Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

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

The testimony is that Dennis Fung did a visual inspection of the contents of the washer, found rust on the washer and put the clothing back into the washer. When the significance of the clothing became known, LE tried to collect the sweats but they were gone -- never to be seen again.

[Its just me]

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

OK.....I'm just a little different....Kinda like the glass is half full or half empty kind of stuff. I say until it's "proved" it did not happen there is always a possibiltiy it did.

[William Anthony]

: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.

:read:, everything I post as fact is supported. :);):cool

[martin II]

The testimony is that Dennis Fung did a visual inspection of the contents of the washer, found rust on the washer and put the clothing back into the washer. When the significance of the clothing became known, LE tried to collect the sweats but they were gone -- never to be seen again.

Obviously the LA times report was leaked from the DAS office. The sweats could have been taken by someone other le person than fung.As posted le was looking for murder clothes.Sweats in washing maching was a prime suspect. Saying le was not trained enough to understand what they were doing as they searched and looked for murder clothes makes no sense. They searched ojs clothes closet so any clothes in a washer was suspect. imo
The Times report had all the items le had and the testing that was being done. i believe it.imo

[martin II]

OK.....I'm just a little different....Kinda like the glass is half full or half empty kind of stuff. I say until it's "proved" it did not happen there is always a possibiltiy it did.

Then until it is proven that MF did not plant as he said he had done then there is the possibility that he did.
Remember a defendant can not be convicted on Possibility in a criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

The testimony is that Dennis Fung did a visual inspection of the contents of the washer, found rust on the washer and put the clothing back into the washer. When the significance of the clothing became known, LE tried to collect the sweats but they were gone -- never to be seen again.

Please, post that testimony?

[martin II]

The testimony is that Dennis Fung did a visual inspection of the contents of the washer, found rust on the washer and put the clothing back into the washer. When the significance of the clothing became known, LE tried to collect the sweats but they were gone -- never to be seen again.

The Latimes story must have been leaked from the das office otherwise they would not have had all the details contained in the story.They did have the details of the items and knew they were being tested and for what.

DF was not the only le person that could have removed the clothes from the washer for testing.imo

[William Anthony]

Then until it is proven that MF did not plant as he said he had done then there is the possibility that he did.
Remember a defendant can not be convicted on Possibility in a criminal trial.

This puts you in direct conflict with the judge in the civil trial.imo

Nor can a defendant be found liable in a civil trial based on a possibility, at least theoretically that can't occur.

[martin II]

The testimony is that Dennis Fung did a visual inspection of the contents of the washer, found rust on the washer and put the clothing back into the washer. When the significance of the clothing became known, LE tried to collect the sweats but they were gone -- never to be seen again.

Saying le did not know what they were doing makes no sense. Le was searching ojs house for murder clothes. Sweats in a washer was prime suspect. Le was searching ojs clothes closet and house for murder clothes.
I don't accept the excuse that sweats in a washing machine was not suspect. It makes no sense.imo

[tv]

Saying le did not know what they were doing makes no sense. Le was searching ojs house for murder clothes. Sweats in a washer was prime suspect. Le was searching ojs clothes closet and house for murder clothes.
I don't accept the excuse that sweats in a washing machine was not suspect. It makes no sense.imo

It makes perfect sense to me but you're under no obligation to accept it.

[martin II]

The testimony is that Dennis Fung did a visual inspection of the contents of the washer, found rust on the washer and put the clothing back into the washer. When the significance of the clothing became known, LE tried to collect the sweats but they were gone -- never to be seen again.

I have never read any testimony that supports what you state. can you give the link to the testimony?

[William Anthony]

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

There is undisputed evidence to support the fact that she was sleep.

July 10th,

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then do you know about--did you at some point go to sleep?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what time approximately you went to bed, went to sleep?

MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around one o'clock. Between 1:00 and 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: When you returned home did you notice anything unusual at all about the residence?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, if you went to bed and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30 or thereabouts, did there come a time that you were awakened on the morning hours of June 13, 1994?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the Court and jury the circumstances that you were awakened, ma'am, if you recall.

