a request of you to set the alarm was after he had left in the limousine and you had walked back around the property and gone back to your room and you were on the phone with Rachel Ferrara and you got beeped in on your call waiting service, correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No.

THE COURT: That's not correct. You may tell him it's not correct.

A. That's not correct.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you testified in the criminal trial that as you were going out the front door, Mr. Simpson had requested of you to set the alarm, that he would call you on the telephone and tell you the alarm code number, got into the limo and left, true?

A. Not true.

Q. Now, you were awoken at approximately 6 a.m. on the morning of the 13th, somewhere around there.

MR. PETROCELLI: All beyond the scope of direct. Object. All new area.

THE COURT: Assuming you're going to finish today, Mr. Baker, I'll let you proceed. But if you're going to have him come back, then I will sustain it.

MR. BAKER: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) We're going to finish today, Mr. Kaelin, okay?

A. Okay.

Q. Got it. Those are our marching orders.

Now, 6 o'clock, you're awakened by banging on the door, correct?

A. Approximately, right.

Q. And when you gained consciousness, you go to the door, open the door, and there is Mark Fuhrman, true?

A. Four officers. Mark Fuhrman was one of them.

Q. Mark Fuhrman is the one that comes into your room, is he not?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mark Fuhrman is the one who interrogates you in your room, is he not?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when that door opens and there are four police officers, they identify themselves, do they not, as police officers, correct?

A. They did.

Q. And your -- the very next words out of your mouth is, what's wrong, did O.

I think that Kato realized he was not going to become an actor and had to change his story so others would accept him.

[rovaan]

not sure what point you are making. . .can you please explain.

He is talking about security sensors on doors and says "THE SENSOR WAS NOT CONNECTED TO THE STAIR ROOM OR THE ROOMS FROM KATO'S ROOM TO THE BILLIARD ROOM", does that mean the sensor to the back door was disconnected. The back door is between Kato's room and the billard room.

[weezer]

The last paragraph is my opinion.

thank you.

[William Anthony]

wonder why arnelle didn't turn to the detectives and say, "Hey, the alarm is on -- the house is secure. Wait one sec while I turn it off."

Because they were waiting on her to enter to see if any shooting would start.

[weezer]

He is talking about security sensors on doors and says "THE SENSOR WAS NOT CONNECTED TO THE STAIR ROOM OR THE ROOMS FROM KATO'S ROOM TO THE BILLIARD ROOM", does that mean the sensor to the back door was disconnected. The back door is between Kato's room and the billard room.

not sure which day but during his civil deposition, orenthal gives a description of the alarm system and which doors/windows were on the alarm and also talks about motion detectors.

[William Anthony]

July 10th,

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's back up for a moment. When you went to--got to the front door of the residence there, did you have to do anything before you got inside that residence?

MS. SIMPSON: I had to turn the alarm off.

MR. COCHRAN: There was an alarm on?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you turned the alarm off; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you walked that route that you just described for the Court and the jury, was anyone accompanying you at that point?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Who was?

MS. SIMPSON: The two detectives.

MR. COCHRAN: The two people we described earlier?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Lange and Phillips?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You walked around and took the alarm off before you went inside?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you specifically did you ever at any time walk from your residence here marked "Arnelle's room" and go through some door here at the back of the house?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: When the alarm is on is that possible?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Can't go in that way; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: The alarm key pad is where?

MS. SIMPSON: In the front of the house.

MR. COCHRAN: So you went around to the front of the house and turned off that alarm and then these two detectives came in behind you; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you described for the jury that you went into the kitchen area; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were still there with you?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes."

[William Anthony]

All this speculation about whether Arnelle washed a sweatsuit for OJ has prompted me to do some research. If detectives found a sweatsuit of a size to fit OJ in a washing machine with Arnelle’s clothing, they should be fired if they did not collect it. I don’t buy the reasoning that they did not know what OJ was wearing that night. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t know what he was wearing. You see a man’s seatsuit in a washing machine with woman’s clothes at your second crime scene, you collect it and check the washing machine pipes for blood. So I started checking out the stories coming out at the time. This is what I found:


LA Times
Friday, June 17, 1994
Home Edition
Section: PART A
Page: A-1
By: JIM NEWTON and CARLA HALL
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

“Investigators also are combing clothing, shoes and other items seized from Simpson's home to determine whether any of them contain bloodstains and to see whether the treads
on any of his shoes match tracks found at the crime scene, sources said. At least some of that clothing was taken from a washing machine at Simpson's home, sources said,
adding that detectives are trying to determine whether he was trying to wash out bloodstains.”

