Random Discussions On The Case

[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:

The telephone records used in the Simpson criminal trial were telephone bills. You still haven’t supported your claim that there are telephone records that can be made available that show all incoming calls and outgoing calls for a land line telephone number either presently or let alone in 1995.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

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,

The only logical inference in regards to Arnelle's involvement is that she was in on it before the murders happened. There is no logical inference that she was an accomplice after the fact---the timeline takes care of that.

And you are correct, it only makes sense if she was in on it or an accomplice after the fact, she would have had to have a cell phone. But again, the timeline destroys this.

[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.

The video tape did not show that the front door was the only door in Simpson’s house that could be unlocked. All that video tape proved was the back door was already unlocked when Arnelle opened it to let the detectives and Kato Kaelin into the house.

I would think that you would know what impeachment is. Five witnesses testified they all entered Simpson’s house through the back door of the house, not the front door. That is the evidence in this case and that proves Arnelle Simpson lied.

There is no evidence in this case that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1995.

bobaugust

[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.

Different witnesses, different abilities to recall what happened over a year before. Park did not have to be coached he only had to be read exactly what he had previously said to recall why he said what he said.

Kaelin testified to the same facts that he testified to in the criminal trial. Kaelin pointed to the back door of the house on an exhibit and said Arnelle had keys and the detectives and he all entered the house through that back door.

bobaugust

[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:

In his preparation for the civil trial Petrocelli was able to review all the testimony and evidence with a fresh eye and yes he realized what it meant when Arnelle opened the back door of the house and the alarm was not on and he knew about the police finding “a load of wet laundry” in Simpson’s washing machine that included Arnelle’s underwear.

In his book Petrocelli asked some interesting questions, and gave some answers to some of them. Here us an edited sample,
“So, who did this load of laundry? Why was it still in the machine? To what end?
Who might Simpson call? Who were the people closest to him? Who could he trust?
Whoever he might have called, he or she or they gained access and turned off the alarm system when they entered.
What had needed washing so badly that it was done in an empty house after Simpson was gone? What had been washed? How many loads? Who ran them?
In their haste on the way out, whoever did this clean-up job forgot to reset the system.
So, do we have an accessory after the fact? I think so.”

bobaugust

[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.

This was the home of a well know celebrity. The LAPD was simply acting prudent by having the house video taped after the search was completed for insurance purposes.

bobaugust

[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.

You are incorrect. All five witnesses testified that they entered the back of Simpson’s house through the SAME back door.

There is a very simple answer as to why Arnelle Simpson said she led TWO detectives around the house to the front door. Because what she said she did was a completely fabricated story, none of it was corroborated, and none of it was true. Arnelle Simpson lied.

As I said before the detectives were not concerned that Arnelle was in any danger when she opened the back door and let them into the house. As soon as they all entered the house they asked Arnelle to show them where the housekeeper’s room was which they then went to and checked.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

The telephone records used in the Simpson criminal trial were telephone bills. You still haven’t supported your claim that there are telephone records that can be made available that show all incoming calls and outgoing calls for a land line telephone number either presently or let alone in 1995.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Didn't Faye Resnick have these phone records blocked from the rehab center?
There is also another telephone call you are ignoring, the one from Dr. Ameli.

[bobaugust]

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.

March 30, 1995 Sue Silva

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.


Q NOW, AT ONE POINT, YOU POINTED OUT A SENSOR LOCATED AT A REAR DOOR LEADING OUT TO THE PATIO, REAR PATIO; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND WE'VE INDICATED ON THE DIAGRAM 40 SECONDS; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES. THAT'S A SPECIAL DOOR RIGHT AT THE -- NOT IDENTICAL TO THE LARGE FRENCH DOORS, BUT A SMALL DOOR RIGHT ON THE SIDE.
Q NOW, WHAT DID YOU MEAN OR INTENDED TO CONVEY WHEN YOU HAD THE 40 SECONDS PLACED THERE OR INDICATED THERE?
A THAT WAS THE ONE DOOR ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT IF SOMEONE WAS AT THE POOL AREA AND THE ALARM SYSTEM WAS SET, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ENTER THIS DOOR (INDICATING) AND HAVE A RINGING SOUND AND BE ABLE TO GO TO ONE OF THE KEYPADS AND DISARM IT.

bobaugust

[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.

Simpson’s alibi was to be that he flew out of town that night. When he returned to Rockingham from Bundy and saw that the limo was already there and waiting for him he didn’t have time to do anything except get on to his estate, into his house, take a fast shower, dress, load the limo, and leave for the airport. Simpson would have known Arnelle was out for the night and he also would have known that she would return sometime later that night and go to her room. The first opportunity Simpson would have had to call her was after he landed in Chicago.

I don’t have to prove anything you ask, the evidence all points to Arnelle Simpson as the “accessory after the fact.” The fact is that Arnelle Simpson implicated herself when she outright lied about what door she opened to let the detectives into the house.

bobaugust

[Its just me]

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.

IMHOO you are arguing for the sake of arguing. We all should know beauty does not make brains, good lovers or companions.....Do you know of OJ having an ugly woman and I'm certainly not saying Nicole didn't have any of those qualities but if I remember correctly Martin posted something about how Nicole brought zero into the marriage and I believe I replied with a disagreement. (not sure) Why did OJ call Nicole a fat pig at some point and a fat slob IIRC when he was mad with a gun in his hand demanding Nicole leave after she got home from the Disney of Ice outing.

It's clear you and I don't agree on the trophy issue among other things. OJ was OJ and OJ liked attention and "show".....and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with having a trophy wife if the wife is willing to put up with it......Nicole tolerated verbal abuse, physical abuse and cheating so how can you say she wouldn't tolerate being a trophy wife. In reading I get the impression Nicole was not as keen on the public spotlight as OJ so one could argue it was because she didn't like being a trophy but I personally think she just didn't like it. I get the trophy wife from OJ and him liking show and spot light....it has absolutely nothing to do with Nicole. If she liked it or hated it....I don't know and you don't either but I firmly believe OJ having a beautiful woman by his side was very important to him and would still be today if he wasn't sitting in the pokey. I believe OJ's woman history will back me up.

[Kate Sachel]

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?

I don't think you'll find the truth within responses by Lange, Vanatter, or Fuhrman. It is clear to me that Fuhrman is angry and resentful and also clear that Lange and Vanatter are angry and resentful. That said, each of them is going to protect their own roles within the case rather than admitting to sloppy police work or personal agendas.

I don't agree with the idea that Fuhrman made those notes in an effort to conceal how close he had been to the evidence and/or bodies. The reason that I don't agree with such is that, based on Furhman's arrogance and past history, he didn't seem to care what might get out and, I believe, seemed to be under the impression that he was untouchable.

Kate

[William Anthony]

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.

IMHO, Vannatter realized there was nothing to support where MF claimed to have found the glove and he needed to make sure that all the ducks were in a row, even if it meant risking cross contamination.

[William Anthony]

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

The detectives, IMHO, learned of the video showing some dark clothes in the washing machine and, hence the story/lie that they were freshly washed or wet. The detectives, IMHO, lied about what door they entered in order to make it appear that Ms. Arnelle had washed some clothing, and said the back door but, IMHO, lied saying it was the back door but forgot and told the truth, to which Ms. Arnelle testified she unlocked and entered through with the detectives was the front door and the video showed that the only door able to unlocked was the front .

[William Anthony]

The telephone records used in the Simpson criminal trial were telephone bills. You still haven’t supported your claim that there are telephone records that can be made available that show all incoming calls and outgoing calls for a land line telephone number either presently or let alone in 1995.

bobaugust

I have made no claim as to whether there were phone bills or records used but you have said bills so I ask you to support that. Have you ever heard of a supoena?

[William Anthony]

William,

The only logical inference in regards to Arnelle's involvement is that she was in on it before the murders happened. There is no logical inference that she was an accomplice after the fact---the timeline takes care of that.

And you are correct, it only makes sense if she was in on it or an accomplice after the fact, she would have had to have a cell phone. But again, the timeline destroys this.

GreenIce,

There is nothing but supposition to suppose that Ms. Arnelle was involved.

[William Anthony]

The video tape did not show that the front door was the only door in Simpson’s house that could be unlocked. All that video tape proved was the back door was already unlocked when Arnelle opened it to let the detectives and Kato Kaelin into the house.

I would think that you would know what impeachment is. Five witnesses testified they all entered Simpson’s house through the back door of the house, not the front door. That is the evidence in this case and that proves Arnelle Simpson lied.

There is no evidence in this case that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1995.

bobaugust

Support your claim that the "video tape proved was the back door was already unlocked when Arnelle opened it to let the detectives and Kato Kaelin into the house". This can be easily shown, if you provide the video showing Ms. Arnelle unlocking the back door from the inside and leaving prior to the detectives' arrival. The evidence in this case proved that , IMHO, the detectives testilied.

There is no evidence in this case that Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone in June 1994, which the prosecution and/or plaintiffs and you and those that think like you must show in order to explain the lack of evidence as it pertains to a supposed phone call. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Different witnesses, different abilities to recall what happened over a year before. Park did not have to be coached he only had to be read exactly what he had previously said to recall why he said what he said.

Kaelin testified to the same facts that he testified to in the criminal trial. Kaelin pointed to the back door of the house on an exhibit and said Arnelle had keys and the detectives and he all entered the house through that back door.

bobaugust

I posted Park's testimony where he said Petrocelli and others told him what to say. So, you again use selective reasoning to support your conclusions. Link to prove that Kato's memory improved with age.

You say "Kaelin testified to the same facts that he testified to in the criminal trial", but did you forget you said this

"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"?

[William Anthony]

In his preparation for the civil trial Petrocelli was able to review all the testimony and evidence with a fresh eye and yes he realized what it meant when Arnelle opened the back door of the house and the alarm was not on and he knew about the police finding “a load of wet laundry” in Simpson’s washing machine that included Arnelle’s underwear.

In his book Petrocelli asked some interesting questions, and gave some answers to some of them. Here us an edited sample,
“So, who did this load of laundry? Why was it still in the machine? To what end?
Who might Simpson call? Who were the people closest to him? Who could he trust?
Whoever he might have called, he or she or they gained access and turned off the alarm system when they entered.
What had needed washing so badly that it was done in an empty house after Simpson was gone? What had been washed? How many loads? Who ran them?
In their haste on the way out, whoever did this clean-up job forgot to reset the system.
So, do we have an accessory after the fact? I think so.”

bobaugust

Yes, that is quite a bit of supposition but where is the evidence?

[William Anthony]

Simpson’s alibi was to be that he flew out of town that night. When he returned to Rockingham from Bundy and saw that the limo was already there and waiting for him he didn’t have time to do anything except get on to his estate, into his house, take a fast shower, dress, load the limo, and leave for the airport. Simpson would have known Arnelle was out for the night and he also would have known that she would return sometime later that night and go to her room. The first opportunity Simpson would have had to call her was after he landed in Chicago.

I don’t have to prove anything you ask, the evidence all points to Arnelle Simpson as the “accessory after the fact.” The fact is that Arnelle Simpson implicated herself when she outright lied about what door she opened to let the detectives into the house.

bobaugust

You seem to think the rules work differently for you. Why is that?;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I don't think you'll find the truth within responses by Lange, Vanatter, or Fuhrman. It is clear to me that Fuhrman is angry and resentful and also clear that Lange and Vanatter are angry and resentful. That said, each of them is going to protect their own roles within the case rather than admitting to sloppy police work or personal agendas.

I don't agree with the idea that Fuhrman made those notes in an effort to conceal how close he had been to the evidence and/or bodies. The reason that I don't agree with such is that, based on Furhman's arrogance and past history, he didn't seem to care what might get out and, I believe, seemed to be under the impression that he was untouchable.

Kate

Kate,

I agree that MF was arrogant and thought he was untouchable but that arrogance made him think he could outsmart everyone and that he knew how to cover up his actual involvement.

[weezer]

I don't think you'll find the truth within responses by Lange, Vanatter, or Fuhrman. It is clear to me that Fuhrman is angry and resentful and also clear that Lange and Vanatter are angry and resentful. That said, each of them is going to protect their own roles within the case rather than admitting to sloppy police work or personal agendas.

I don't agree with the idea that Fuhrman made those notes in an effort to conceal how close he had been to the evidence and/or bodies. The reason that I don't agree with such is that, based on Furhman's arrogance and past history, he didn't seem to care what might get out and, I believe, seemed to be under the impression that he was untouchable.

Kate

I guess that's why I like to use the science and credible/corroborated testimony and evidence. I sat on a jury once where the child psychologist made the statement regarding the criticism of the mother by the step mother -- she said it's known as 'the first wife syndrome'. I think LE had the same problem when it came to the detectives.

[Hotwater]

Attacking one another will not be tolerated. Knock it off and move on.


HW

[William Anthony]

Can anyone be so kind as to point out any scientific, credible and corroborated evidence and testimony, showing
(1) that Simpson wore a bloody sweatsuit on the night of June 12th, 1994;
(2) that Simpson placed the alleged bloody sweatsuit in the washing machine on the night of June 12, 1994:
(3) that Simpson called Ms. Arnelle on the night of June 12, 1994, after 11pm and before or up to midnight;
(4) that Simpson called Ms. Arnelle in the AM hours of June 13, 1994 at anytime after midnight and before she was awakened by the detectives knocking on her door;
(5) that there was testimony about finding in any washing machine either a freshly washed or wet sweatsuit?

[Its just me]

I'm reading Simpson's civil trial depositions and found this. FWIW

A: I didn't know what time the murders were.

Q: You had no information about that. Right?

A: Correct.

Q: So you didn't know whether those murders occurred at 8:00 o'clock, 9:00 o'clock, l0:00 o'clock, 11:00 o'clock, 12:00 o'clock. You had no idea.

A: Well, I knew they couldn't have occurred a little before 9:00 o'clock, so I knew it couldn't have occurred before then.

Q: Okay. So you knew that the murders had to occur at least after 9:00 o'clock. Is that true?

A: Correct.

Q: When you spoke with Sydney. Right?

A: Correct.

Q: And did you know whether there was -- they occurred before 12:00?

A: As I told you, I had no idea.

[Its just me]

OJ states he was bleeding some before going to Chicago. :shrug: But he just don't know where the blood was coming from but it was on the counter in the kitchen and on his pinky of his left hand. civil trial depositions. Feb 26th

A: No. I told them I cut it in Chicago but it may have been cut the night before because I saw blood, and there was no other cuts on my hand at the time, so I assumed that it may have come from the same area.

Q: Mr. Simpson, did you cut your finger on June l2, l994, the left middle finger at the joint?

A: Not that I know of.

Q: When you say, "Not that I know of," are you still uncertain as you sit here today whether you cut the left middle finger at the joint area on June 12, 1994?

A: It's not that I know of.

Q: When you say, "not that I know of, are you able to definitively rule it out one way or the other?

A: I didn't see any cuts, but I saw blood, a drop of blood on my counter and a drop of blood on one of my fingers. I didn't know where it came from. So not that I know of.

[William Anthony]

I'm reading Simpson's civil trial depositions and found this. FWIW

A: I didn't know what time the murders were.

Q: You had no information about that. Right?

A: Correct.

Q: So you didn't know whether those murders occurred at 8:00 o'clock, 9:00 o'clock, l0:00 o'clock, 11:00 o'clock, 12:00 o'clock. You had no idea.