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I was awakened around between 5:00 and 5:30 by two gentlemen knocking at my door."

[martin II]

It makes perfect sense to me but you're under no obligation to accept it.

Since there is no proof that any sweats were left in ojs washer after le left i think it is fair to say the last person that admitted having the sweats is the one that caused them to dissapear. That would be lapd.

[tv]

Obviously the LA times report was leaked from the DAS office. The sweats could have been taken by someone other le person than fung.As posted le was looking for murder clothes.Sweats in washing maching was a prime suspect. Saying le was not trained enough to understand what they were doing as they searched and looked for murder clothes makes no sense. They searched ojs clothes closet so any clothes in a washer was suspect. imo
The Times report had all the items le had and the testing that was being done. i believe it.imo

Do you have a credible source that someone collected the sweats or that someone collected the sweats and it wasn't Dennis Fung or Mazzola?

[tv]

Since there is no proof that any sweats were left in ojs washer after le left i think it is fair to say the last person that admitted having the sweats is the one that caused them to dissapear. That would be lapd.

I'd say the person or persons that live at the residence would be the last to have possession of the sweats after LE left them in the washer and left the property.

[martin II]

There is undisputed evidence to support the fact that she was sleep.

July 10th,

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then do you know about--did you at some point go to sleep?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what time approximately you went to bed, went to sleep?

MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around one o'clock. Between 1:00 and 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: When you returned home did you notice anything unusual at all about the residence?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, if you went to bed and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30 or thereabouts, did there come a time that you were awakened on the morning hours of June 13, 1994?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the Court and jury the circumstances that you were awakened, ma'am, if you recall.

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I was awakened around between 5:00 and 5:30 by two gentlemen knocking at my door."

Thats it.

[tv]

There is undisputed evidence to support the fact that she was sleep.

July 10th,

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then do you know about--did you at some point go to sleep?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what time approximately you went to bed, went to sleep?

MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around one o'clock. Between 1:00 and 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: When you returned home did you notice anything unusual at all about the residence?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, if you went to bed and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30 or thereabouts, did there come a time that you were awakened on the morning hours of June 13, 1994?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the Court and jury the circumstances that you were awakened, ma'am, if you recall.

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I was awakened around between 5:00 and 5:30 by two gentlemen knocking at my door."

I'm not automatically taking the word of Arnelle who had her own reasons for not telling the truth about other events in this case.

[tv]

I have never read any testimony that supports what you state. can you give the link to the testimony?

I suggest you google it. Sound familiar?

[martin II]

Do you have a credible source that someone collected the sweats or that someone collected the sweats and it wasn't Dennis Fung or Mazzola?

According to the la times someone did.

[William Anthony]

I have never read any testimony that supports what you state. can you give the link to the testimony?

I have asked for a link to that testimony and asked this question, "(5) that there was testimony about finding in any washing machine either a freshly washed or wet sweatsuit", neither or which have been answered.

[tv]

The Latimes story must have been leaked from the das office otherwise they would not have had all the details contained in the story.They did have the details of the items and knew they were being tested and for what.

DF was not the only le person that could have removed the clothes from the washer for testing.imo

If the sweats were collected then why didn't LE plant some blood on them? That would have been a perfect item for the evil cops/lab to tamper with...you know with that huge amount of blood that Vannatter/Fung/Yamauchi poured off of Simpson's reference vial? Why would they waste that golden opportunity? :eek:

[martin II]

I suggest you google it. Sound familiar?

With that i will assume there is no link.

[tv]

According to the la times someone did.

Okay. :rolleyes:

[tv]

With that i will assume there is no link.

No problem.