Simpson's Ex-Wife and Her Friend Are Buried Mourning: Separate...
Pay-Per-View - Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Jun 17, 1994
At least some of that clothing was taken from a washing machine at Simpson's home, sources said, adding that detectives are trying to determine whether he ...

OJ's DEFENSE GOES ON THE OFFENSE // Team wants to show `he didn't …
Pay-Per-View - USA TODAY - ProQuest Archiver - Jul 21, 1994
District Attorney Gil Garcetti says reports of blood found in Simpson's washing machine are false. Police are still hopeful that more conclusive DNA tests ...


In Vanatter and Lange’s book, p. 204:

“Lange continues, “Marcia, there’re always rumors about leaks. Hell, we hear there’s a leak in the DA’s office. The fact is that people are talking about this case. And most of the talk is based on ‘overhear’-somebody overhears something walking past your desk or mine or anyone else involved in this case. I mean, look what is coming out: half-truths. Look at that story about the bloody clothes in Simpson’s washing machine. That’s just another reason why I’m asking you to push for the gag order.”

If the sweatsuit would have been for a man the size of OJ, we would have heard about it at the criminal trial and its fibers would have been check to see if they were consistant with fibers found at the crime scene. As for whether Arnelle took the detectives to the back door or the front door, I think she would have done what was typical for her to do in her just woken state. At that time of the morning, she would have assumed the alarm was set and gone to the front door. UNLESS, the detectives had Westec turn off the alarm and already been inside the house. They may have opened the back door.

Where is the testimony that there was any freshly washed or wet sweatsuit in any washing machine?

[weezer]

orenthal james simpson - January 24, 1996

Q: The only -- What were the ways in which you could activate the alarm at the house in June of 1994?

A: There's a pad in my bedroom. There's a pad in my upstairs hall. There's a pad inside and outside the front door. There's a pad inside and outside the laundry door.

Q: Inside and outside the laundry door?

A: Yeah.

Q: Is the outside of the laundry door the exterior of the property?

A: No. It's in the garage.

Q: So when you go into the garage from the driveway, if you were to enter the garage and go out the door that leads into the residence, you go right into the laundry room.

A: Yes.

Q: And in the garage on the outside of that laundry room door is a pad?

A: That's correct.

Q: And on the inside is a pad?

A: That's correct.

Q: Now, when you enter the residence, and let's assume the alarm is on, are you required to deactivate the alarm from the outside pad?

A: Yes.

Q: And if you deactivate the alarm from the outside pad and then you open the door and enter, is the alarm off now?

A: Yes.

Q: If you were not to deactivate the alarm from the outside pad but enter the residence anyway, could you then deactivate it from an inside pad?

A: Yes.

Q: And is there a delay of a certain interval of time before the alarm will start ringing?

A: I don't believe so.

Q: So if you fail to punch in the code on the pad and you open the door, what happens?

A: The alarm goes off.

Q: And what does that mean? Bells ring? Whistles sound?

A: An alarm goes off.

Q: Does it ring over to the Westec Security place as well?

A: Yes.

Q: And the police department?

A: I don't think so.

Q: Okay. Who -- By the way, the way you just described the system, that's how it functioned in June of 1994. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: It hasn't changed, has it?

A: That's--yeah. Yes.

Q: Correct?
A: Correct.


Q: Did you have the code in June of 1994?
A: Yes.

Q: What was it, like a four-digit code?

A: Yes.

Q: And who else had that code to your knowledge?

A: My family, my immediate family, Arnelle and Jason; my house keeper--

Q: Names.

A: Well, Gigi. Michelle possibly. Nicole. A.C. And I don't know after that.

Q: Were there doors that one could -- Let's assume the alarm was on. Were there doors that people could go in and out of the house through that would not activate the alarm?

A: Yes.

Q: Which doors were those?

A: The ones that came from the guest house into the house, and -- I don't know -- I have some window doors. I don't know if they're -- if they were on the alarm at the time, and I don't think any of the windows were on the alarm at that time.

[weezer]

same day:

Q: Okay. So his lock was keyed differently. Is that what you're saying?
A: Yes.