Q: Okay. So you knew that the murders had to occur at least after 9:00 o'clock. Is that true?

A: Correct.

Q: When you spoke with Sydney. Right?

A: Correct.

Q: And did you know whether there was -- they occurred before 12:00?

A: As I told you, I had no idea.

A: Well, I knew they couldn't have occurred a little before 9:00 o'clock, so I knew it couldn't have occurred before then.

I think it is clear that he is saying he did not know from anytime after he talked to his daughter at what time the murders could have occurred until LE called him.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1502/Engel/Conference.html

"MR. SYLVESTER-Certainly, we do, and in the case of toll records, as I mentioned, we do notify them in every case except where there is the written certification that accompanies either the grand jury or the legislative summons. So we notify them in every case, and in those cases, at the termination of the 90-day period, we would notify them also, unless it has been extended And at least for the Bell Telephone Companies, there are specific FCC guidelines that deal with a number of the telephone company records with regards to customer name, address, billing number, billing address and features that they subscribe to as well as the toll records that go with that And that information is generally or is not released outside the company, except with the customer's authorization or a valid lawful court request."

Now there are a number of reasons that we are facing these privacy problems, particularly in the United States that we are facing these problems.

One is that our wire-tap statute does a very good job of protecting the content of a communication, the words that you actually speak, but it doesn't do a very good job of protecting the record of the communication, the billing information, who you called, how long you spoke, the number associated with the person that you called, This information receives a much lower level of protection, And as investigations increasingly rely upon transactional data, incident data, to initiate an investigation, this is where the privacy battle is going to be fought.

Now I have put up these cards, and I would just like to take a minute to tell you how other countries view this problem. While I said a moment ago that the United States has done a very good job on the telephone content front, we have done very poorly on the transactional record front.

"The Europeans and the Japanese, however, are very sensitive to this second problem. The Europeans, in part, because of the experience with the Nazis in gaining access to telephone toll records and using-that as a basis for persecution in the thirties have changed, in fact, I should say they have established billing policies to limit the disclosure of phone number information. it is typically not available to phone subscribers to know the numbers that are called. These cards, which are much like the Metro cards in Washington, allow people at a public pay phone in Great Britain or in France or in Japan to simply insert a card, make an anonymous call, have the credit debited from the card and to leave no trace that the communication ever took place.

The best type of protection in advanced communication networks is simply not to create the record, not to have an issue about the circumstances under which the government may gain access to those records.

Now let me just say a few more words about the issues related to privacy in technology.

It appears as we look ahead that technology may also offer some opportunities to protect privacy. One of the critical technologies for protecting privacy is cryptography, That is the process of encoding information so that only the person who is supposed to receive the information is able to decode it. Now cryptography is increasingly becoming a widespread commercial product. It is being incorporated into computer network technologies. It is being brought into the cellular telephone network. It is necessary in a sense to seal the envelope in communication environments, because today most of the information that is exchanged is, in a sense, written on the side, postcards.

And not surprisingly, it is the Federal agencies that are involved in communication surveillance that are most concerned about the use of cryptography in communication networks, The FBI is trying to restrict cryptography. The National Security Agency is trying to restrict cryptography. In both areas, I think there is a strong interest, if you want to protect communications privacy, to try to put the agencies back in their place.

But the final point I would just like to make about communications privacy, I know that the journalists feel particularly strongly about this in terms of protecting the confidentiality of sources.

We have tried to say for a number of years that in the First Amendment realm, there is a very strong interest in protecting privacy, and it seems to me sometimes that journalists view privacy and view the First Amendment as a trade-off, and sometimes, you know, see this as an obstacle to getting stories out And I think that is unfortunate. I think there is a joint interest in protecting the right of privacy It is clear here in the Millman case, but it is also clear in, I believe, many of the important cases that the court has handed down in the wire-tap areas and the speech areas, if you are going to have an environment in which people can write investigative stories, can contact sources who need to be protected against public disclosure, then you are going to need to protect privacy, because if you can't protect privacy, then you are not going to be able to get the information that you need.

MS. ENGEL We might need to know how to get those cards, Marc."

[William Anthony]

Continuation

"I think that just one other thing that I want to point out, and I certainly don't want to say that Bell Atlantic is in any way responsible for this, because Cincinnati Bell has nothing to do with them, but I underscore that in the Procter & Gamble case, that was an instance where a private company went to the cops in Cincinnati, said, "We think that this leak constitutes a violation of law. We want to know who the leaker was. So subpoena everybody's phone records in Cincinnati and find out who called the Pittsburgh bureau of the Wall Street Journal."

A lot of private citizens, a lot of news organizations in Cincinnati had their phone records turned over without any notice, without any opportunity to contest it. So while we can sit here and paint the feds black, if we want to, I think it is important to recognize that this is not an issue that is limited to Federal agencies. It extends to any law enforcement agency or any entity that can issue a valid subpoena.

MR. SYLVESTER: I guess I would like to follow up on one thing there, and that is, the telephone phone company certainly keeps these records, but if you are looking for legislation or controls, I would suggest that you might direct it, not at the telephone company but at the agencies that issues these subpoenas, because they make the determination as to what they are after and how they are going to obtain it.

The telephone company is, at least at this point in time, required to respond, at least we feel we are required to respond to those requests. So if the request comes to us, we will respond within the guidelines we have.

MS. KIRTLEY: That is really just a business decision, though, isn't it, Jim? I mean, as a recipient of a subpoena, you, like any other recipient of a subpoena, would have legal standing to go into court and contest it, but I assume that given the volume you are talking about, you are saying that, in fact, the telephone companies simply don't want to have to engage in that process.

QUESTION: I am just wondering, I guess I am more concerned about (inaudible). I was wondering (inaudible), if anybody has ever --if there have been any attempts to introduce these anonymous (inaudible).

MR. SYLVESTER-Yes.

QUESTION. What do you think needs to be done (inaudible)?

MR, ROTENBERG. Yes. NYNEX has introduced the card in parts of New York City, primarily in response to concerns about vandalism of pay phones, but there are now companies on the West Coast who are looking at the use of the card as well, and I expect over the next few years we will see more public systems that use these cards.

I would like to just make a point, if I could. I know this discussion is very much focused on the disclosure of telephone toll records and the legal responsibilities that the phone companies might or might not have when they are faced with a subpoena, but I really hope you will consider the relationship between this particular problem and the offering of a service to sell customer data through Caller ID, for example, to other recipients, It has certainly been recognized by courts. In fact, the 1982 Pennsylvania case which Jane discussed a moment ago, which established a right of privacy in telephone toll records, was supported by the Pennsylvania court in 1990, when it looked at the caller ID issue and said this is the same question. It is whether individual users or phone subscribers have the right to control personal information, and we find, relying on the '82 opinion, a constitutional right in the State of Pennsylvania that individuals should have to protect personal information.

Now the linkages become more and more apparent, the more you look at the cases. It is true as well in the Reporters Committee. The 78 case was an unfortunate outcome, but the question was still, what is the right of the individual to control information about himself or herself? In that case, the 78 case, the District Court here relied upon -I'm sorry, the Appellate Court here relied upon the U.S. v. Miller decision two years earlier, which was a bad decision. Said you don't have any rights. And that is how the result was reached.

But I really think, particularly as we look ahead, you need to explore those connections, because this issue is much bigger than subpoenas and toll records.

MS. ENGEL Yes."

[William Anthony]

Simpson's deposition

'Q: And you made one phone call? From the pay phone at LA airport.
A: Yes.

Q: Did you make any others?
A: No.

Q: Did you use coins to make the call, or did you charge it to a number?
A: I don't recall.

Q: You have a calling credit card. Right?
A: Yes.

Q: You use it regularly?
A: I believe so, yes.

Q: Bills it to your home phone?
A: I don't know.

Q: Or the OJ. Enterprises' office phone?
A: I would imagine. One of them. "

They could have supoenaed his phone card records or there would have been a record made from the pay phone in Chicago.

[weezer]

I've looked and can find nothing on incoming calls if not collect. I did find where with today's technology you can get all outgoing calls but nothing about incoming.

[William Anthony]

"One is that our wire-tap statute does a very good job of protecting the content of a communication, the words that you actually speak, but it doesn't do a very good job of protecting the record of the communication, the billing information, who you called, how long you spoke, the number associated with the person that you called, This information receives a much lower level of protection, And as investigations increasingly rely upon transactional data, incident data, to initiate an investigation, this is where the privacy battle is going to be fought."

The number associated with the number you called would be an incoming call to that person.

MR. SYLVESTER: I guess I would like to follow up on one thing there, and that is, the telephone phone company certainly keeps these records, but if you are looking for legislation or controls, I would suggest that you might direct it, not at the telephone company but at the agencies that issues these subpoenas, because they make the determination as to what they are after and how they are going to obtain it."

Fancy way of saying an incoming call to someone would be an outgoing call to someone else. I am still looking for scientific, credible and corroborated testimony and evidence of the things I asked about in the previous post.

"In the past the incoming numbers to the phones were listed on bills but are now shown simply as my cell number. "

http://www.ripoffreport.com/Cellular-Phone-Companies/Verizon-Wireless/verizon-wireless-ripoff-over-c-32y5a.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/7/16229/48489

"Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:02:29 PM PDT
This is huge. Beyond huge: Anyone can buy a list of your incoming and outgoing phone calls, cell or land-line, for $110 online.

The bombshell was reported in a Chicago Sun-Times story. Aravosis decided to try it out:

Journalists, politicians, businessmen, abused spouses, law enforcement, and everyone f****** else...."




8 else -- your business is now everyone else's business for the low, low price of $110.

[weezer]

I talked with someone who I have great confidence in knowing all about phones in the 90's -- this is what I was told: in the 90's ALL calls to and from a number were logged and could be retrieved with a court order. This was not an easy task -- very cumbersome and would almost certainly have to be a federal issue to require it.

[William Anthony]

I think that in a double murder case such as this one that garnered such publicity a state court order, if the prosecution was thoroughly convinced that there was a party that was an accessory after the fact, would have been upheld. The fact is that no one has provided any evidence of things I have asked for in the previous post and neither the prosecution nor the plaintiffs, IMHO, would have been able to justify a supoena based on the baseless suppositions.

"A lot of private citizens, a lot of news organizations in Cincinnati had their phone records turned over without any notice, without any opportunity to contest it. So while we can sit here and paint the feds black, if we want to, I think it is important to recognize that this is not an issue that is limited to Federal agencies. It extends to any law enforcement agency or any entity that can issue a valid subpoena".-1992

[William Anthony]

I was told that MF committed the murders and tried to frame Simpson by someone I have great confidence in.:);):cool:

[GreenIce]

I don't think you'll find the truth within responses by Lange, Vanatter, or Fuhrman. It is clear to me that Fuhrman is angry and resentful and also clear that Lange and Vanatter are angry and resentful. That said, each of them is going to protect their own roles within the case rather than admitting to sloppy police work or personal agendas.

I don't agree with the idea that Fuhrman made those notes in an effort to conceal how close he had been to the evidence and/or bodies. The reason that I don't agree with such is that, based on Furhman's arrogance and past history, he didn't seem to care what might get out and, I believe, seemed to be under the impression that he was untouchable.

Kate

Kate,

IMO, MF knew he was untouchable---he knew where "too many bodies" were buried.

INO, I don't think there was any sloppy police work, I think that is just an excuse that has been used way, way too much in this case. I believe you are right, MF and Lange and VA had different agendas.

However, there is a possibility that MF and Lange and VA are telling the truth, we the just might know this. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Simpson’s alibi was to be that he flew out of town that night. When he returned to Rockingham from Bundy and saw that the limo was already there and waiting for him he didn’t have time to do anything except get on to his estate, into his house, take a fast shower, dress, load the limo, and leave for the airport. Simpson would have known Arnelle was out for the night and he also would have known that she would return sometime later that night and go to her room. The first opportunity Simpson would have had to call her was after he landed in Chicago.

I don’t have to prove anything you ask, the evidence all points to Arnelle Simpson as the “accessory after the fact.” The fact is that Arnelle Simpson implicated herself when she outright lied about what door she opened to let the detectives into the house.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You are incorrect, all the evidence points to the detectives lied about why they went to Rockingham, why they jumped the wall and why they wanted inside the house. It has been proven that VA lied to obtain the first search warrant, he lied about why the glove was found and he lied about who told him about the thumps.

The evidence clearly proves that Arnelle knew her father was out of town, she indicated to the detectives she knew who to contact to find out exactly where he was.

The detectives should have left the property after they were told that OJ was not home. They had to come up with a lie as to why they wanted inside the main house.

Kato's testimony is very confusing, doesn't he say that he just assumed Arnelle opend the door because she had the keys and he didn't have one? It appears to me that he saw with keys in her hands and he assumed the rest.

Also, why did Arnelle keep her telephone book in her car?

[GreenIce]

IMHOO you are arguing for the sake of arguing. We all should know beauty does not make brains, good lovers or companions.....Do you know of OJ having an ugly woman and I'm certainly not saying Nicole didn't have any of those qualities but if I remember correctly Martin posted something about how Nicole brought zero into the marriage and I believe I replied with a disagreement. (not sure) Why did OJ call Nicole a fat pig at some point and a fat slob IIRC when he was mad with a gun in his hand demanding Nicole leave after she got home from the Disney of Ice outing.

It's clear you and I don't agree on the trophy issue among other things. OJ was OJ and OJ liked attention and "show".....and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with having a trophy wife if the wife is willing to put up with it......Nicole tolerated verbal abuse, physical abuse and cheating so how can you say she wouldn't tolerate being a trophy wife. In reading I get the impression Nicole was not as keen on the public spotlight as OJ so one could argue it was because she didn't like being a trophy but I personally think she just didn't like it. I get the trophy wife from OJ and him liking show and spot light....it has absolutely nothing to do with Nicole. If she liked it or hated it....I don't know and you don't either but I firmly believe OJ having a beautiful woman by his side was very important to him and would still be today if he wasn't sitting in the pokey. I believe OJ's woman history will back me up.

IJM,

I tried to explained my feelings on what I think a trophy wife is and why I don't believe Nicole was one.

[GreenIce]

The detectives, IMHO, learned of the video showing some dark clothes in the washing machine and, hence the story/lie that they were freshly washed or wet. The detectives, IMHO, lied about what door they entered in order to make it appear that Ms. Arnelle had washed some clothing, and said the back door but, IMHO, lied saying it was the back door but forgot and told the truth, to which Ms. Arnelle testified she unlocked and entered through with the detectives was the front door and the video showed that the only door able to unlocked was the front .

William,

IMO, not one of the detectives believed that Arnelle washed any clothes. IMO, the reason they did not write about this in their books and accuse her is because they already knew that the dark items were either taken out of the washing machin and tested or they proved to be Arnelle's clothing.

It seems to be that there is a battle of the battle of the books by MC, Lange and VA and MF. I don't know remember if Darden said anything this in his book or Hank Goldberg.

The fact that Clark has the sweats in the hamper is another factor that can't be overlooked. IMO, Petrocelli was just trying to solve a mystery that never was. Again, IMO.

[tv]

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.