[martin II]

If the sweats were collected then why didn't LE plant some blood on them? That would have been a perfect item for the evil cops/lab to tamper with...you know with that huge amount of blood that Vannatter/Fung/Yamauchi poured off of Simpson's reference vial? Why would they waste that golden opportunity? :eek:

vannatter had used up all of ojs blood he had and could not get more for planting imo

[tv]

vannatter had used up all of ojs blood he had and could not get more for planting imo

Oh, I see. You have evidence of this?

[William Anthony]

I'm not automatically taking the word of Arnelle who had her own reasons for not telling the truth about other events in this case.

Where is the testimony or any evidence to dispute it, for which it has been repeatedly asked? A record of a phone call would provide evidence she was awake. Kato's testimony hearing her footsteps going into the house would provide evidence she was awake. I did a word search of DF's testimony and didn't find it.

[William Anthony]

If the sweats were collected then why didn't LE plant some blood on them? That would have been a perfect item for the evil cops/lab to tamper with...you know with that huge amount of blood that Vannatter/Fung/Yamauchi poured off of Simpson's reference vial? Why would they waste that golden opportunity? :eek:

Let's see, could it be because the sweatsuit would have more than likely have been covered with more than 8cc's of blood after two brutal murders and Vannatter did not want to use it all and why would he put Simpson's blood on it when it would have been the victim's blood?

[tv]

Where is the testimony or any evidence to dispute it, for which it has been repeatedly asked? A record of a phone call would provide evidence she was awake. Kato's testimony hearing her footsteps going into the house would provide evidence she was awake.

Please don't think that I'm silly enough to think anyone but Arnelle knows whether or not she was asleep or awake at any given time. The evidence is that at some point she was in the house, started a load of wash, exited by the back door leaving it unlocked and didn't reset the alarm on the front door. Whether she was asleep before that or asleep after that I don't know or care but I don't give her testimony much credibility. It really doesn't matter anyway.

[tv]

Let's see, could it be because the sweatsuit would have more than likely have been covered with more than 8cc's of blood after two brutal murders and Vannatter did not want to use it all and why would he put Simpson's blood on it when it would have been the victim's blood?

OJ Simpson's blood was mixed with the victims in multiple locations. I'll take it further then...why wasn't the victim's blood planted on the elusive sweats by the evildoers?

[tv]

Where is the testimony or any evidence to dispute it, for which it has been repeatedly asked? A record of a phone call would provide evidence she was awake. Kato's testimony hearing her footsteps going into the house would provide evidence she was awake. I did a word search of DF's testimony and didn't find it.

Why would Kato hearing footsteps be in Dennis Fung's testimony? I didn't mention the footsteps so if it's something you want to know I suggest you try Kato's testimony.

[William Anthony]

Please don't think that I'm silly enough to think anyone but Arnelle knows whether or not she was asleep or awake at any given time. The evidence is that at some point she was in the house, started a load of wash, exited by the back door leaving it unlocked and didn't reset the alarm on the front door. Whether she was asleep before that or asleep after that I don't know or care but I don't give her testimony much credibility. It really doesn't matter anyway.

I understand but it takes more for me to accuse someone of criminal conduct or for that matter draw a reasonable inference that someone was engaged in criminal conduct. I do not rely on pure supposition or rank speculation to condemn a person. Since you have stated this as a fact, then I must ask the following

(1) What evidence is there that she started a wash;
(2) What evidence do you have that she exited the back door other than when she testified she did;
(3) if you believe this is a search for truth, then why would you say, "Whether she was asleep before that or asleep after that I don't know or care but I don't give her testimony much credibility. It really doesn't matter anyway?"

[William Anthony]

Why would Kato hearing footsteps be in Dennis Fung's testimony? I didn't mention the footsteps so if it's something you want to know I suggest you try Kato's testimony.

Please, I was talking about your post saying that there was TESTIMONY Fung made a visual observation of the clothes in the washing machine and later went back to collect it and it made like the socks and became magical. Kato testified he heard Ms. Arnelle walking to her room. I would not want to mislead the posters by saying there was no TESTIMONY, if you have a link to it.