Q: The exterior door.
A: Yes.

Q: And the interior doors he did not have the key to. Right?
A: Correct.

Q: And he couldn't open those doors from the inside of his room to get into the residence. Is that right?
A: Correct.

Q: They could be locked on the other side of the door. Right?
A: Correct.

[weezer]

same day:

Q: Was it your practice when you were out of town to have the alarm set?
A: It was my practice when I was out of town to have someone at my house.

Q: If you were to -- Your housekeeper, did she work weekends?
A: No, not generally.

Q: So if you were going to be out of town on weekends, would the alarm be set?
A: Should be, yes.

Q: And how would Kaelin deal with the setting of the alarm if he's going in and out of the house on weekends?


A: As I told you before, he wasnÕt supposed to be going in and out of the house on weekends.

Q: What if he went in and out of his guest room, and the alarm were activated on the property, and nobody else was home, like your housekeeper, would the alarm be going on and off when Kaelin's entering his guest room?
A: No.

Q: Why is that?
A: Because, as I told you, his exterior door to his guest room is not on the alarm.

Q: Just the interior door?
A: Yes.

[William Anthony]

orenthal james simpson - January 24, 1996

Q: The only -- What were the ways in which you could activate the alarm at the house in June of 1994?

A: There's a pad in my bedroom. There's a pad in my upstairs hall. There's a pad inside and outside the front door. There's a pad inside and outside the laundry door.

Q: Inside and outside the laundry door?

A: Yeah.

Q: Is the outside of the laundry door the exterior of the property?

A: No. It's in the garage.

Q: So when you go into the garage from the driveway, if you were to enter the garage and go out the door that leads into the residence, you go right into the laundry room.

A: Yes.

Q: And in the garage on the outside of that laundry room door is a pad?

A: That's correct.

Q: And on the inside is a pad?

A: That's correct.

Q: Now, when you enter the residence, and let's assume the alarm is on, are you required to deactivate the alarm from the outside pad?

A: Yes.

Q: And if you deactivate the alarm from the outside pad and then you open the door and enter, is the alarm off now?

A: Yes.

Q: If you were not to deactivate the alarm from the outside pad but enter the residence anyway, could you then deactivate it from an inside pad?

A: Yes.

Q: And is there a delay of a certain interval of time before the alarm will start ringing?

A: I don't believe so.

Q: So if you fail to punch in the code on the pad and you open the door, what happens?

A: The alarm goes off.

Q: And what does that mean? Bells ring? Whistles sound?

A: An alarm goes off.

Q: Does it ring over to the Westec Security place as well?

A: Yes.

Q: And the police department?

A: I don't think so.

Q: Okay. Who -- By the way, the way you just described the system, that's how it functioned in June of 1994. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: It hasn't changed, has it?

A: That's--yeah. Yes.

Q: Correct?
A: Correct.


Q: Did you have the code in June of 1994?
A: Yes.

Q: What was it, like a four-digit code?

A: Yes.

Q: And who else had that code to your knowledge?

A: My family, my immediate family, Arnelle and Jason; my house keeper--

Q: Names.

A: Well, Gigi. Michelle possibly. Nicole. A.C. And I don't know after that.

Q: Were there doors that one could -- Let's assume the alarm was on. Were there doors that people could go in and out of the house through that would not activate the alarm?

A: Yes.

Q: Which doors were those?

A: The ones that came from the guest house into the house, and -- I don't know -- I have some window doors. I don't know if they're -- if they were on the alarm at the time, and I don't think any of the windows were on the alarm at that time.

There was no testimony that anyone entered through the garage.

[William Anthony]

Interesting, you have said that Park's memory improved over age, even though their is evidence showing that his memory was suggested and his testimony coached but here you want to credit Kato's testimony as being improved.

Correction-Kato's memory as being improved.

[GreenIce]

We Americans are probably the worst people in the world to take words and change the definition….start using them and they become next to Webster. In my neck of the woods……Ann is John’s trophy means just that…it’s John’s no matter how Ann feels about it. On the flip side John is Ann’s prize catch…..no matter how John feels about it.

Just saying because us Southern folks can be misunderstood…..to be truthful some stranger may come thru and hear a few folks talking and they wouldn’t know what in the hell they were talking about. :eek: All kind of adjectives, pronouns, verbs and nouns used. I think that’s true with different regions here in the US and all over the world. I know it is in Mexico.