I would have responded to this post earlier because I don't like pulling up old posts but I had to wait to come off vacation. I'm sure you'll understand --

#1 This is not true. Here is a post by you -- "Martin,

I agree with your post, but I would like to add something to it. Just because drugs were not found in Ron's or Nicole's system, that does not mean they did not have a "drug problem". I know very little about the drug culture but I do know that every drug dealer is warned to sell the junk--don't use it. It is bad for business.

In American Tragedy, it says that Nicole's nose did show signs of cocaine abuse. However, Simpson was admanent that they not go down this road. I think in Simpson's depositon they also stayed away from this subject--which I think this is the only time Petrocelli, Simpson and Kelley agreed on anything."

#2 True.

#3 True, comments made by you. You may be familiar with the "sales pitch" but I can honestly say I've never been approached with it.

#4 Are you actually making the leap that Ron being a waiter makes it more likely he was involved with drugs?

#5 Irrelevant. :shrug:

#6 Good heavens, where do you get this stuff? :eek:

#7 Please stop making up things I've supposedly said. I've never posted that Sydney and Justin don't love and respect their mother. In fact, I believe just the opposite. I see you got in your usual slam against the Goldmans and the Browns. Good for you.

#8 There is not one shred of evidence that implicates Jason Simpson in the murders of Ron and Nicole. It's irresponsible to keep floating this so called theory.

#9 She is labeled as an accomplice after the fact because there is strong evidence that she lied about the back door among other things. In the years since the murders she has nearly caused a death while driving under the influence and physically attacked her own aging father. These are the things we know about. By the way, I'll be reporting you to the moderator for saying those of us that think OJ Simpson is guilty are twisted.

#10 So?

#11 Link please.

#12 Petrocelli and associates were able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. His own lying testimony nailed the verdict of liability. :beer:

By the way, I'm requesting you stop referring to the believers in OJ Simpson's guilt as G Nation.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, not one of the detectives believed that Arnelle washed any clothes. IMO, the reason they did not write about this in their books and accuse her is because they already knew that the dark items were either taken out of the washing machin and tested or they proved to be Arnelle's clothing.

It seems to be that there is a battle of the battle of the books by MC, Lange and VA and MF. I don't know remember if Darden said anything this in his book or Hank Goldberg.

The fact that Clark has the sweats in the hamper is another factor that can't be overlooked. IMO, Petrocelli was just trying to solve a mystery that never was. Again, IMO.

Petrocelli seems to be an expert at persuasion but we must take into account that most of America, according to the polls, believed Simpson was guilty, so his burden was lightened.

[William Anthony]

#8 There is not one shred of evidence that implicates Jason Simpson in the murders of Ron and Nicole. It's irresponsible to keep floating this so called theory.

#9 She is labeled as an accomplice after the fact because there is strong evidence that she lied about the back door among other things. In the years since the murders she has nearly caused a death while driving under the influence and physically attacked her own aging father. These are the things we know about. By the way, I'll be reporting you to the moderator for saying those of us that think OJ Simpson is guilty are twisted.


There is not one shred of evidence that implicates Ms. Arnelle in the murders of Ron and Nicole. IMHO, It's irresponsible to keep floating this so called theory.

There is no such thing as an accomplice after the fact. IMHO, the things that you say you know about Ms. Arnelle are irrelevant to the allegations made against her on this message board.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accessory+after+the+fact

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accomplice

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

You are incorrect, all the evidence points to the detectives lied about why they went to Rockingham, why they jumped the wall and why they wanted inside the house. It has been proven that VA lied to obtain the first search warrant, he lied about why the glove was found and he lied about who told him about the thumps.

The evidence clearly proves that Arnelle knew her father was out of town, she indicated to the detectives she knew who to contact to find out exactly where he was.

The detectives should have left the property after they were told that OJ was not home. They had to come up with a lie as to why they wanted inside the main house.

Kato's testimony is very confusing, doesn't he say that he just assumed Arnelle opend the door because she had the keys and he didn't have one? It appears to me that he saw with keys in her hands and he assumed the rest.

Also, why did Arnelle keep her telephone book in her car?

GreenIce,

IMHO, LE receives training in testilying.

[GreenIce]

Petrocelli seems to be an expert at persuasion but we must take into account that most of America, according to the polls, believed Simpson was guilty, so his burden was lightened.

William,

IMO, the Browns nor the Goldmans' even needed a lawyer to present their case. The media did it for them. I think that is why Petrocelli is so bent on his Arnelle theory and other crazy theories. With these, the media can't claim them. However, I did enjoy watching him squirm when he was on his book tour and these same media types slapped him down a tad on these theories, to include Arnelle.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

IMHO, LE receives training in testilying.

William,

This is a well known fact. However, it did surprise on just how far they hold hands with the SID departments.

[GreenIce]

I would have responded to this post earlier because I don't like pulling up old posts but I had to wait to come off vacation. I'm sure you'll understand --

#1 This is not true. Here is a post by you -- "Martin,

I agree with your post, but I would like to add something to it. Just because drugs were not found in Ron's or Nicole's system, that does not mean they did not have a "drug problem". I know very little about the drug culture but I do know that every drug dealer is warned to sell the junk--don't use it. It is bad for business.

In American Tragedy, it says that Nicole's nose did show signs of cocaine abuse. However, Simpson was admanent that they not go down this road. I think in Simpson's depositon they also stayed away from this subject--which I think this is the only time Petrocelli, Simpson and Kelley agreed on anything."

#2 True.

#3 True, comments made by you. You may be familiar with the "sales pitch" but I can honestly say I've never been approached with it.

#4 Are you actually making the leap that Ron being a waiter makes it more likely he was involved with drugs?

#5 Irrelevant. :shrug:

#6 Good heavens, where do you get this stuff? :eek:

#7 Please stop making up things I've supposedly said. I've never posted that Sydney and Justin don't love and respect their mother. In fact, I believe just the opposite. I see you got in your usual slam against the Goldmans and the Browns. Good for you.

#8 There is not one shred of evidence that implicates Jason Simpson in the murders of Ron and Nicole. It's irresponsible to keep floating this so called theory.

#9 She is labeled as an accomplice after the fact because there is strong evidence that she lied about the back door among other things. In the years since the murders she has nearly caused a death while driving under the influence and physically attacked her own aging father. These are the things we know about. By the way, I'll be reporting you to the moderator for saying those of us that think OJ Simpson is guilty are twisted.

#10 So?

#11 Link please.

#12 Petrocelli and associates were able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. His own lying testimony nailed the verdict of liability. :beer:

By the way, I'm requesting you stop referring to the believers in OJ Simpson's guilt as G Nation.

TV,

Had Faye Resnick kept her mouth shut and did write her "novel", many of the negative things about Nicole never would have seen the light of day. It appears to me that since G's seem to believe everything she says about OJ Simpson, then you must also believe everything she said about Nicole. I don't think any G has come out and said that Faye is lying about Nicole's drug use. I don't believe her but I can see why some people do.

I have no problem with anyone calling OJ Simpson a liar. If he is guilty then I would expect him to lie. However, his lies don't explain or excuse the lies the LAPD told nor does it justify the sub par job performance of other departments. Or 3 FBI agents.

Apparently several investigations by authors not associated with the case have written that the Mezzaluna was a known "drug cover". It is not a great leap of logic that anyone would assume that Ron may have known this and was involved with this activity, again, guilt by association. The fact two other friends of Ron were murdered, this can't be ignored.

Very little is known about Ron and IMO, had this case only been about Simpson killing Ron and Nicole, no one would be bothering to steal or try to purchase any of Ron Goldman's files. Again, IMO.

I don't know why you don't like "G Nation" when you and and others have posted several times, "everybody knows" several times and have included the rest of the world.

Well, there are people who don't share those beliefs so I think a separate "nation" needed to be set up. I meant no offense but I think G Nation is a fair description but I will not use it any longer.

[bobaugust]

The detectives, IMHO, learned of the video showing some dark clothes in the washing machine and, hence the story/lie that they were freshly washed or wet. The detectives, IMHO, lied about what door they entered in order to make it appear that Ms. Arnelle had washed some clothing, and said the back door but, IMHO, lied saying it was the back door but forgot and told the truth, to which Ms. Arnelle testified she unlocked and entered through with the detectives was the front door and the video showed that the only door able to unlocked was the front .

The video shown in court showed the clothing in the washing machine was freshly washed. There is no evidence that the detectives saw that video before it was found by the defense and shown in the criminal trial. Your opinion that the detectives lied about entering the house through the back door is contradicted by the evidence in this case.

Two of the detectives and Kato Kaelin testified in the preliminary hearing that they entered Simpson’s house through the back of the house.

Four detectives testified in the criminal trial that they entered Simpson’s house through the back door of the house. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle and three detectives enter the house through the back door and then he and the fourth detective followed them into the house.

Kato Kaelin’s testimony corroborates the four detective’s testimony that they entered the house through the back door and all five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated story proving that she lied when she said she opened the front door to let the detectives into the house.

I still haven’t seen where you have ever posted the date and testimony regarding the video you keep referring to that showed the back door did not have an outside lock on it. If there was a video that showed that it clearly proves that the back door was unlocked before Arnelle Simpson opened it to let the detectives into the house. And if there was a video that showed that it certainly does not mean that the front door of the house was the only door in Simpson’s house that could be unlocked from the outside.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Support your claim that the "video tape proved was the back door was already unlocked when Arnelle opened it to let the detectives and Kato Kaelin into the house". This can be easily shown, if you provide the video showing Ms. Arnelle unlocking the back door from the inside and leaving prior to the detectives' arrival. The evidence in this case proved that , IMHO, the detectives testilied.

There is no evidence in this case that Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone in June 1994, which the prosecution and/or plaintiffs and you and those that think like you must show in order to explain the lack of evidence as it pertains to a supposed phone call. :);):cool:

The evidence in this case is that Arnelle Simpson opened the back door to let the four detectives and Kato Kaelin into the house. Since that door could not be opened from the outside if it was locked, then because she opened it from the outside means that it was not locked.

You’re the one who brought up the subject of Arnelle having a cell phone, not me. I said even if the police had Arnelle’s phone records from the telephone in her room they would not show incoming phone calls because land line telephone bills do not show incoming phone calls.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I posted Park's testimony where he said Petrocelli and others told him what to say. So, you again use selective reasoning to support your conclusions. Link to prove that Kato's memory improved with age.

You say "Kaelin testified to the same facts that he testified to in the criminal trial", but did you forget you said this

"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"?

Kaelin’s testimony in the civil trial is that he, Arnelle, and all the detectives entered Simpson’s house through the back door of the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Yes, that is quite a bit of supposition but where is the evidence?

The evidence is that Arnelle Simpson lied about what door she opened to let the detectives into the house.
The evidence is that when Arnelle Simpson opened the unlocked back door of the house the house alarm was not on.
The evidence is that some of Arnelle’s freshly washed clothing was found in Simpson’s washing machine the day after the murders.
The evidence is that Arnelle’s Simpson’s laundry basket was found in Simpson’s laundry room the day after the murders.
The evidence is that Arnelle Simpson had a key to Simpson house and knew the house alarm code.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You seem to think the rules work differently for you. Why is that?;):cool:

I believe the rules apply to everyone who posts messages here, and I follow the rules.

[bobaugust]

Simpson's deposition

'Q: And you made one phone call? From the pay phone at LA airport.
A: Yes.

Q: Did you make any others?
A: No.

Q: Did you use coins to make the call, or did you charge it to a number?
A: I don't recall.

Q: You have a calling credit card. Right?
A: Yes.

Q: You use it regularly?
A: I believe so, yes.

Q: Bills it to your home phone?
A: I don't know.

Q: Or the OJ. Enterprises' office phone?
A: I would imagine. One of them. "

They could have supoenaed his phone card records or there would have been a record made from the pay phone in Chicago.

Maybe they could have if they had thought of it, but since the prosecutors and the detectives never realized why Arnelle Simpson lied they never came to the logical inference that Simpson called her.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"One is that our wire-tap statute does a very good job of protecting the content of a communication, the words that you actually speak, but it doesn't do a very good job of protecting the record of the communication, the billing information, who you called, how long you spoke, the number associated with the person that you called, This information receives a much lower level of protection, And as investigations increasingly rely upon transactional data, incident data, to initiate an investigation, this is where the privacy battle is going to be fought."

The number associated with the number you called would be an incoming call to that person.

MR. SYLVESTER: I guess I would like to follow up on one thing there, and that is, the telephone phone company certainly keeps these records, but if you are looking for legislation or controls, I would suggest that you might direct it, not at the telephone company but at the agencies that issues these subpoenas, because they make the determination as to what they are after and how they are going to obtain it."

Fancy way of saying an incoming call to someone would be an outgoing call to someone else. I am still looking for scientific, credible and corroborated testimony and evidence of the things I asked about in the previous post.

"In the past the incoming numbers to the phones were listed on bills but are now shown simply as my cell number. "

http://www.ripoffreport.com/Cellular-Phone-Companies/Verizon-Wireless/verizon-wireless-ripoff-over-c-32y5a.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/7/16229/48489

"Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:02:29 PM PDT
This is huge. Beyond huge: Anyone can buy a list of your incoming and outgoing phone calls, cell or land-line, for $110 online.

The bombshell was reported in a Chicago Sun-Times story. Aravosis decided to try it out:

Journalists, politicians, businessmen, abused spouses, law enforcement, and everyone f****** else...."




8 else -- your business is now everyone else's business for the low, low price of $110.

Technology in 2006 was far more advanced then technology was in 1995. You still have not supported your claim that in 1995 there were telephone records that could have been obtained that showed incoming calls for a land line telephone number. As I recall the only telephone records that were obtained in the Simpson case were telephone bills.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You are incorrect, all the evidence points to the detectives lied about why they went to Rockingham, why they jumped the wall and why they wanted inside the house. It has been proven that VA lied to obtain the first search warrant, he lied about why the glove was found and he lied about who told him about the thumps.

The evidence clearly proves that Arnelle knew her father was out of town, she indicated to the detectives she knew who to contact to find out exactly where he was.

The detectives should have left the property after they were told that OJ was not home. They had to come up with a lie as to why they wanted inside the main house.

Kato's testimony is very confusing, doesn't he say that he just assumed Arnelle opend the door because she had the keys and he didn't have one? It appears to me that he saw with keys in her hands and he assumed the rest.

Also, why did Arnelle keep her telephone book in her car?

None of the detectives were ever found to have lied about what you think they lied about.

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q OKAY. HOW LONG DID YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN LAST, SIR?
A I THINK ABOUT FIVE MINUTES INSIDE THE ROOM.
Q IS THAT AN ESTIMATE YOU'RE GIVING US?
A ESTIMATE, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
Q AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I FOLLOWED -- WHATEVER THEY TOLD ME TO DO I DID. SO WE ALL WENT OUTSIDE.
Q OKAY. DID HE TELL YOU TO COME OUTSIDE?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE DID HE TAKE YOU?
A I FOLLOWED THROUGH INTO THE MAIN HOUSE.
Q OKAY. WHO DID YOU FOLLOW?
A I BELIEVE ARNELLE WAS LEADING WITH KEY AND THE REST OF THE
DETECTIVES.
Q OKAY. SO YOU ACTUALLY SAW ARNELLE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AHEAD OF YOU?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WALK IN BEHIND HER?
A YES.

bobaugust

[Its just me]

I still haven’t seen where you have ever posted the date and testimony regarding the video you keep referring to that showed the back door did not have an outside lock on it. If there was a video that showed that it clearly proves that the back door was unlocked before Arnelle Simpson opened it to let the detectives into the house. And if there was a video that showed that it certainly does not mean that the front door of the house was the only door in Simpson’s house that could be unlocked from the outside.

bobaugust

In reading Simpson's depositions for the civil case I totally disagree that the front door was the only door that could be unlocked from the outside. IMHOO Simpson's own testimony in the depo proves the one door theory is not true.