[William Anthony]

OJ Simpson's blood was mixed with the victims in multiple locations. I'll take it further then...why wasn't the victim's blood planted on the elusive sweats by the evildoers?

Because there never were any sweats and, IMHO, whoever said there was lied.

[tv]

Please, I was talking about your post saying that there was TESTIMONY Fung made a visual observation of the clothes in the washing machine and later went back to collect it and it made like the socks and became magical. Kato testified he heard Ms. Arnelle walking to her room.

If you know this there's no point in asking me to provide the testimony. I still don't know why you think Dennis Fung would testify about the footsteps.

[William Anthony]

If you know this there's no point in asking me to provide the testimony. I still don't know why you think Dennis Fung would testify about the footsteps.

I understand that you are trying to avoid, saying there is no link to support your claim that DF did a visual observation of the clothing in the washing machine and later went back to collect them and they disappeared by any testimony. :);) I don't know and, maybe, you have some testimony that others do not.

[tv]

I understand that you are trying to avoid, saying there is no link to support your claim that DF did a visual observation of the clothing in the washing machine and later went back to collect them and they disappeared by any testimony. :);) I don't know and, maybe, you have some testimony that others do not.

William, in the past, I read and have posted what happened with the sweats as coming from Lange and Vannatter's book. I used the word testimony in error. As usual, you are trying to make someone else look like a liar or stupid. Why not just remind me that the information didn't come from testimony? I understand if you did that you'd be passing up a chance to make someone else look bad -- does my admission that I made a mistake make you feel better?

[William Anthony]

William, in the past, I read and have posted what happened with the sweats as coming from Lange and Vannatter's book. I used the word testimony in error. As usual, you are trying to make someone else look like a liar or stupid. Why not just remind me that the information didn't come from testimony? I understand if you did that you'd be passing up a chance to make someone else look bad -- does my admission that I made a mistake make you feel better?

Why do you think i want to make you look bad? You could have said earlier as you do now that you made a mistake. I do feel better as the posters are not being mislead into believing there is evidence when there is not, simply passages from works of fiction. Thanks for correcting your error.

[tv]

Why do you think i want to make you look bad? You could have said earlier as you do now that you made a mistake. I do feel better as the posters are not being mislead into believing there is evidence when there is not, simply passages from works of fiction. Thanks for correcting your error.

I corrected my error when I realized I'd made one. There would have been no chance of anyone being mislead if you'd just said something to the effect of 'hey, remember that wasn't in testimony...it came from Lange's book'. Instead you try to bait me into looking for testimony that isn't there. I hope you enjoyed it enough to make it worthwhile. :beer:

By the way, when your friend posts things from all the books she's read I hope you tell her it's simply passages from works of fiction.

[weezer]

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:

sooo -- anyone know where or has seen the phone bill is that shows orenthal's call to kato to set the alarm?

[tv]

sooo -- anyone know where or has seen the phone bill is that shows orenthal's call to kato to set the alarm?

Good question. No, I haven't.

[William Anthony]

I corrected my error when I realized I'd made one. There would have been no chance of anyone being mislead if you'd just said something to the effect of 'hey, remember that wasn't in testimony...it came from Lange's book'. Instead you try to bait me into looking for testimony that isn't there. I hope you enjoyed it enough to make it worthwhile. :beer:

By the way, when your friend posts things from all the books she's read I hope you tell her it's simply passages from works of fiction.

I did not try to bait you into anything but I did ask you to support what you claimed. I do not know what testimony you have access to and you may have had some that others didn't. I asked you to support it and so did Martin but Ithink you were more interested in for lack of a better word debating (pun intended,) :) us than discerning what we were asking.

I have a few friends and I think they all know and I have told females, especially when it came from MF's book, that I have no interest in passages from works of fiction.

[Its just me]

Good question. No, I haven't.


I've read something that OJ claims about his calling Kato...but the truth is you can't believe much he says. I'll see if I can find it.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned about OJ not saying anything to his children in his farewell letter and I'm pretty sure someone posted there were seperate letters to the children. This is what OJ had to say in his civil deposition. :shrug: It's hard to figure out what is the truth.