So with all that mess I said up above and since you brought the trophy subject up again........I'm just saying......I disagree with your post. :)

IJM,

IMO, it doesn't matter what John thinks, it only matters what Ann feels and does about it.

IMO, a trophy wife is a woman who does not love the man, she loves the title of Mrs and she loves the power and the money that come with it. As long as the money and the power do not go away, she doesn't care about anything else. There is no evidence that Nicole only married to and stayed with OJ for 17 years because of the money and she loved the title of Mrs. Simpson. In everything that I have read, Nicole was never hurt or upset that OJ cheated on her because he was not discreet, she was devasted by the act. If she was a trophy, she would have pissed because he was not discreet, she would have been embarrassed and angry, not devastated. She would have agreed with the "boys will be boys" and it is no big deal if he cheats, as long as she still has the ring and the name.

Also, there is no evidence to suggest that Simpson thought of Nicole in that regard. Yes, he was a womanizer but in our society, there is a double standard on this issue.

There is nothing in Nicole's past that supports that she would have allowed herself to be a trophy wife---even if OJ did think of her in that regard. She wouldn't have tolerated it. IMO.

One last thing, I have posted many times, I believe cheating is one of the most brutal forms of domestic abuse there is and it should be treated much more harshly then it is. So I am not giving Simpson a free pass on cheating. He did destroy Nicole with this. IMO.

[weezer]

I think it is just as unfair to demand that any one poster's definition of anything MUST be accepted because that's their definition. some say 'jaws of life' and some say 'lockjaws of life.' :shrug:

[GreenIce]

There was no testimony that anyone entered through the garage.

William,

If you read MC's direct on this issue. She talked about the garage and a few other doors on how they could not have been used by Simpson. As I was watching the trial, I remember thinking she was laying the foundation to explain the blood trail and why Simpson had to first run to the back of the house and then did something that makes no sense, he would use his front door to enter. He had no choice.

Yet, she also was speaking double talk because she was also trying to the jury that MF could be observed at all times and that had he planted the glove, someone would have saw him use a different door or something.

Please note, what she did ask in regards to the interior of house, unless I missed it---which is possible. But she never asked about windows or curtins.
Even if a door was bolted from the inside, was there a window on it? What about the glass doors, were there curtains?

Clark knew she had to handle this just right. The only problem is that it still makes no sense why would enter his property from the back of his house and go to the front door and how do you explain the blood trail in relation to where the glove was found.

[GreenIce]

I was incorrect to have used the word “supposition” and since then I have said it is a logical inference based on the evidence. The evidence in this case, despite your refusal to admit it, is that Arnelle opened the back door to let the detectives into the house, not the front door. The evidence is that the back door was not locked and the house alarm was not on when she opened it. Based on that evidence as well as other evidence found in Simpson’s laundry room all points to Arnelle Simpson as the person who washed that laundry and that leads to the logical inference that Simpson called Arnelle Simpson to help him by destroying incriminating blood evidence.

There is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

There is no logical inference that Simpson ever even called Arnelle let alone asked to destroy incriminating blood evidence. What you are asking others to believe is that Simpson, after killing Ron and Nicole, waiting how many hours before calling Arnelle? Waiting for her to arrive home to answer his phone call? There is no evidence that Simpson even knew what his daughter's plans were that night or what time she would be home, even if she would come home that night.

You need proof that he knew all of these things. You also need proof that even if he did ask Arnelle to do this, that she would have done it, she would have turned a blind eye to her father killing Nicole and Ron.

IMO, you would also have to prove that Arnelle was an accomplished actress---and we know she could not have gotten that from her father. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Why are you offended. Are you offended by the word trophy wife to describe her.
I think it was reported in katos book.

Martin,

Yes, it was in Kato's "non-book". IMO, I think Kato did tell Clark and Petrocelli about this. I know Clark did ask him while he was on the stand if they were lovers or if he had romantic feelings toward Nicole and he testified that they weren't and no, he did not have romantic feelings for her.

[GreenIce]

I think it is just as unfair to demand that any one poster's definition of anything MUST be accepted because that's their definition. some say 'jaws of life' and some say 'lockjaws of life.' :shrug:

FBG,

If you are talking about IJM and my posts, I think it is unfair of you to even say that I am demanding anything of IJM or any other poster. I gave my opinon that a "trophy wife" has do with emotions. In the definition that someone posted, that a trophy wife is a young, attractive, usually second wife, mentions nothing about emotions.