[Its just me]

#12 Petrocelli and associates were able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. His own lying testimony nailed the verdict of liability. :beer:

.

I'm not finished with all of Simpson's depositions in the civil trial but it's clear Simpson lied and some lies were establishied by Simpson's own admission when he "knew" there were proof that he had told lies.

I follow the Florida Casey Anthony case where most of America believes she murdered her child but for those who defend her.... it's Casey is being framed and someone else killed little Caylee. It will be interesting to see how the defense lawyers spins the frame up job in court and also the forensic evidence that clearly points to Casey but it's already out there the defense is going to attact how the evidence was collected and tested. Florida is different than most or many states.....The public has access to most all records filed on a case to read and dig out for their self......I wish that was the case with the Simpson trial. In Florida if something is given to the defense it has to be given to the public....same with what the defense gives to the DA. I seriously doubt everything shared in the Simpson case was ever brought up during the trial and it won't be in the Anthony case.

[Its just me]

William,

IMO, not one of the detectives believed that Arnelle washed any clothes. IMO, the reason they did not write about this in their books and accuse her is because they already knew that the dark items were either taken out of the washing machin and tested or they proved to be Arnelle's clothing.

It seems to be that there is a battle of the battle of the books by MC, Lange and VA and MF. I don't know remember if Darden said anything this in his book or Hank Goldberg.

The fact that Clark has the sweats in the hamper is another factor that can't be overlooked. IMO, Petrocelli was just trying to solve a mystery that never was. Again, IMO.

IMHOO For liability reasons it was common sense not to accuse Arnelle of anything in a book even if there was a mountain of evidence saying she was involved. Arnelle was not the one on trial so it was not determined if she was involved or not. OJ's case was to present OJ's case to the jury. The DA put before the jury 5 witnesses to impeach Arnelle's testimony that she went inside the front door.

I remember the clothes in the washing machine being somehow a part of the criminal trial....it was on TV but I don't remember if it was only before the judge or before the jury. If the clothes OJ wore were in the washing machine and washed it stands to reason no blood evidence was left to present in court.

[tv]

TV,

Had Faye Resnick kept her mouth shut and did write her "novel", many of the negative things about Nicole never would have seen the light of day. It appears to me that since G's seem to believe everything she says about OJ Simpson, then you must also believe everything she said about Nicole. I don't think any G has come out and said that Faye is lying about Nicole's drug use. I don't believe her but I can see why some people do.

I have no problem with anyone calling OJ Simpson a liar. If he is guilty then I would expect him to lie. However, his lies don't explain or excuse the lies the LAPD told nor does it justify the sub par job performance of other departments. Or 3 FBI agents.

Apparently several investigations by authors not associated with the case have written that the Mezzaluna was a known "drug cover". It is not a great leap of logic that anyone would assume that Ron may have known this and was involved with this activity, again, guilt by association. The fact two other friends of Ron were murdered, this can't be ignored.

Very little is known about Ron and IMO, had this case only been about Simpson killing Ron and Nicole, no one would be bothering to steal or try to purchase any of Ron Goldman's files. Again, IMO.

I don't know why you don't like "G Nation" when you and and others have posted several times, "everybody knows" several times and have included the rest of the world.

Well, there are people who don't share those beliefs so I think a separate "nation" needed to be set up. I meant no offense but I think G Nation is a fair description but I will not use it any longer.

I don't have a problem with you saying that Ron and Nicole were involved with drugs even though the only proof you have is your imagination -- my problem is that you keep denying that you or anyone else has said it and then proceed to say it again.

It doesn't matter why I don't like G Nation. Everybody knows it's meant to be insulting.

[tv]

I'm not finished with all of Simpson's depositions in the civil trial but it's clear Simpson lied and some lies were establishied by Simpson's own admission when he "knew" there were proof that he had told lies.

I follow the Florida Casey Anthony case where most of America believes she murdered her child but for those who defend her.... it's Casey is being framed and someone else killed little Caylee. It will be interesting to see how the defense lawyers spins the frame up job in court and also the forensic evidence that clearly points to Casey but it's already out there the defense is going to attact how the evidence was collected and tested. Florida is different than most or many states.....The public has access to most all records filed on a case to read and dig out for their self......I wish that was the case with the Simpson trial. In Florida if something is given to the defense it has to be given to the public....same with what the defense gives to the DA. I seriously doubt everything shared in the Simpson case was ever brought up during the trial and it won't be in the Anthony case.

I also follow the Anthony case even though I haven't heard anything in a few days. I have the feeling that Jose is going to use the OJ defense to try to get her off. To be honest, I don't see that he has any other choice. Just as in the Simpson case the evidence is overwhelming and his only choice is to attack LE, the forensics, the meter reader and the investigation.

[Its just me]

I also follow the Anthony case even though I haven't heard anything in a few days. I have the feeling that Jose is going to use the OJ defense to try to get her off. To be honest, I don't see that he has any other choice. Just as in the Simpson case the evidence is overwhelming and his only choice is to attack LE, the forensics, the meter reader and the investigation.

I totally agree.

I'm a little behind on my Anthony reading but I'm trying to catch up. I don't post but I love the Anthony board here at CL. It's a wonderful source for links to information....great common sense opinions plus I love the humor that is posted along with info for a very sad case.

[tv]

I totally agree.

I'm a little behind on my Anthony reading but I'm trying to catch up. I don't post but I love the Anthony board here at CL. It's a wonderful source for links to information....great common sense opinions plus I love the humor that is posted along with info for a very sad case.

I couldn't agree more about the Anthony board. I post occasionally but those people are light years away from me in knowledge about the case -- the same with the Haleigh thread.

[martin II]

In reading Simpson's depositions for the civil case I totally disagree that the front door was the only door that could be unlocked from the outside. IMHOO Simpson's own testimony in the depo proves the one door theory is not true.

The video of all the east doors knobs proves that there were no outside locks on any doors so it was not possible for either of those doors to be unlocked from the outside.

GIGS testimony that she would have to unlock the south east door from the inside to allow kato into the house is further proof that no east door could be opened from the outside.imo

[martin II]

TV,

Had Faye Resnick kept her mouth shut and did write her "novel", many of the negative things about Nicole never would have seen the light of day. It appears to me that since G's seem to believe everything she says about OJ Simpson, then you must also believe everything she said about Nicole. I don't think any G has come out and said that Faye is lying about Nicole's drug use. I don't believe her but I can see why some people do.

I have no problem with anyone calling OJ Simpson a liar. If he is guilty then I would expect him to lie. However, his lies don't explain or excuse the lies the LAPD told nor does it justify the sub par job performance of other departments. Or 3 FBI agents.

Apparently several investigations by authors not associated with the case have written that the Mezzaluna was a known "drug cover". It is not a great leap of logic that anyone would assume that Ron may have known this and was involved with this activity, again, guilt by association. The fact two other friends of Ron were murdered, this can't be ignored.

Very little is known about Ron and IMO, had this case only been about Simpson killing Ron and Nicole, no one would be bothering to steal or try to purchase any of Ron Goldman's files. Again, IMO.

I don't know why you don't like "G Nation" when you and and others have posted several times, "everybody knows" several times and have included the rest of the world.

Well, there are people who don't share those beliefs so I think a separate "nation" needed to be set up. I meant no offense but I think G Nation is a fair description but I will not use it any longer.


This has been posted and discussed more than once on the oj thread.

Ron Goldman's friend Brett Cantor was killed with a knife in a manner identical to Ron and Nicole: from behind and across the throat and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Michael Nigg, a waiter at the Mezzaluna (where Ron Goldman was also a waiter) was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.
* Many working at Mezzaluna were involved with the Mafia and/or the drug trade.

* Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ron Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. Hoestler said Nicole and her friends were "over their heads with some dope dealers".

[martin II]

every phone transaction is recorded electronically in the phone company local switching station in your area otherwise the call does not go through. Not the conversation but the transaction.
This is prior to 1990

If one complains of abusive calls to your number the phone company requires you to go to the local DA office make a simple complaint. Present that complaint to the phone company giving them the date and time of the abusive call to your number and they will pull up the abusers number and send them a stop call demand to your number.
Fact.

Remember a guy was making abusive calls to nicoles before she was killed. Nicole didn't know the person. How did le find him if not by tracing the calls from nicoles to his phone.They found him told him not to call her. He ignorded them and continued to call her.She told oj about it and asked him to keep a eye out for her.imo

[weezer]

I'm having a tough time even imagining Nicole asking her abuser/tormenter/stalker for help.

[martin II]

OJ states he was bleeding some before going to Chicago. :shrug: But he just don't know where the blood was coming from but it was on the counter in the kitchen and on his pinky of his left hand. civil trial depositions. Feb 26th

A: No. I told them I cut it in Chicago but it may have been cut the night before because I saw blood, and there was no other cuts on my hand at the time, so I assumed that it may have come from the same area.

Q: Mr. Simpson, did you cut your finger on June l2, l994, the left middle finger at the joint?

A: Not that I know of.

Q: When you say, "Not that I know of," are you still uncertain as you sit here today whether you cut the left middle finger at the joint area on June 12, 1994?

A: It's not that I know of.

Q: When you say, "not that I know of, are you able to definitively rule it out one way or the other?

A: I didn't see any cuts, but I saw blood, a drop of blood on my counter and a drop of blood on one of my fingers. I didn't know where it came from. So not that I know of.

OJ testified he must have nicked his finger when he got his cell phone holder stuff from his car. That he put a piece of paper towel on it in his kitchen.

[martin II]

I'm having a tough time even imagining Nicole asking her abuser/tormenter/stalker for help.

I understand you may.

[martin II]

There were only three exterior house doors that had outside door locks.

1, front door
2. laundry room door
2. garage door to house. imo
no one entered the laundry or garage door

[martin II]

The issue of the sweats was solved by post no. 18471.fini

[tv]

OJ testified he must have nicked his finger when he got his cell phone holder stuff from his car. That he put a piece of paper towel on it in his kitchen.

Civil trial testimony of OJ Simpson:

Q: And how did you suffer the cut on the middle finger?

A: I broke a glass when I was in Chicago, and in the process of cleaning it up I evidently cut my finger.

MR. KELLY: I couldn't hear that. I'm sorry, Mr. Simpson.

THE Witness: I said, in the process of cleaning--not cleaning it up, but scooping it up, I evidently cut my finger.

[tv]

The issue of the sweats was solved by post no. 18471.fini

Maybe for you but the rest of us reserve the right to come to our own conclusions.

[tv]

I'm having a tough time even imagining Nicole asking her abuser/tormenter/stalker for help.

Who's word are we taking for this? OJ Simpson's? :D

[Its just me]

There were only three exterior house doors that had outside door locks.

1, front door
2. laundry room door
2. garage door to house. imo
no one entered the laundry or garage door

Link please to the locks/doors.

[Its just me]

Civil trial testimony of OJ Simpson:

Q: And how did you suffer the cut on the middle finger?

A: I broke a glass when I was in Chicago, and in the process of cleaning it up I evidently cut my finger.

MR. KELLY: I couldn't hear that. I'm sorry, Mr. Simpson.

THE Witness: I said, in the process of cleaning--not cleaning it up, but scooping it up, I evidently cut my finger.

Right and he said he had no idea where the blood was coming from but it was on his pinky finger and on the counter. To my knowledge he never said he put a paper towel "on" it....only wiped away the blood from his pinky and the counter.
In the civil deposition there are questions to OJ about the many trips he made to the potty room on his trip to Chicago but OJ claims he never once washed his hands. :shrug:

Some of the cut finger is also in the Police statement.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, the Browns nor the Goldmans' even needed a lawyer to present their case. The media did it for them. I think that is why Petrocelli is so bent on his Arnelle theory and other crazy theories. With these, the media can't claim them. However, I did enjoy watching him squirm when he was on his book tour and these same media types slapped him down a tad on these theories, to include Arnelle.

He convinces those that already are convinced to his way of thinking, IMHO. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

William,

This is a well known fact. However, it did surprise on just how far they hold hands with the SID departments.

Have you not heard that birds of a feather flock together?:);):cool:

[weezer]

Right and he said he had no idea where the blood was coming from but it was on his pinky finger and on the counter. To my knowledge he never said he put a paper towel "on" it....only wiped away the blood from his pinky and the counter.
In the civil deposition there are questions to OJ about the many trips he made to the potty room on his trip to Chicago but OJ claims he never once washed his hands. :shrug:

Some of the cut finger is also in the Police statement.

eeewwww!

[William Anthony]

The video shown in court showed the clothing in the washing machine was freshly washed. There is no evidence that the detectives saw that video before it was found by the defense and shown in the criminal trial. Your opinion that the detectives lied about entering the house through the back door is contradicted by the evidence in this case.

Two of the detectives and Kato Kaelin testified in the preliminary hearing that they entered Simpson’s house through the back of the house.

Four detectives testified in the criminal trial that they entered Simpson’s house through the back door of the house. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle and three detectives enter the house through the back door and then he and the fourth detective followed them into the house.

Kato Kaelin’s testimony corroborates the four detective’s testimony that they entered the house through the back door and all five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated story proving that she lied when she said she opened the front door to let the detectives into the house.

I still haven’t seen where you have ever posted the date and testimony regarding the video you keep referring to that showed the back door did not have an outside lock on it. If there was a video that showed that it clearly proves that the back door was unlocked before Arnelle Simpson opened it to let the detectives into the house. And if there was a video that showed that it certainly does not mean that the front door of the house was the only door in Simpson’s house that could be unlocked from the outside.

bobaugust

How could the video showed that they were washed at all, unless there was wash water in the machine? Black clothes do not equal a sweatsuit. The evidence in the case is the video showing which door could be unlocked.:biggrin:

Two of the detectives and Kato testilied, IMHO.

Four detectives and Kato testilied, IMHO.

I did post the date any maybe you missed it, just like the detectives missed Ms. Arnelle turning off the alarm. The video proves what Ms. Arnelle testified to and the detectives corroborated, which was that the only door she could have unlocked and the entered was the front. :);)

[martin II]

Maybe for you but the rest of us reserve the right to come to our own conclusions.

I don't know who "the rest of us is " care tp explain?

[martin II]

Civil trial testimony of OJ Simpson:

Q: And how did you suffer the cut on the middle finger?

A: I broke a glass when I was in Chicago, and in the process of cleaning it up I evidently cut my finger.

MR. KELLY: I couldn't hear that. I'm sorry, Mr. Simpson.

THE Witness: I said, in the process of cleaning--not cleaning it up, but scooping it up, I evidently cut my finger.

Thats chicago

[William Anthony]

The evidence in this case is that Arnelle Simpson opened the back door to let the four detectives and Kato Kaelin into the house. Since that door could not be opened from the outside if it was locked, then because she opened it from the outside means that it was not locked.