Q: The last time you saw your kids before you were arrested was Wednesday?

A: No.

Q: You saw them at the funeral?

A: Yes.

Q: I see. That was Thursday. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Did you write any notes or letters out to your children that week?

A: No.
Q: Did you write any checks that day?

A: No.

[William Anthony]

This on local phone calls.

"THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO INDICATED THAT HE FEELS THAT YOU HAVE NO BASIS, NOT A GOOD FAITH BASIS TO ASK THAT QUESTION TO MR. KAELIN REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THE PHONE CONVERSATION.

MS. CLARK: HE HAS THE CELL PHONE RECORDS THAT INDICATE THE PHONE CALL TO NICOLE, THE FOUR MINUTES. THAT ALONE -- I MEAN WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT AND AT THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB USING THE CELL PHONE. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE GOOD FAITH TO ASK HIM WHETHER HE HAD SPOKEN TO OR HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH NICOLE, WHETHER HE TOLD HIM ABOUT THAT.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO TELL US ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT?

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE --

THE COURT: I ASSUME YOU HAVE THE THREE GOLFING BUDDIES THAT HE WAS PLAYING GOLF WITH AT THE TIME.

MS. CLARK: HE WASN'T PLAYING GOLF AT THAT TIME. HE HAD COMPLETED HIS GOLF GAME.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS GOING TO TELL US THAT?

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE A WITNESS.

THE COURT: YOU SAID YOU HAVE A WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE A WITNESS WHO OBSERVED HIM ON THE CELL PHONE ANGRY, YELLING, AND WE HAVE --

THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: HE'S BEEN TURNED OVER IN DISCOVERY. COUNSEL HAS IT.

THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: WOMAN AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB WHO OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT TALKING ON HIS CELL PHONE LOOKING VERY ANGRY AND VERY UPSET. WE'VE GOT CELL PHONE RECORDS, AND SHE SAYS IT WAS IN THE AFTERNOON. SHE'S UNCLEAR ON THE TIME, BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE PHONE CALL TO NICOLE IN THE AFTERNOON USING HIS CELL PHONE. ALL THE OTHER PHONE CALLS WERE AT NIGHT. SO THERE WAS ONLY ONE CALL IT COULD HAVE BEEN. IT WAS -- WENT ON FOR FOUR MINUTES.

THE COURT: SO THERE'S ONLY ONE CELL PHONE CALL ON HIS RECORDS THAT AFTERNOON?

MS. CLARK: THAT WOULD MATCH THE TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB WHEN THIS WITNESS COULD HAVE SEEN HIM.

THE COURT: WHEN YOU SAY MATCH THE TIME, I MEAN ARE THERE OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS IN THE AFTERNOON?

MS. CLARK: OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS, BUT NOT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME WHEN HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB UNTIL ABOUT 2:30 OR SO, AND THIS WITNESS OBSERVED HIM ON HIS CELL PHONE AT THE COUNTRY CLUB AND SHE THOUGHT THAT TIME WAS 4:00 O'CLOCK, BUT SHE'S UNCLEAR ON THE TIME. IT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS AROUND 2:00, 2:30 WHEN HE WAS USING HIS CELL PHONE AT THE COUNTRY CLUB, AND THAT PHONE CALL WAS TO NICOLE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BEYOND BAD FAITH. THIS IS PUSHED BEYOND THE LIMITS OF FAIR -- PROPRIETY OF FAIR PLAY AND FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE. THERE IS -- FIRST OF ALL, THIS WITNESS HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT, HAS NEVER BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT. THAT'S FOR OPENERS. SO WE GO TO THE HEARSAY THING. IF THE PROPER WITNESS HAD BEEN HERE, IT WOULD STILL BE AN IMPROPER QUESTION BECAUSE THERE'S AT LEAST AN HOUR AND 40 MINUTE TIME DIFFERENTIATION FROM THE TIME THE WITNESS PURPORTS TO SEE HIM ON THE PHONE AND TIME OF THIS ALLEGED PHONE CALL. AND WE CAN SAY AS AN OFFER OF PROOF THAT THIS PHONE CALL WAS ABOUT ARRANGING FOR THE TIMES AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CHILDREN WOULD BE TRANSPORTED AND THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR TICKETS, FOR SEATING. BUT THAT'S NOT FOR US TO PROVE OR DISPROVE. THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S CASE. AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE AND WHAT THEY DID THURSDAY IS SANCTIONABLE AND IS CONTEMPTUOUS. "