I also think it is unfair for you now say that people some people use "jaws of life" and some to use "lockjaws of life", when the person who said "lockjaws of life" was made fun for using the term. You need to be a tad more careful of the posters who you first make fun of for using terms and then turnaround and try to use the same to support your opinon. You can't have it both ways.

[William Anthony]

William,

If you read MC's direct on this issue. She talked about the garage and a few other doors on how they could not have been used by Simpson. As I was watching the trial, I remember thinking she was laying the foundation to explain the blood trail and why Simpson had to first run to the back of the house and then did something that makes no sense, he would use his front door to enter. He had no choice.

Yet, she also was speaking double talk because she was also trying to the jury that MF could be observed at all times and that had he planted the glove, someone would have saw him use a different door or something.

Please note, what she did ask in regards to the interior of house, unless I missed it---which is possible. But she never asked about windows or curtins.
Even if a door was bolted from the inside, was there a window on it? What about the glass doors, were there curtains?

Clark knew she had to handle this just right. The only problem is that it still makes no sense why would enter his property from the back of his house and go to the front door and how do you explain the blood trail in relation to where the glove was found.

Marcia Clark's argument was in direct contradiction with the Rockingham blood evidence, which I think Vannatter was able to realize. I believe this is why he sent MF back to Bundy, risking cross contamination and told MF that after so doing he could leave (pun intended).:)

[William Anthony]

I think it is just as unfair to demand that any one poster's definition of anything MUST be accepted because that's their definition. some say 'jaws of life' and some say 'lockjaws of life.' :shrug:

I can remember when I used the term doctored as in doctored evidence in which I showed that the photo was attempted to be altered/doctored by the testimony/evidence, only to discover that the band wagon was jumped on by many, including you, even after I posted, not my, but an authorized dictionary definition. There was no willing acceptance of how I used the word but a demand that I should not use it in that manner. What fairness measuring stick is being used, currently?

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

There is no logical inference that Simpson ever even called Arnelle let alone asked to destroy incriminating blood evidence. What you are asking others to believe is that Simpson, after killing Ron and Nicole, waiting how many hours before calling Arnelle? Waiting for her to arrive home to answer his phone call? There is no evidence that Simpson even knew what his daughter's plans were that night or what time she would be home, even if she would come home that night.

You need proof that he knew all of these things. You also need proof that even if he did ask Arnelle to do this, that she would have done it, she would have turned a blind eye to her father killing Nicole and Ron.

IMO, you would also have to prove that Arnelle was an accomplished actress---and we know she could not have gotten that from her father. IMO.

GreenIce,

IMHO, "logical inferences" are based on evidence and not "lack of evidence", whereas, "logical supposition" is based on anything the person can suppose to be logical whether or not it is supported or in existence.

[William Anthony]

Interesting, you have said that Park's memory improved over age, even though their is evidence showing that his memory was suggested and his testimony coached but here you want to credit Kato's testimony as being improved.

Corection for clarity-Interestingly, you have said that Park's memory improved over age, even though their is evidence showing that his memory was suggested and his testimony coached but here you want to credit Kato's earlier testimony as being the most reliable. I am lazy at times when rushed. ;);):cool:

[GreenIce]

Marcia Clark's argument was in direct contradiction with the Rockingham blood evidence, which I think Vannatter was able to realize. I believe this is why he sent MF back to Bundy, risking cross contamination and told MF that after so doing he could leave (pun intended).:)

William,

I think the key here is that RP was ordered to go with MF. IMO, they wanted to cover for the picture that was taken before they left and they wanted to start lining up the babysitters for MF and RP.

IMO, it is very possible that VA saw MF leave the front door, go to the Bronco and then suddenly find the glove. I also think it is a good bet that VA may have checked the alley out and knew there was no glove there.

[bobaugust]

Whether it was intended to be used as evidence or not it was used to impeach the testimony of the detectives, who, IMHO, testilied.

William you claimed the detectives lied about entering the back door when they learned about the video showing some “dark clothing” in the washing machine and I posted the evidence that proves your claim false. Now you are claiming that video impeached the detectives. How do you think that video taped impeached the detectives?

bobaugust