You’re the one who brought up the subject of Arnelle having a cell phone, not me. I said even if the police had Arnelle’s phone records from the telephone in her room they would not show incoming phone calls because land line telephone bills do not show incoming phone calls.

bobaugust

You're the one that claimed a phone call was made and claimed that the phone records could not be produced, because there was no evidence that Ms. Arnelle had a cell phone in 1994. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. There are no phone records, because there was no phone call.:D

You may need to change testimony to support your conclusions but the testimony is what it is and you may need to say that some assumed, even when they did not testify they assumed.:D

I have posted the links proving my point about the land line and cell phones, showing incoming calls.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Kaelin’s testimony in the civil trial is that he, Arnelle, and all the detectives entered Simpson’s house through the back door of the house.

bobaugust

What has this to do with the price of apples, in that you claimed Park's memory improved with age and Kato's faded?:);)

[William Anthony]

The evidence is that Arnelle Simpson lied about what door she opened to let the detectives into the house.
The evidence is that when Arnelle Simpson opened the unlocked back door of the house the house alarm was not on.
The evidence is that some of Arnelle’s freshly washed clothing was found in Simpson’s washing machine the day after the murders.
The evidence is that Arnelle’s Simpson’s laundry basket was found in Simpson’s laundry room the day after the murders.
The evidence is that Arnelle Simpson had a key to Simpson house and knew the house alarm code.

bobaugust

Link to support everything but your last sentence, please?:);):cool:

[martin II]

Right and he said he had no idea where the blood was coming from but it was on his pinky finger and on the counter. To my knowledge he never said he put a paper towel "on" it....only wiped away the blood from his pinky and the counter.
In the civil deposition there are questions to OJ about the many trips he made to the potty room on his trip to Chicago but OJ claims he never once washed his hands. :shrug:

Some of the cut finger is also in the Police statement.

The Doctor that examined the cut on ojs hands testified it was zig zag as if from a glass cut. Not from a 4 inch sharp single edge knife that some believe was used to cut the victims.imo

[William Anthony]

Maybe they could have if they had thought of it, but since the prosecutors and the detectives never realized why Arnelle Simpson lied they never came to the logical inference that Simpson called her.

bobaugust

That is a very not so nice way of saying there is no evidence that Simpson called Ms. Arnelle, correct?:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Technology in 2006 was far more advanced then technology was in 1995. You still have not supported your claim that in 1995 there were telephone records that could have been obtained that showed incoming calls for a land line telephone number. As I recall the only telephone records that were obtained in the Simpson case were telephone bills.

bobaugust

Who decided to obtain bills rather than records?:D I have shown with the link that incoming phone calls could be supoenaed as early as 1992. Did you read this?

"One is that our wire-tap statute does a very good job of protecting the content of a communication, the words that you actually speak, but it doesn't do a very good job of protecting the record of the communication, the billing information, who you called, how long you spoke, the number associated with the person that you called, This information receives a much lower level of protection, And as investigations increasingly rely upon transactional data, incident data, to initiate an investigation, this is where the privacy battle is going to be fought.

Now I have put up these cards, and I would just like to take a minute to tell you how other countries view this problem. While I said a moment ago that the United States has done a very good job on the telephone content front, we have done very poorly on the transactional record front.

"The Europeans and the Japanese, however, are very sensitive to this second problem. The Europeans, in part, because of the experience with the Nazis in gaining access to telephone toll records and using-that as a basis for persecution in the thirties have changed, in fact, I should say they have established billing policies to limit the disclosure of phone number information. it is typically not available to phone subscribers to know the numbers that are called. These cards, which are much like the Metro cards in Washington, allow people at a public pay phone in Great Britain or in France or in Japan to simply insert a card, make an anonymous call, have the credit debited from the card and to leave no trace that the communication ever took place.

The conversation was about payphone calls and your claim that they would not show up on land line records, unless they were collect calls and I told you there was a difference between phone records and phone bills.

[martin II]

Maybe for you but the rest of us reserve the right to come to our own conclusions.

The info in the articles had to have come from the das office.imo

[William Anthony]

IMHOO For liability reasons it was common sense not to accuse Arnelle of anything in a book even if there was a mountain of evidence saying she was involved. Arnelle was not the one on trial so it was not determined if she was involved or not. OJ's case was to present OJ's case to the jury. The DA put before the jury 5 witnesses to impeach Arnelle's testimony that she went inside the front door.

I remember the clothes in the washing machine being somehow a part of the criminal trial....it was on TV but I don't remember if it was only before the judge or before the jury. If the clothes OJ wore were in the washing machine and washed it stands to reason no blood evidence was left to present in court.

According to some posters, it did not stop Petrocelli. Are you saying Petrocelli is short on common sense?

[William Anthony]

I also follow the Anthony case even though I haven't heard anything in a few days. I have the feeling that Jose is going to use the OJ defense to try to get her off. To be honest, I don't see that he has any other choice. Just as in the Simpson case the evidence is overwhelming and his only choice is to attack LE, the forensics, the meter reader and the investigation.

When you put evidence on it become subject to the test of trustworthiness under the defendant's Constitutional right to confront the witnesses and the evidence against him. That's how the judicial system works. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I understand you may.

I don't believe she did. I don't think they ever found the stalker and, maybe, not the murderer.

[William Anthony]

Who's word are we taking for this? OJ Simpson's? :D

Certainly not, and I am glad of it, MF's.

[William Anthony]

The Doctor that examined the cut on ojs hands testified it was zig zag as if from a glass cut. Not from a 4 inch sharp single edge knife that some believe was used to cut the victims.imo

True dat. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Maybe for you but the rest of us reserve the right to come to our own conclusions.

Can you prove the media report wrong???

[martin II]

True dat. :);):cool:

OJ injured himself getting stuff from his bronco and in chicago hotel room.
Parks and katos testimony proved oj was in his house when the murders happened. All this talk about cut is just a attempt to place him at a place he was not and ignore the testimony.

The criminal trial was about extracting money from oj. The level of proof required for liable was a joke and the judges actions proves that the fix was in.
Even the civil jury realized they only heard half of the evidence.It was a political payback trial and fred still has not been paid. But most civil judgements are never poaid. imo

[martin II]

After all the testimony about the doors to the interior of ojs house it it plain
that the only door that was unlocked on 6/13 was the front door as no one entered the house by the garage or the laundry room.

[martin II]

William

Its comical how some da claims make no sense.

If OJ was in the walkway and wanted to get into his house all he had to do is
unlock the door from the walkway to the laundry room and walk in.imo

This proves he was never in the walkway and was upstairs and brought the two duffle bags down just before kato returned from the gasrage and let Park imo

[Its just me]

According to some posters, it did not stop Petrocelli. Are you saying Petrocelli is short on common sense?

Did you see Petrocelli name in my post??......I didn't think so. I'll never understand how some posts can come out to be something they are not.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-think005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[William Anthony]

Did you see Petrocelli name in my post??......I didn't think so. I'll never understand how some posts can come out to be something they are not.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-think005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

This is what you said, " Originally Posted by Its just me View Post
IMHOO For liability reasons it was common sense not to accuse Arnelle of anything in a book even if there was a mountain of evidence saying she was involved." Since posters have said that Petrocelli accused her in a book, I asked you the question about his common sense or should I have said do you think Petrocelli showed common sense, if he accused Ms. Arnelle in a book. What is the difference between a book and this message board, in your opinion?

[William Anthony]

OJ injured himself getting stuff from his bronco and in chicago hotel room.
Parks and katos testimony proved oj was in his house when the murders happened. All this talk about cut is just a attempt to place him at a place he was not and ignore the testimony.

The criminal trial was about extracting money from oj. The level of proof required for liable was a joke and the judges actions proves that the fix was in.
Even the civil jury realized they only heard half of the evidence.It was a political payback trial and fred still has not been paid. But most civil judgements are never poaid. imo

The blood leading from his Bronco to his front door and into his house and no blood behind the quarters shows where he was.

[Its just me]

every phone transaction is recorded electronically in the phone company local switching station in your area otherwise the call does not go through. Not the conversation but the transaction.
This is prior to 1990

If one complains of abusive calls to your number the phone company requires you to go to the local DA office make a simple complaint. Present that complaint to the phone company giving them the date and time of the abusive call to your number and they will pull up the abusers number and send them a stop call demand to your number.
Fact.

Remember a guy was making abusive calls to nicoles before she was killed. Nicole didn't know the person. How did le find him if not by tracing the calls from nicoles to his phone.They found him told him not to call her. He ignorded them and continued to call her.She told oj about it and asked him to keep a eye out for her.imo

Different areas must handle things different. In the 90's my son was getting unwanted phone calls from a girl he did not know. We contacted the phone company and we were told they could put a tracer on our line but if they did....charges would be brought against the person calling. We didn't want to go with the phone company monitoring our line but tried telling the caller we were if the calls did not stop and she stopped calling.

It appears Nicole reported the abusive calls and her line was monitored to ID where the calls originated.

There are no local calling records kept or recorded unless a certain line is monitored. IMHOO

[Its just me]

The video of all the east doors knobs proves that there were no outside locks on any doors so it was not possible for either of those doors to be unlocked from the outside.

GIGS testimony that she would have to unlock the south east door from the inside to allow kato into the house is further proof that no east door could be opened from the outside.imo


Do you have a link.

[William Anthony]

Different areas must handle things different. In the 90's my son was getting unwanted phone calls from a girl he did not know. We contacted the phone company and we were told they could put a tracer on our line but if they did....charges would be brought against the person calling. We didn't want to go with the phone company monitoring our line but tried telling the caller we were if the calls did not stop and she stopped calling.

It appears Nicole reported the abusive calls and her line was monitored to ID where the calls originated.

There are no local calling records kept or recorded unless a certain line is monitored. IMHOO

I have provided the link. You are not required to believe what your eyes read but the link clearly states that LE and other agencies can get the records under a valid court order.

[William Anthony]

Different areas must handle things different. In the 90's my son was getting unwanted phone calls from a girl he did not know. We contacted the phone company and we were told they could put a tracer on our line but if they did....charges would be brought against the person calling. We didn't want to go with the phone company monitoring our line but tried telling the caller we were if the calls did not stop and she stopped calling.

It appears Nicole reported the abusive calls and her line was monitored to ID where the calls originated.

There are no local calling records kept or recorded unless a certain line is monitored. IMHOO

The discussion was about a phone call from Chicago, Illinois to Brentwood, California, hardly local, IMHO.

[Its just me]

The discussion was about a phone call from Chicago, Illinois to Brentwood, California, hardly local, IMHO.

LOL Is there something wrong with adding something about local. Huh.

FWIW and IMHOO Any information on calls from Chicago to Brentwood would be gotten from the calling phone records not the phone receiving the call and that information would be stored for billing purposes only. Phone companies are not in the CIA business...IMHOO

[martin II]

Different areas must handle things different. In the 90's my son was getting unwanted phone calls from a girl he did not know. We contacted the phone company and we were told they could put a tracer on our line but if they did....charges would be brought against the person calling. We didn't want to go with the phone company monitoring our line but tried telling the caller we were if the calls did not stop and she stopped calling.

It appears Nicole reported the abusive calls and her line was monitored to ID where the calls originated.

There are no local calling records kept or recorded unless a certain line is monitored. IMHOO

i have not said calls were recorded. i have said each call trasaction had a record of the call being made which is how the phone company can go to the date and time you say the calls were made to your phone and get the calling number.This happened to me.

Every call transaction has a record of being switched on at the local switching station. with the date and time the call can be traced from your phone to the caller.

[tv]

I don't know who "the rest of us is " care tp explain?

Hmm...let's see...no.

[Its just me]

I have provided the link. You are not required to believe what your eyes read but the link clearly states that LE and other agencies can get the records under a valid court order.

That's right but they can only get what is available from the phone company. Contrary to what some may believe phone companies does not have this great data base to store every phone transition except for billing purposes and that is kept on the calling phone that is billed not the receiving phone unless it is a collect call for the receiving phone. IMHOO

ETA: The phone company can provide information on the receiving phone if there is a request to monitor future calls.

ETA: I can't remember exactly how it went but there was big co hoot made about the CIA being allowed to see who was calling who. Something to do with the Patriot Act.

[tv]

William,

IMO, the Browns nor the Goldmans' even needed a lawyer to present their case. The media did it for them. I think that is why Petrocelli is so bent on his Arnelle theory and other crazy theories. With these, the media can't claim them. However, I did enjoy watching him squirm when he was on his book tour and these same media types slapped him down a tad on these theories, to include Arnelle.

Please provide a link to an example of "these same media types slapped him down".

[martin II]

LOL Is there something wrong with adding something about local. Huh.

FWIW and IMHOO Any information on calls from Chicago to Brentwood would be gotten from the calling phone records not the phone receiving the call and that information would be stored for billing purposes only. Phone companies are not in the CIA business...IMHOO

The calls oj made to his house after talking to phillips were able to be traced from his hotel room to his home.

The hertz person picked oj up at the baggage claim in chicago and delivered him to his hotel room. All calls from him room or the hotel could be traced.
I believe they were and there was no call at the time some think oj called Arnell.
Without proof of that call the claim that it was made is just some trying to make stuff up.

[martin II]

Please provide a link to an example of "these same media types slapped him down".

See WAGNER 'PETROCELLIES GOOFY IDEAS"

[tv]

See WAGNER 'PETROCELLIES GOOFY IDEAS"

Oh, Wagner...I see. :tongue:

[martin II]

That's right but they can only get what is available from the phone company. Contrary to what some may believe phone companies does not have this great data base to store every phone transition except for billing purposes and that is kept on the calling phone that is billed not the receiving phone unless it is a collect call for the receiving phone. IMHOO

ETA: The phone company can provide information on the receiving phone if there is a request to monitor future calls.

ETA: I can't remember exactly how it went but there was big co hoot made about the CIA being allowed to see who was calling who. Something to do with the Patriot Act.

When a court order is issued for phone calls/records where does the phone company get these records if there is no record made when the call was placed?

[weezer]

Different areas must handle things different. In the 90's my son was getting unwanted phone calls from a girl he did not know. We contacted the phone company and we were told they could put a tracer on our line but if they did....charges would be brought against the person calling. We didn't want to go with the phone company monitoring our line but tried telling the caller we were if the calls did not stop and she stopped calling.

It appears Nicole reported the abusive calls and her line was monitored to ID where the calls originated.

There are no local calling records kept or recorded unless a certain line is monitored. IMHOO

I'm afraid some of the posters aren't familiar with phones and bills and reports and how they worked in the 90's. But, since LE and/or the criminal defense used and accepted as evidence phone 'bills' as evidence, I'm not sure why anyone is wasting time arguing about what 'could' have been done -- :shrug:

[martin II]

Oh, Wagner...I see. :tongue:

Wagner is as good as most and better than some. He did explain in detail why it was goofy as it turned out Petros idea was totally impossible based on testimony and the physical construction of the carport. imo

[martin II]

I'm afraid some of the posters aren't familiar with phones and bills and reports and how they worked in the 90's. But, since LE and/or the criminal defense used and accepted as evidence phone 'bills' as evidence, I'm not sure why anyone is wasting time arguing about what 'could' have been done -- :shrug:

Since there were no records of the call to Arnell there was no call.

[tv]

Wagner is as good as most and better than some. He did explain in detail why it was goofy as it turned out Petros idea was totally impossible based on testimony and the physical construction of the carport. imo

I disagree with his opinion that any of Petrocelli's ideas were goofy. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you.