[William Anthony]

Good question. No, I haven't.

Who should have produced it, if it was a highly disputed issue and I don't think it was ever disputed that Simpson made the call. However, it was never claimed during the trial that Simpson made a call to Ms. Arnelle but it has been claimed on this message board, without any proof to support the claim. :);):cool:

[tv]

I did not try to bait you into anything but I did ask you to support what you claimed. I do not know what testimony you have access to and you may have had some that others didn't. I asked you to support it and so did Martin but Ithink you were more interested in for lack of a better word debating (pun intended, :) us than discerning what we were asking.

I have a few friends and I think they all know and I have told females, especially when it came from MF's book, that I have no interest in passages from works of fiction.

I've posted the section from Lange and Vannatter's book before regarding the sweats in the washer. I simply forgot. If you knew there was no testimony you should have just said so but it's right out of the martin and William playbook when you find a chink in someone's armor to take advantage of it. Please don't keep going on about this -- I've corrected myself and have moved on. I'm not in the mood to take another vacation so soon. If what is in their book doesn't interest you then that's okay with me.

[William Anthony]

I've posted the section from Lange and Vannatter's book before regarding the sweats in the washer. I simply forgot. If you knew there was no testimony you should have just said so but it's right out of the martin and William playbook when you find a chink in someone's armor to take advantage of it. Please don't keep going on about this -- I've corrected myself and have moved on. I'm not in the mood to take another vacation so soon. If what is in their book doesn't interest you then that's okay with me.

How many times do I need to say that I am not interested in works of fiction? I ask for evidence, because there is a penalty that can be imposed, if it is discovered that one is embellishing the truth. How can I know what testimony you have or have not? You are the one, who keeps mentioning it and trying to blame me for something I did not do. I respond to keep the record straight. Thanks. If you have truly moved on, then let this response end the discussion.

[tv]

How many times do I need to say that I am not interested in works of fiction? I ask for evidence, because there is a penalty that can be imposed, if it is discovered that one is embellishing the truth. How can I know what testimony you have or have not? You are the one, who keeps mentioning it and trying to blame me for something I did not do. I respond to keep the record straight. Thanks. If you have truly moved on, then let this response end the discussion.

I'm sorry but I don't have all your dislikes and likes memorized. What penalty are you talking about? I haven't embellished the truth and I resent you implying that I have.

[tv]

I've read something that OJ claims about his calling Kato...but the truth is you can't believe much he says. I'll see if I can find it.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned about OJ not saying anything to his children in his farewell letter and I'm pretty sure someone posted there were seperate letters to the children. This is what OJ had to say in his civil deposition. :shrug: It's hard to figure out what is the truth.

Q: The last time you saw your kids before you were arrested was Wednesday?

A: No.

Q: You saw them at the funeral?

A: Yes.

Q: I see. That was Thursday. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Did you write any notes or letters out to your children that week?

A: No.
Q: Did you write any checks that day?

A: No.

I didn't think he'd written separate letters but I didn't know if there was any testimony. Thanks, IJM. :)

[William Anthony]

I've read something that OJ claims about his calling Kato...but the truth is you can't believe much he says. I'll see if I can find it.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned about OJ not saying anything to his children in his farewell letter and I'm pretty sure someone posted there were seperate letters to the children. This is what OJ had to say in his civil deposition. :shrug: It's hard to figure out what is the truth.