[weezer]

I disagree with his opinion that any of Petrocelli's ideas were goofy. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you.

is wagner the looney that came up with k1, k2, etc? geez louise.

[martin II]

I disagree with his opinion that any of Petrocelli's ideas were goofy. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you.

testimony proved the idea to be goofy. did you read it?

[martin II]

Please provide a link to an example of "these same media types slapped him down".

You think Petro did not get any negative press during his book selling efforts?

[Hipcheck]

is wagner the looney that came up with k1, k2, etc? geez louise.

Wagner is the looney that came up with the theory that Ms. Browns glassess weren't lost but actually planted. Can you believe that?

[Its just me]

OJ injured himself getting stuff from his bronco and in chicago hotel room.
Parks and katos testimony proved oj was in his house when the murders happened. All this talk about cut is just a attempt to place him at a place he was not and ignore the testimony.

The criminal trial was about extracting money from oj. The level of proof required for liable was a joke and the judges actions proves that the fix was in.
Even the civil jury realized they only heard half of the evidence.It was a political payback trial and fred still has not been paid. But most civil judgements are never poaid. imo

OJ clearly stated (claimed) in the civil deposition that he had no idea how or if he had cut his finger or anything for that matter. He stated (claimed) he saw blood on his pinky and saw a drop of blood on the kitchen counter. OJ claimed he got a paper towel and wiped the counter and his pinky. I can't remember OJ's tale in the police statement but much did not match the truth concerning some things and OJ admitted that in the civil depositions. So to put it in a short form OJ admitted he is a liar.

Since you say most civil judgements are never paid.... have you ever stopped to consider just maybe it is NOT about the money.

[Hipcheck]

You think Petro did not get any negative press during his book selling efforts?

No, I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[weezer]

Wagner is the looney that came up with the theory that Ms. Browns glassess weren't lost but actually planted. Can you believe that?

it's as plausible as men hiding in bushes, standing in the street, and more than one killer (none of who was orenthal) BUT no one left their DNA -- just poor ole orenthal.

[tv]

is wagner the looney that came up with k1, k2, etc? geez louise.

I think he is...good heavens. :rolleyes:

[tv]

testimony proved the idea to be goofy. did you read it?

I've read the civil trial testimony extensively and I don't see anything goofy about Petrocelli's ideas.

[tv]

You think Petro did not get any negative press during his book selling efforts?

I haven't seen any negative press -- that's why I asked for a link.

[martin II]

That's right but they can only get what is available from the phone company. Contrary to what some may believe phone companies does not have this great data base to store every phone transition except for billing purposes and that is kept on the calling phone that is billed not the receiving phone unless it is a collect call for the receiving phone. IMHOO

ETA: The phone company can provide information on the receiving phone if there is a request to monitor future calls.

ETA: I can't remember exactly how it went but there was big co hoot made about the CIA being allowed to see who was calling who. Something to do with the Patriot Act.

You think the NSA cannot get records of ALL phone calls??

[Hotwater]

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


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

[martin II]

I've read the civil trial testimony extensively and I don't see anything goofy about Petrocelli's ideas.

Civil trial testimony proved his idea wrong but Wagner gave the details why

[tv]

Civil trial testimony proved his idea wrong but Wagner gave the details why

Believe what you want. :shrug:

[Its just me]

You think the NSA cannot get records of ALL phone calls??

You think there are records for all your incoming phone calls stored in some big data base. There are records for anything you are billed for...the number, address and time used....outside of that there are no past records. To get information on calls you received it would have to come from records for the number that called you....if it was a chargeable call. Why do you think the Patriot Act allowed the CIA to monitor phone calls if all they had to do was plug in your phone number and be able to pull up every number that made a connection to your number.

[martin II]

You think there are records for all your incoming phone calls stored in some big data base. There are records for anything you are billed for...the number, address and time used....outside of that there are no past records. To get information on calls you received it would have to come from records for the number that called you....if it was a chargeable call. Why do you think the Patriot Act allowed the CIA to monitor phone calls if all they had to do was plug in your phone number and be able to pull up every number that made a connection to your number.

When a court order is issued for past calls from a number to another and those past records are retrieved as per court order where does those records come from?

Remember the FIGHT over jb phone records. The phone company had the records but lou would not give permission for release.

[weezer]

The Brown's phone records (as stipulated to by the criminal defense) was entered into evidence and established the timeline of the calls to Nicole's FROM the Brown's.

[martin II]

The Brown's phone records (as stipulated to by the criminal defense) was entered into evidence and established the timeline of the calls to Nicole's FROM the Brown's.

Where did those records come from if not from the phone compamy?

[tv]

When a court order is issued for past calls from a number to another and those past records are retrieved as per court order where does those records come from?

Remember the FIGHT over jb phone records. The phone company had the records but lou would not give permission for release.

Aren't you talking about Lou Brown not releasing the phone records to the Johnson brothers?

[Its just me]

When a court order is issued for phone calls/records where does the phone company get these records if there is no record made when the call was placed? You said it.....when the call was placed (out going call) You can get records for a particular phone for calls placed on that particular phone (out going calls) and the incoming collect calls.

[Its just me]

Where did those records come from if not from the phone compamy?

They were gotten from the Brown's records if the Browns called Nicole and from Nicole's records if Nicole called the Browns. The phone company had both

[martin II]

This is what you said, " Originally Posted by Its just me View Post
IMHOO For liability reasons it was common sense not to accuse Arnelle of anything in a book even if there was a mountain of evidence saying she was involved." Since posters have said that Petrocelli accused her in a book, I asked you the question about his common sense or should I have said do you think Petrocelli showed common sense, if he accused Ms. Arnelle in a book. What is the difference between a book and this message board, in your opinion?

There were many claims made in books without concerns for liability. VB comes to mind. The detectives did not accuse Arnell of being a conspiritor because they knew she did nothing wrong and obviously they knew there was no phone call from oj to her to wash any sweats.imo

[martin II]

They were gotten from the Brown's records if the Browns called Nicole and from Nicole's records if Nicole called the Browns. The phone company had both

As long as we agree that a phone company cab retrieve records as a result of a court demand. How do you think the doj retrieved the phone records of the guy they just arrested for planning some terrorist activity in ny. They had all of his records of past calls everyplace.imo

[martin II]

You said it.....when the call was placed (out going call) You can get records for a particular phone for calls placed on that particular phone (out going calls) and the incoming collect calls.

LE had no problem getting phone records from ojs hotel room in chicage to see if he called Arnell. There was no record so no call. imo

[Its just me]

This is what you said, " Originally Posted by Its just me View Post
IMHOO For liability reasons it was common sense not to accuse Arnelle of anything in a book even if there was a mountain of evidence saying she was involved." Since posters have said that Petrocelli accused her in a book, I asked you the question about his common sense or should I have said do you think Petrocelli showed common sense, if he accused Ms. Arnelle in a book. What is the difference between a book and this message board, in your opinion?

I haven't read Petrocilli's book. He must to have used common sense in the civil case because Simpson was found liable for Ron Goldman's murder and I am really impressed with him by what I've read so far in the civil trial depostitons.

[Its just me]

As long as we agree that a phone company cab retrieve records as a result of a court demand. How do you think the doj retrieved the phone records of the guy they just arrested for planning some terrorist activity in ny. They had all of his records of past calls everyplace.imo

:D According to you they just plugged in a number and zapped up everything he was connected to.... but for the record here....I don't believe it.

[martin II]

Aren't you talking about Lou Brown not releasing the phone records to the Johnson brothers?

i am talking about the phone company being able to retrieve phone records period.

[Its just me]

LE had no problem getting phone records from ojs hotel room in chicage to see if he called Arnell. There was no record so no call. imo

Again....calls made "from" the hotel would have a record. Arnelle's phone would not.

I don't think I've been in a discussion or argument if Arnelle was called or not but for the record I don't rule out OJ calling Arnelle on a pay phone. There are questions to OJ in his deposition about him making 3 calls IIRC to Arnelle's best friend while he was on the plane coming back home. He claims he was trying to locate Arnelle because Arnelle was in a bad way and he was worried about her. :shrug:

[tv]

I haven't read Petrocilli's book. He must to have used common sense in the civil case because Simpson was found liable for Ron Goldman's murder and I am really impressed with him by what I've read so far in the civil trial depostitons.

I highly recommend it, IJM. There are a lot of details in there that you don't get other places. He talked to quite a few people that weren't called in the trial which is very interesting and gives you a lot of insight into Nicole and Simpson.

[martin II]

:D According to you they just plugged in a number and zapped up everything he was connected to.... but for the record here....I don't believe it.

They had a name got his cell or land phone. They then got all air travel and calls which caused them to know who he had been talking to everywhere. So i guess they did go to his cell provider and plugged in his number and bingo his call record appeared.imo

[tv]

i am talking about the phone company being able to retrieve phone records period.

I thought you said Lou Brown wouldn't allow the phone company to release them. The only time he did that as far as I know is when the Johnson brothers tried to get them.

[tv]

Again....calls made "from" the hotel would have a record. Arnelle's phone would not.

I don't think I've been in a discussion or argument if Arnelle was called or not but for the record I don't rule out OJ calling Arnelle on a pay phone. There are questions to OJ in his deposition about him making 3 calls IIRC to Arnelle's best friend while he was on the plane coming back home. He claims he was trying to locate Arnelle because Arnelle was in a bad way and he was worried about her. :shrug:

Also, back in the 90's phone cards that you could buy anywhere were very popular. Maybe they still are but with the increase in cell phone use I would doubt it. They were put out by many different companies and would be hard to trace. I'm not saying that's what he did -- it's just a thought.

[William Anthony]

That's right but they can only get what is available from the phone company. Contrary to what some may believe phone companies does not have this great data base to store every phone transition except for billing purposes and that is kept on the calling phone that is billed not the receiving phone unless it is a collect call for the receiving phone. IMHOO

ETA: The phone company can provide information on the receiving phone if there is a request to monitor future calls.

ETA: I can't remember exactly how it went but there was big co hoot made about the CIA being allowed to see who was calling who. Something to do with the Patriot Act.

I see you refuse to believe what you read. So, I am finished with the discussion.

[martin II]

Again....calls made "from" the hotel would have a record. Arnelle's phone would not.

I don't think I've been in a discussion or argument if Arnelle was called or not but for the record I don't rule out OJ calling Arnelle on a pay phone. There are questions to OJ in his deposition about him making 3 calls IIRC to Arnelle's best friend while he was on the plane coming back home. He claims he was trying to locate Arnelle because Arnelle was in a bad way and he was worried about her. :shrug:

if ok made a call from a plane it would be on his credit card.i have never made a call from a plane by depositing coins.

[William Anthony]

The calls oj made to his house after talking to phillips were able to be traced from his hotel room to his home.

The hertz person picked oj up at the baggage claim in chicago and delivered him to his hotel room. All calls from him room or the hotel could be traced.
I believe they were and there was no call at the time some think oj called Arnell.
Without proof of that call the claim that it was made is just some trying to make stuff up.

What's that word-supposition? :)

[William Anthony]

When a court order is issued for phone calls/records where does the phone company get these records if there is no record made when the call was placed?

I suppose the answer would be they make them up (comedic and sarcastic).

[martin II]

Also, back in the 90's phone cards that you could buy anywhere were very popular. Maybe they still are but with the increase in cell phone use I would doubt it. They were put out by many different companies and would be hard to trace. I'm not saying that's what he did -- it's just a thought.

why would oj buy a phone card when he had a cell and a credit card and was in a hotel.

[William Anthony]

I'm afraid some of the posters aren't familiar with phones and bills and reports and how they worked in the 90's. But, since LE and/or the criminal defense used and accepted as evidence phone 'bills' as evidence, I'm not sure why anyone is wasting time arguing about what 'could' have been done -- :shrug:

Because there is no evidence that Simpson called Ms. Arnelle to infer that she engaged in any criminal activity and to say she did is just supposition or, if you will, rank speculation.

[Its just me]

if ok made a call from a plane it would be on his credit card.i have never made a call from a plane by depositing coins.

LOL I haven't either and I haven't said OJ did. For the record I'm not sure if it was credit card calls or if OJ used his cell phone to call this friend of Arnelle 3 times looking for her.

[William Anthony]

Wagner is the looney that came up with the theory that Ms. Browns glassess weren't lost but actually planted. Can you believe that?

Yes.

[William Anthony]

it's as plausible as men hiding in bushes, standing in the street, and more than one killer (none of who was orenthal) BUT no one left their DNA -- just poor ole orenthal.

You are aware that all the evidence was not collected and that an unidentified Caucasian hair was found.

[William Anthony]

LE had no problem getting phone records from ojs hotel room in chicage to see if he called Arnell. There was no record so no call. imo

And that's the bottom line.

[Its just me]

I see you refuse to believe what you read. So, I am finished with the discussion. Good...me too because it appears you fail to grasp how the phone company does business.

[martin II]

I see you refuse to believe what you read. So, I am finished with the discussion.

Some don't understand the size of phone company computers. My phone company sent me a message telling me they had 8,000 e-mail messages that i had already read still stored on their computer and asked me to delete them.
Sure phone transactions use less space than e-mails and i am one of millions of customers.imo

[William Anthony]

I haven't read Petrocilli's book. He must to have used common sense in the civil case because Simpson was found liable for Ron Goldman's murder and I am really impressed with him by what I've read so far in the civil trial depostitons.

It did not take common sense to win that socio political production based on the ruling and the evidence admitted and excluded, IMHO. It just took someone with the ability to talk, IMHO.

[tv]

Because there is no evidence that Simpson called Ms. Arnelle to infer that she engaged in any criminal activity and to say she did is just supposition or, if you will, rank speculation.

This is a message board not a court of law. Everyone speculates...including yourself and others that share your beliefs about the case. The evidence that Simpson called Arnelle is her subsequent actions that night.

[William Anthony]

Good...me too because it appears you fail to grasp how the phone company does business.

You want to argue with those, who responded to supoenas involving phone records in 1992, based on what you think or should I say what you don't think they did. I have taken you to the link and my job is therefore ended.:);):cool:

[Its just me]

why would oj buy a phone card when he had a cell and a credit card and was in a hotel.

My dad owned a business where phone cards were sold....it was surprising to see who would buy them. We always thought people bought them so their spouse wouldn't know their calling business....Just saying.

[tv]

Some don't understand the size of phone company computers. My phone company sent me a message telling me they had 8,000 e-mail messages that i had already read still stored on their computer and asked me to delete them.
Sure phone transactions use less space than e-mails and i am one of millions of customers.imo

You're applying 2009 technology to 1994 phone calls.

[Its just me]

It did not take common sense to win that socio political production based on the ruling and the evidence admitted and excluded, IMHO. It just took someone with the ability to talk, IMHO.

Like you said....Its your opinion. It's not mine.

[William Anthony]

Also, back in the 90's phone cards that you could buy anywhere were very popular. Maybe they still are but with the increase in cell phone use I would doubt it. They were put out by many different companies and would be hard to trace. I'm not saying that's what he did -- it's just a thought.

The link speaks to those types of cards used at payphone is Brittan and France and does not make them hard to trace in the United States. Besides that I posted Simpson's testimony to where the charges from his phone card were sent.

[William Anthony]

My dad owned a business where phone cards were sold....it was surprising to see who would buy them. We always thought people bought them so their spouse wouldn't know their calling business....Just saying.

That's what you thought.:)

[tv]

why would oj buy a phone card when he had a cell and a credit card and was in a hotel.

He probably wouldn't buy one but those cards were often given as promotional items. I've received them at work as a small bonus and been given them from various places to promote different things. As many people and businesses as he interacted with I wouldn't be surprised if he had a few in his wallet at that time.

[tv]

The link speaks to those types of cards used at payphone is Brittan and France and does not make them hard to trace in the United States. Besides that I posted Simpson's testimony to where the charges from his phone card were sent.

I don't know how hard it is to trace them but with so many companies it would be hard to know where to search. Besides, the prosecution never figured out why Arnelle lied so why would they try to locate such a call?

[tv]

My dad owned a business where phone cards were sold....it was surprising to see who would buy them. We always thought people bought them so their spouse wouldn't know their calling business....Just saying.

You're right. I know a few people that did just that.

[martin II]

if ok made a call from a plane it would be on his credit card.i have never made a call from a plane by depositing coins.

LOL I haven't either and I haven't said OJ did. For the record I'm not sure if it was credit card calls or if OJ used his cell phone to call this friend of Arnelle 3 times looking for her.

Well
After Phillips talked to oj Arnell she was going to her room to get dressed and the phone in the tv room rang and it was oj asking ARNELL what had had happened. He called her again while she was in her room dressing and they talked i am sure she told him she and AC were going to get the kids and bring them home. I believe he knew where Arnell was.imo

[William Anthony]

This is a message board not a court of law. Everyone speculates...including yourself and others that share your beliefs about the case. The evidence that Simpson called Arnelle is her subsequent actions that night.

There was a post made about falsely accusing Ms. Arnelle in a book and I believe the same holds true for a message board. Where is the evidence that Ms. Arnelle washed anything, i;e. testimony from one person that there were wet of freshly washed clothes in the washing machine? There is no record of a phone call and no evidence that she did anything but sleep. Why didn't the prosecution ask her if those were her clothes and did she wash them that night?

[William Anthony]

I don't know how hard it is to trace them but with so many companies it would be hard to know where to search. Besides, the prosecution never figured out why Arnelle lied so why would they try to locate such a call?

You have called her a liar and not stated it in your opinion but we all know that the only person to be proven a liar was MF.

[Its just me]

Just a what it's worth. I am very familiar with the Tara Grinstead case and have spoken more than one time with LE doing the investigation. Tara received a phone call on her cell phone the day she disappeared in 2005 that is untraceable. Untraceable. I will not go into details because it's an on going investigation. If things were untraceable in 2005 I think they would be 10 years earlier.

[Its just me]

You have called her a liar and not stated it in your opinion but we all know that the only person to be proven a liar was MF.

Wrong....OJ was and he even admitted he lied.

[William Anthony]

My dad owned a business where phone cards were sold....it was surprising to see who would buy them. We always thought people bought them so their spouse wouldn't know their calling business....Just saying.

It is fortunate that your family members had so many experiences with phones in the 90s and owned business involving phones. Wow!!

[William Anthony]

Wrong....OJ was and he even admitted he lied.

When was Simpson convicted of perjury, taking an oath to tell truth and found to have lied?

[martin II]

He probably wouldn't buy one but those cards were often given as promotional items. I've received them at work as a small bonus and been given them from various places to promote different things. As many people and businesses as he interacted with I wouldn't be surprised if he had a few in his wallet at that time.

The possibilities to try to create some new method that oj would use to make a call with a cell phone in hand and credit card in wallet is endless. The facts is no call was made to Arnell between the time oj left for chicago until he arrived back at rockingham. If there was no record found it tells me no call was made.Saying le didn't know what they were doing AGAIN does not cut it..imo

[Its just me]

When was Simpson convicted of perjury, taking an oath to tell truth and found to have lied?


OJ admitted in his own words in his deposition he lied. I think he said what he had told LE was not true....but it's lying to me.

[tv]

You have called her a liar and not stated it in your opinion but we all know that the only person to be proven a liar was MF.

Okay, if you say so. I stand by my opinion. :shrug:

[martin II]

You have called her a liar and not stated it in your opinion but we all know that the only person to be proven a liar was MF.

oj has been bashed at least a dozen times on the thread.he was never prosecuted for telling a lie but many claim he did.

[William Anthony]

Just a what it's worth. I am very familiar with the Tara Grinstead case and have spoken more than one time with LE doing the investigation. Tara received a phone call on her cell phone the day she disappeared in 2005 that is untraceable. Untraceable. I will not go into details because it's an on going investigation. If things were untraceable in 2005 I think they would be 10 years earlier.

This is the Simpson thread and this discussion involves the claim that there was a phone call made by Simpson from Chicago to Brentwood at 4:30 AM from a payphone to a land line phone in 1994 but the bottom line is there is no record to support that claim, and, as such, despite all efforts to ignore the links and come up with excuses, to continue to make the claim is, IMHO, pure supposition and/or rank speculation.

[tv]

You have called her a liar and not stated it in your opinion but we all know that the only person to be proven a liar was MF.

You have called the detectives that were at Rockingham liars and not stated it as your opinion. Really, what is your point?

[martin II]

There was a post made about falsely accusing Ms. Arnelle in a book and I believe the same holds true for a message board. Where is the evidence that Ms. Arnelle washed anything, i;e. testimony from one person that there were wet of freshly washed clothes in the washing machine? There is no record of a phone call and no evidence that she did anything but sleep. Why didn't the prosecution ask her if those were her clothes and did she wash them that night?

They didn't ask because they already knew she didn't. Only some think they know she did.

[William Anthony]

Okay, if you say so. I stand by my opinion. :shrug:

Not if I say so but truth. This is your statement, "Besides, the prosecution never figured out why Arnelle lied so why would they try to locate such a call?"

[William Anthony]

You have called the detectives that were at Rockingham liars and not stated it as your opinion. Really, what is your point?

We've been all through this and you could only come up with one post that was taken out of context and other posters went back as far as 2006 and could not find where I called anyone, except the one proven to have lied, a liar or said someone lied. :)

[tv]

Just a what it's worth. I am very familiar with the Tara Grinstead case and have spoken more than one time with LE doing the investigation. Tara received a phone call on her cell phone the day she disappeared in 2005 that is untraceable. Untraceable. I will not go into details because it's an on going investigation. If things were untraceable in 2005 I think they would be 10 years earlier.

The technology has improved by leaps and bounds since 1994. I agree if something is untraceable in 2005 then it doesn't take much common sense to know some calls would be untraceable in 1994. By the way, it's amazing that Tara Grinstead's call to her cell phone was untraceable...that's really a shame.

[William Anthony]

They didn't ask because they already knew she didn't. Only some think they know she did.

Some have wholeheartedly bought Petrocelli's, imho, wild and rank speculations and now want to say that no evidence proves she did something. :);):cool:. Petrocelli could sell them Louisiana all over again, IMHO.

[tv]

We've been all through this and you could only come up with one post that was taken out of context and other posters went back as far as 2006 and could not find where I called anyone, except the one proven to have lied, a liar or said someone lied. :)

Oh, for heaven's sakes, William...please just forget I said it. I'm not going to participate in beating this dead horse again and watch while you run in circles trying to explain away what you said. Seriously, for some reason you think you can point your finger at others all the time and never have it pointed at you.

[William Anthony]

The technology has improved by leaps and bounds since 1994. I agree if something is untraceable in 2005 then it doesn't take much common sense to know some calls would be untraceable in 1994. By the way, it's amazing that Tara Grinstead's call to her cell phone was untraceable...that's really a shame.

Exactly what type of phone call was untraceable but they did have proof that a call was made. BACK TO THE SIMPSON CASE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A CALL WAS MADE, MEANING NOT THAT ONE WAS MADE AND WAS ALLEGEDLY UNTRACEABLE BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A CALL WAS MADE. CAN WE TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC?

[martin II]

OJ admitted in his own words in his deposition he lied. I think he said what he had told LE was not true....but it's lying to me.

Can you give a link to this since you say you THINK he said something.Many witnesses corrected their previous testimnony or as BOB says corrected their mistaken testimony. But if oj does this this he just flat out lied. right?

[tv]

Not if I say so but truth. This is your statement, "Besides, the prosecution never figured out why Arnelle lied so why would they try to locate such a call?"

What is your point?

[tv]

Some have wholeheartedly bought Petrocelli's, imho, wild and rank speculations and now want to say that no evidence proves she did something. :);):cool:. Petrocelli could sell them Louisiana all over again, IMHO.

Your excessive smilieys don't soften the rudeness of your posts. Just thought I'd let you know that.

[martin II]

The technology has improved by leaps and bounds since 1994. I agree if something is untraceable in 2005 then it doesn't take much common sense to know some calls would be untraceable in 1994. By the way, it's amazing that Tara Grinstead's call to her cell phone was untraceable...that's really a shame.

I think what the phone company could do then depends on where one was. There are some places that still dont have internet service or cable tv.

[tv]

I think what the phone company could do then depends on where one was. There are some places that still dont have internet service.

I didn't know that. Where?

[William Anthony]

Oh, for heaven's sakes, William...please just forget I said it. I'm not going to participate in beating this dead horse again and watch while you run in circles trying to explain away what you said. Seriously, for some reason you think you can point your finger at others all the time and never have it pointed at you.

There is no reason for you to take this attitude. I invited others to point out what I said. I simply reminded you and if you would like to say that it is your opinion that Ms. Arnelle lied then so state. There is no reason for us to become argumentative.

[martin II]

What is your point?

Would you agree that that sound like a excuse for le not finding a call?

[tv]

There is no reason for you to take this attitude. I invited others to point out what I said. I simply reminded you and if you would like to say that it is your opinion that Ms. Arnelle lied then so state. There is no reason for us to become argumentative.

How many more times do you want me to say she lied? I'm not being argumentative -- you already know what I think about Arnelle.

[tv]

Would you agree that that sound like a excuse for le not finding a call?

No, sorry.

[martin II]

I didn't know that. Where?

Google it would be my suggestion.

[tv]

Google it would be my suggestion.

Hey, you made the claim not me.

[William Anthony]

Your excessive smilieys don't soften the rudeness of your posts. Just thought I'd let you know that.

There is nothing rude about the post and there have been many posts, without one shred of evidence, accusing Ms. Arnelle in engaging in criminal activity and the genesis of that accusation came from Petrocelli, according to my understanding, who floated the accusation via a book, which many posters here praise. I just find somethings comical and the smileys were my attempt to let Martin know that what I see as the truth is sometimes comical to me. After informing us of your vacation, you seem to be finding a lot of posts rude but the one I made was not nor was it intended to be, so I see no need to apologize. I am sure there are those who find my posts illogical, ridiculous, boring as to the law, reminded me this is not a court of law and so forth and so on and have said so, but I just defend them and keep on trucking. :);):cool:

[Its just me]

Can you give a link to this since you say you THINK he said something.Many witnesses corrected their previous testimnony or as BOB says corrected their mistaken testimony. But if oj does this this he just flat out lied. right?

Well I actually know he said what he told the LE was not the truth... So yes I'm saying Oj flat out lied. It's in the civil depostiton. I'm thinking the one on the 26th but not sure. The depositions are interesting to read.

[tv]

There is nothing rude about the post and there have been many posts, without one shred of evidence, accusing Ms. Arnelle in engaging in criminal activity and the genesis of that accusation came from Petrocelli, according to my understanding, who floated the accusation via a book, which many posters here praise. I just find somethings comical and the smileys were my attempt to let Martin know that what I see as the truth is sometimes comical to me. After informing us of your vacation, you seem to be finding a lot of posts rude but the one I made was not nor was it intended to be, so I see no need to apologize. I am sure there are those who find my posts illogical, ridiculous, boring as to the law, reminded me this is not a court of law and so forth and so on and have said so, but I just defend them and keep on trucking. :);):cool:

Whatever you say.

[William Anthony]

How many more times do you want me to say she lied? I'm not being argumentative -- you already know what I think about Arnelle.

That is what I mean and you can say that but my understanding of the rules is that what is allowed to be said is "IMO, so and so lied when they testified. So, you carry on like you like and I will do likewise.

[William Anthony]

Whatever you say.

Now, your learning.:);):cool:

[tv]

That is what I mean and you can say that but my understanding of the rules is that what is allowed to be said is "IMO, so and so lied when they testified. So, you carry on like you like and I will do likewise.

That's what I've been doing.

[tv]

Now, your learning.:);):cool:

No, I'm just tired. Sometimes it's easier just to let you ramble on.

[tv]

Well I actually know he said what he told the LE was not the truth... So yes I'm saying Oj flat out lied. It's in the civil depostiton. I'm thinking the one on the 26th but not sure. The depositions are interesting to read.

Just like earlier today when martin said Simpson said he cut his finger at home and I posted the civil trial testimony where he said he did it in Chicago. He lied. Those two stories are nothing alike except his finger was cut in both.

[William Anthony]

No, I'm just tired. Sometimes it's easier just to let you ramble on.

Now, you are learning. :);):cool:

[tv]

Now, you are learning. :);):cool:

I learned that over two years ago. I keep waiting for your batteries to wear out but so far they're going strong.

[Its just me]

I didn't know that. Where?

LOL We don't have cable out here in the sticks but I have this high speed internet ;) and there is nothing short about our phone company. Alltel. The little phone companies were bought out many years ago.

[William Anthony]

Just like earlier today when martin said Simpson said he cut his finger at home and I posted the civil trial testimony where he said he did it in Chicago. He lied. Those two stories are nothing alike except his finger was cut in both.

Now, I see. It is impossible to cut you hand twice in a 24 hour period.:)

[William Anthony]

I learned that over two years ago. I keep waiting for your batteries to wear out but so far they're going strong.

My batteries are made by Timex.

[tv]

LOL We don't have cable out here in the sticks but I have this high speed internet ;) and there is nothing short about our phone company. Alltel. The little phone companies were bought out many years ago.

I think the only place there is no internet is in remote locations. Cable is another story -- I know several people that don't have it. Cable I could live without if I had to but not so much the internet. Don't you just love high speed internet?

[William Anthony]

LOL We don't have cable out here in the sticks but I have this high speed internet ;) and there is nothing short about our phone company. Alltel. The little phone companies were bought out many years ago.

Weren't you the one that said it depended on where you were in relation to what phone companies did?

[tv]

Now, I see. It is impossible to cut you hand twice in a 24 hour period.:)

He was responding to how he got the original cut. He lied.

[tv]

My batteries are made by Timex.

How nice for you.

[Its just me]

Weren't you the one that said it depended on where you were in relation to what phone companies did?


Just running on memory I think that may have been Martin who made that statement. Not sure. Maybe a link would help my memory....my batteries is about dead and I'm about to go get a charge

[tv]

Just running on memory I think that may have been Martin who made that statement. Not sure. Maybe a link would help my memory....my batteries is about dead and I'm about to go get a charge

My batteries are running on empty. Have a good night, IJM. :seeya:

[Its just me]

I think the only place there is no internet is in remote locations. Cable is another story -- I know several people that don't have it. Cable I could live without if I had to but not so much the internet. Don't you just love high speed internet?

We have a dish for TV and it's much cheaper than cable and you get more channels. Nothing like modern technology is there. Good night.