Q: The last time you saw your kids before you were arrested was Wednesday?

A: No.

Q: You saw them at the funeral?

A: Yes.

Q: I see. That was Thursday. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Did you write any notes or letters out to your children that week?

A: No.
Q: Did you write any checks that day?

A: No.

The key words to the question, "that week".

[tv]

It appears to me that you are just spoiling for a fight and don't care, who you start it with or whether you win or lose, which I think those with that mindset are particularly dangerous and to be avoided. :) This is what I clearly said, "How many times do I need to say that I am not interested in works of fiction? I ask for evidence, because there is a penalty that can be imposed, if it is discovered that one is embellishing the truth." I used evidence and penalty in connection with testimony and perjury. I used works of Fiction in connection with books and embellishment of the truth. You were the one that brought up how I feel about works of fiction and I responded as to why I felt that way as opposed to how I feel about evidence and why. I have no interest in fighting with you, so that you can try to get me placed on vacation. :);):cool:

I don't understand what you're talking about so...:seeya:

[Its just me]

The key words to the question, "that week".


What other week was he planning on shooting himself or running away.

[tv]

What other week was he planning on shooting himself or running away.

That's what I was thinking. :confused:

[William Anthony]

What other week was he planning on shooting himself or running away.

That is not the question. The question is when did he write the letters, if he did, to his children. You see I have learned when asking questions never to assume that what I think is correct but to ask the question in a manner that the witness will be clear about what was done. In this instance, a poster made a statement and, IIRC, that statement didn't say that he wrote the letters at any particular point in time.

[Its just me]

That's what I was thinking. :confused:

I'm lost on the "what" week but I'm lost today period. Good day for the ignore feature. What ya say.

I found this about OJ calling Kato to set the alarm.

Q: Did you ask Kaelin to set the alarm for you?
A: No. I think I told him I would call and give him the code. At one point we were talking about the code, but I had to leave, and I called him and gave him the code.

Q: From where did you call him?
A: I think the airport.

Q: From a pay phone?
A: Yes.
Q: At the gate?
A: Yes.

Q: At American Airlines?
A: Yes.

Q: What gate number? Do you remember?
A: No.

Q: Is that the first time you had ever given Kato Kaelin the code to your alarm?
A: I believe so, yes.

Q: Is that the first time you had asked Kato Kaelin to set the alarm for you?
A: Yes.

Q: Did Kato say to you that he would do as you requested?
A: Yes.

[tv]

I'm lost on the "what" week but I'm lost today period. Good day for the ignore feature. What ya say.

I found this about OJ calling Kato to set the alarm.

Q: Did you ask Kaelin to set the alarm for you?
A: No. I think I told him I would call and give him the code. At one point we were talking about the code, but I had to leave, and I called him and gave him the code.

Q: From where did you call him?
A: I think the airport.

Q: From a pay phone?
A: Yes.
Q: At the gate?
A: Yes.

Q: At American Airlines?
A: Yes.

Q: What gate number? Do you remember?
A: No.

Q: Is that the first time you had ever given Kato Kaelin the code to your alarm?
A: I believe so, yes.

Q: Is that the first time you had asked Kato Kaelin to set the alarm for you?
A: Yes.

Q: Did Kato say to you that he would do as you requested?
A: Yes.

Thanks for the testimony. I recall that Bob Baker tried to say that Simpson called Kato from the limo and Simpson corrected him. I've always wondered why Simpson didn't take the extra minute it would have taken to set the alarm and do it himself. Especially since there was a chance of a prowler on the property.

Good suggestion about the ignore feature. It's really my only option. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm lost on the "what" week but I'm lost today period. Good day for the ignore feature. What ya say.

I found this about OJ calling Kato to set the alarm.

Q: Did you ask Kaelin to set the alarm for you?
A: No. I think I told him I would call and give him the code. At one point we were talking about the code, but I had to leave, and I called him and gave him the code.