[bobaugust]

How could the video showed that they were washed at all, unless there was wash water in the machine? Black clothes do not equal a sweatsuit. The evidence in the case is the video showing which door could be unlocked.:biggrin:

Two of the detectives and Kato testilied, IMHO.

Four detectives and Kato testilied, IMHO.

I did post the date any maybe you missed it, just like the detectives missed Ms. Arnelle turning off the alarm. The video proves what Ms. Arnelle testified to and the detectives corroborated, which was that the only door she could have unlocked and the entered was the front. :);)

Dried clothing looks different than freshly washed clothing.

The detectives didn’t miss Arnelle turning off the alarm after they all entered the back door, since the alarm never went off when she opened the door. If the alarm was on when Arnelle opened that door there would have been a loud ringing sound as a warning to disarm the alarm at a key pad. No detective who was asked ever said they heard that ringing or saw Arnelle go to a key pad.

You are incorrect, none of the detectives corroborated anything Arnelle said in her story. Kato Kaelin and the detectives who were asked testified they did not enter the front door, they all testified they entered the back door. The video proves that the back door was already unlocked when Arnelle opened it and that the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking it before she opened it.

What was the date when the video that shows the back door was shown in court?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You're the one that claimed a phone call was made and claimed that the phone records could not be produced, because there was no evidence that Ms. Arnelle had a cell phone in 1994. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. There are no phone records, because there was no phone call.:D

You may need to change testimony to support your conclusions but the testimony is what it is and you may need to say that some assumed, even when they did not testify they assumed.:D

I have posted the links proving my point about the land line and cell phones, showing incoming calls.;):cool:

Yes sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Telephone bills are the telephone records that were used in the Simpson case. The telephone in Arnelle’s room was a land line telephone and land line telephone bills do not show incoming telephone calls unless they are collect calls.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What has this to do with the price of apples, in that you claimed Park's memory improved with age and Kato's faded?:);)

I never said Park’s memory improved with age.

[bobaugust]

Link to support everything but your last sentence, please?:);):cool:

Five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated story that she opened the front door of the house to let the detectives into the house. All five testified that they went into the house through the back door of the house, proving that Arnelle Simpson lied.

February 16, 1995 Phillips

Q BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SHOW US AGAIN -- SHOW US HOW YOU WENT AND WHERE YOU WENT?
A WE WALKED TO ARNELLE'S ROOM, DOWN THIS WALKWAY, UP THESE STEPS AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A SERIES OF DOORS RIGHT HERE AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. SHE UNLOCKED ONE OF THESE DOORS. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DOOR FARTHEST TO OUR LEFT AND THAT'S THE WAY WE WENT INSIDE THAT HOUSE.
Q WHEN SHE UNLOCKED THAT DOOR, WAS THERE AN ALARM ON THAT HOUSE?
A I DON'T KNOW, SIR.
Q DID YOU HEAR THE ALARM GO OFF?
A NO ALARM WENT OFF.
Q DID YOU SEE HER PRESS SOME BUTTONS ON THE WALL?
A I DIDN'T SEE HER DO ANYTHING.
Q DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF AN ALARM FOR WESTEC ON THAT WALL THAT SHE ENTERED?
A I WOULD NOT KNOW THAT.


July 20, 1995 Gigi Guarin

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a small portion of this video. Please look at the monitor. (At 2:34 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for the witness.)
MR. DARDEN: This is 3:01 P.M. on the tape. Okay. Okay. Stop there. Okay.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't leave that in the washing machine, did you?
MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you notice what the clothing items were in there?
MS. GUARIN: It's not here. So no.
MR. DARDEN: You want to see it again?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?
MS. GUARIN: Okay.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?
MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.
MR. DARDEN: Okay.
MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?
MS. GUARIN: No.

*
MR. COCHRAN: I saw some parties in and around the washing machine. Mr. Simpson never wore any panties around that house, did he?
MS. GUARIN: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And you know that those clothes and that hamper, that was Arnelle's clothes; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes, they are.
MR. COCHRAN: And Arnelle would wash her clothes inside the house there; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

That is a very not so nice way of saying there is no evidence that Simpson called Ms. Arnelle, correct?:);):cool:

That’s correct, there is no evidence that Simpson called Arnelle and told her to wash his dark colored sweat suit, there is only the logical inference that he did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Who decided to obtain bills rather than records?:D I have shown with the link that incoming phone calls could be supoenaed as early as 1992. Did you read this?

"One is that our wire-tap statute does a very good job of protecting the content of a communication, the words that you actually speak, but it doesn't do a very good job of protecting the record of the communication, the billing information, who you called, how long you spoke, the number associated with the person that you called, This information receives a much lower level of protection, And as investigations increasingly rely upon transactional data, incident data, to initiate an investigation, this is where the privacy battle is going to be fought.

Now I have put up these cards, and I would just like to take a minute to tell you how other countries view this problem. While I said a moment ago that the United States has done a very good job on the telephone content front, we have done very poorly on the transactional record front.

"The Europeans and the Japanese, however, are very sensitive to this second problem. The Europeans, in part, because of the experience with the Nazis in gaining access to telephone toll records and using-that as a basis for persecution in the thirties have changed, in fact, I should say they have established billing policies to limit the disclosure of phone number information. it is typically not available to phone subscribers to know the numbers that are called. These cards, which are much like the Metro cards in Washington, allow people at a public pay phone in Great Britain or in France or in Japan to simply insert a card, make an anonymous call, have the credit debited from the card and to leave no trace that the communication ever took place.

The conversation was about payphone calls and your claim that they would not show up on land line records, unless they were collect calls and I told you there was a difference between phone records and phone bills.

The prosecutors obtained the telephone records in the Simpson case and all of those telephone records were telephone bills. Incoming telephone calls are not shown on telephone bills unless they are collect calls.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There was a post made about falsely accusing Ms. Arnelle in a book and I believe the same holds true for a message board. Where is the evidence that Ms. Arnelle washed anything, i;e. testimony from one person that there were wet of freshly washed clothes in the washing machine? There is no record of a phone call and no evidence that she did anything but sleep. Why didn't the prosecution ask her if those were her clothes and did she wash them that night?

The evidence is that who ever washed the clothing found in Simpson’s washing machine had access to Arnelle Simpson’s laundry basket and Arnelle Simpson’s clothing. The evidence is that someone had a key to Simpson’s house and knew the house alarm. The evidence is that before that someone left the house they failed to turn the house alarm back on and they unlocked the back door. The evidence is that Arnelle Simpson lied when she said she led detectives around the house to the front door, she lied when she said she did that so she could turn the house alarm off, and she lied when she said she opened the front door to let the detectives into the house. By telling those lies Arnelle Simpson implicates herself as being the person who washed the clothing that was found in Simpson’s washing machine.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

He was responding to how he got the original cut. He lied.

He said he did not know if he cut it at home but suspected he did but was certain he cut it in Chicago, as I understand his testimony.

[William Anthony]

How nice for you.

Yes.

[William Anthony]

Just running on memory I think that may have been Martin who made that statement. Not sure. Maybe a link would help my memory....my batteries is about dead and I'm about to go get a charge

I think you were the originator of that statement, IIRC.

[William Anthony]

Dried clothing looks different than freshly washed clothing.

The detectives didn’t miss Arnelle turning off the alarm after they all entered the back door, since the alarm never went off when she opened the door. If the alarm was on when Arnelle opened that door there would have been a loud ringing sound as a warning to disarm the alarm at a key pad. No detective who was asked ever said they heard that ringing or saw Arnelle go to a key pad.

You are incorrect, none of the detectives corroborated anything Arnelle said in her story. Kato Kaelin and the detectives who were asked testified they did not enter the front door, they all testified they entered the back door. The video proves that the back door was already unlocked when Arnelle opened it and that the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking it before she opened it.

What was the date when the video that shows the back door was shown in court?

bobaugust

"Dried clothing looks different than freshly washed clothing." Please explain how you were able to determine that they were "freshly washed" by looking at the video.

The detectives could not have entered any back door since they testified Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door and let them in, which, as Ms. Arnelle testified the only door by and through which she could have done those things was the front door as she testified.

Testifying to something someone else does as with unlocking a door is corroboration.

I forgot and don't feel like looking for it at this time.

[martin II]

He was responding to how he got the original cut. He lied.

i have actually been doing various things around the house, small work, and realized i had nicked/small cut my hand enough for some blood to drop and i had no idea when i did it. oj had a shovel,some packages.his jacket and hius cell phone holder in his bronco plugged into his dashboard. i don't think it is that odd that he cut his finger and if he hit a vein it would bleed before stopping.IT also may be that some women may be more cautious than men when doing like chores and have not had simular experiences. imo

[William Anthony]

Yes sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Telephone bills are the telephone records that were used in the Simpson case. The telephone in Arnelle’s room was a land line telephone and land line telephone bills do not show incoming telephone calls unless they are collect calls.

bobaugust

There is no evidence that a phone call was made and therefore using the simplest explanation none was made. I have provided the link, showing how LE could have gotten the record, if such a call was made. There was no call, since the detectives had enough experience by their testimony in handling homicide cases to know how to supoena what they wanted.

[William Anthony]

I never said Park’s memory improved with age.

Did you forget that you said a year and a half later he could specifically recall looking at the limo dashboard for a minute.

[William Anthony]

Five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated story that she opened the front door of the house to let the detectives into the house. All five testified that they went into the house through the back door of the house, proving that Arnelle Simpson lied.

February 16, 1995 Phillips

Q BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SHOW US AGAIN -- SHOW US HOW YOU WENT AND WHERE YOU WENT?
A WE WALKED TO ARNELLE'S ROOM, DOWN THIS WALKWAY, UP THESE STEPS AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A SERIES OF DOORS RIGHT HERE AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. SHE UNLOCKED ONE OF THESE DOORS. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DOOR FARTHEST TO OUR LEFT AND THAT'S THE WAY WE WENT INSIDE THAT HOUSE.
Q WHEN SHE UNLOCKED THAT DOOR, WAS THERE AN ALARM ON THAT HOUSE?
A I DON'T KNOW, SIR.
Q DID YOU HEAR THE ALARM GO OFF?
A NO ALARM WENT OFF.
Q DID YOU SEE HER PRESS SOME BUTTONS ON THE WALL?
A I DIDN'T SEE HER DO ANYTHING.
Q DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF AN ALARM FOR WESTEC ON THAT WALL THAT SHE ENTERED?
A I WOULD NOT KNOW THAT.


July 20, 1995 Gigi Guarin

MR. DARDEN: Let me just show you a small portion of this video. Please look at the monitor. (At 2:34 P.M., People's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played for the witness.)
MR. DARDEN: This is 3:01 P.M. on the tape. Okay. Okay. Stop there. Okay.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't leave that in the washing machine, did you?
MS. GUARIN: No, I did not.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you notice what the clothing items were in there?
MS. GUARIN: It's not here. So no.
MR. DARDEN: You want to see it again?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?
MS. GUARIN: Okay.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?
MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.
MR. DARDEN: Okay.
MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?
MS. GUARIN: No.

*
MR. COCHRAN: I saw some parties in and around the washing machine. Mr. Simpson never wore any panties around that house, did he?
MS. GUARIN: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And you know that those clothes and that hamper, that was Arnelle's clothes; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes, they are.
MR. COCHRAN: And Arnelle would wash her clothes inside the house there; isn't that correct?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.

bobaugust

Five witnesses corroborated her story. So, there is no evidence to support your claims. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

That’s correct, there is no evidence that Simpson called Arnelle and told her to wash his dark colored sweat suit, there is only the logical inference that he did.

bobaugust

Thanks, because from no evidence you claim to get a logical inference. Inferences are drawn from the evidence, not from no evidence. :;):cool:

[martin II]

Just running on memory I think that may have been Martin who made that statement. Not sure. Maybe a link would help my memory....my batteries is about dead and I'm about to go get a charge

i made the comment.
if there is no cable laid there is no internet or cable tv. If the area has low population there may not be cable.imo

[martin II]

You have called the detectives that were at Rockingham liars and not stated it as your opinion. Really, what is your point?

phillips testified to using two different entry doors to get into the house. Were both true?

[William Anthony]

The evidence is that who ever washed the clothing found in Simpson’s washing machine had access to Arnelle Simpson’s laundry basket and Arnelle Simpson’s clothing. The evidence is that someone had a key to Simpson’s house and knew the house alarm. The evidence is that before that someone left the house they failed to turn the house alarm back on and they unlocked the back door. The evidence is that Arnelle Simpson lied when she said she led detectives around the house to the front door, she lied when she said she did that so she could turn the house alarm off, and she lied when she said she opened the front door to let the detectives into the house. By telling those lies Arnelle Simpson implicates herself as being the person who washed the clothing that was found in Simpson’s washing machine.

bobaugust

The evidence is that some clothes were found in the wash room and a clothes hamper was identified as Ms. Arnelle's but she was never asked about washing clothes or whose clothes there were and LE took some pictures of some clothes which weren't found until after Ms. Arnelle left to pick up her siblings from the police station, IIRc, and she had taken the alarm of the house, leaving access for anyone to get clothes at any time and place them in a washing machine and take pictures of them but allegedly forget to collect them. That is the evidence. :);):cool:

[martin II]

I think you were the originator of that statement, IIRC.

i made the statement based on some locations with very low population that are not profitable for internet or cable providers. OJS home phone records would be controlled by his local neighborhoor switching station. Any calls to his number can be retrieved by his phone company.imo

[martin II]

I didn't know that. Where?

i think you specifically informed me twice that you had me on ignore.Am i correct?

[martin II]

The evidence is that some clothes were found in the wash room and a clothes hamper was identified as Ms. Arnelle's but she was never asked about washing clothes or whose clothes there were and LE took some pictures of some clothes which weren't found until after Ms. Arnelle left to pick up her siblings from the police station, IIRc, and she had taken the alarm of the house, leaving access for anyone to get clothes at any time and place them in a washing machine and take pictures of them but allegedly forget to collect them. That is the evidence. :);):cool:

The media reports indicated that the clothing was collected and tested and then dissapeared all while in the hands of le.

[martin II]

Regardless of what some think the phone company could or could not do there was no testimony that oj called Arnell to 4 am.

[Its just me]

I think you were the originator of that statement, IIRC.

:read: and I guess you think every thing you post is the truth or is it another..... "I see you are another poster with eye, seeing and I problems". ;) Yeah. Carry on.

[Its just me]

Regardless of what some think the phone company could or could not do there was no testimony that oj called Arnell to 4 am.

Who testified that OJ made a call to Arnelle at 4 am. Really I don't kow.

Thanks for posting you made the post William was posting about.

[martin II]

Who testified that OJ made a call to Arnelle at 4 am. Really I don't kow.

Thanks for posting you made the post William was posting about.

no one
There are some that have created a fantasy phone call that oj made to Arnell
at 4 4:30 am on 6/;13 when she was fast asleep. There is no proof that any such phone call was made. No proof equals made up stuff. imo

[tv]

i think you specifically informed me twice that you had me on ignore.Am i correct?

You take care of your Crime Library account and I'll take care of mine. Not complicated at all.

[tv]

no one
There are some that have created a fantasy phone call that oj made to Arnell
at 4 4:30 am on 6/;13 when she was fast asleep. There is no proof that any such phone call was made. No proof equals made up stuff. imo

What is your proof that she was asleep at 4:30 am or any time in the early morning hours of 6/13?