Q: From where did you call him?
A: I think the airport.

Q: From a pay phone?
A: Yes.
Q: At the gate?
A: Yes.

Q: At American Airlines?
A: Yes.

Q: What gate number? Do you remember?
A: No.

Q: Is that the first time you had ever given Kato Kaelin the code to your alarm?
A: I believe so, yes.

Q: Is that the first time you had asked Kato Kaelin to set the alarm for you?
A: Yes.

Q: Did Kato say to you that he would do as you requested?
A: Yes.

And this shows that Simpson was rushing before he left for the airport.

[William Anthony]

January 24, 1996

"Q: Now, why on this one occasion for the first time ever did you ask Kato Kaelin to activate the alarm?
A: Because on this one occasion for the first time ever Kato was, as far as I know, present when I was leaving and concerned about something around the house. Since he was there, I told him to look for a flashlight, investigate whatever he was investigating and put my alarm on.

Q: Were you concerned about what Kato Kaelin was describing to you?
A: Not really, but he seemed to be concerned.

Q: You were not concerned?
A: Not really, but he seemed to be concerned.

Q: Why were you not concerned?
A: Because I had to go. I was concerned about making my flight.

Q: He told you that there were some noises and maybe he felt an earthquake. Right?
A: Yes.

Q: And he wanted a flashlight to go investigate who might be in the property. Correct?
A: Correct.

Q: And you were not concerned that there might be somebody there?
A: Well, my alarm goes off many times. I'm a person who gets up in the middle of the night every night and walk around my house. I hear noises all the time. If he was concerned, he could look and put on my alarm when he left.

Q: Did he describe the noises to you?
A: As I told you before, no."

Interesting, there is a reason why Simpson might not have turned the alarm on, which was he wanted Kato to investigate and then turn on the alarm when he left, not sure if he meant left the house or when Kato left the premises. I think a follow up question should have been asked about the statement when he left but it shows a reason why Simpson did not put it on.

[Its just me]

Thanks for the testimony. I recall that Bob Baker tried to say that Simpson called Kato from the limo and Simpson corrected him. I've always wondered why Simpson didn't take the extra minute it would have taken to set the alarm and do it himself. Especially since there was a chance of a prowler on the property.

Good suggestion about the ignore feature. It's really my only option. :)

I think you are correct. For some reason some days it's just that way. :shrug:

IIRC Baker actually answered a question or two about something before OJ had a chance to answer .....I call it putting words in OJ's mouth.

OJ claims he didn't turn on the alarm because he thought Kato was going back inside to find a flashlight. I might would buy that tale if OJ had asked Kato one thing about checking out the noise. According to Kato....Not a word. Plus he wasn't too concerned because he waited until he got to the airport to call Kato and to my understanding he had his cell phone and the limo had a phone to use on his journey to the airport.

I agree with Kato's assessment....that was a strange night and OJ's different tales doesn't improve it. imhoo

[tv]

I think you are correct. For some reason some days it's just that way. :shrug:

IIRC Baker actually answered a question or two about something before OJ had a chance to answer .....I call it putting words in OJ's mouth.

OJ claims he didn't turn on the alarm because he thought Kato was going back inside to find a flashlight. I might would buy that tale if OJ had asked Kato one thing about checking out the noise. According to Kato....Not a word. Plus he wasn't too concerned because he waited until he got to the airport to call Kato and to my understanding he had his cell phone and the limo had a phone to use on his journey to the airport.

I agree with Kato's assessment....that was a strange night and OJ's different tales doesn't improve it. imhoo

It's my understanding that Simpson was known to be very security conscious. Imo, he wasn't concerned about the noise or anyone being on the property because he knew he had made the noise. That's why the lax attitude toward setting the alarm. To me, it fits right into him being the killer. I'm sure his mind was racing in the limo after murdering two people and he may not have even thought of the alarm again until reaching the airport. A strange night indeed.

ETA: I always thought the door was locked just that the alarm needed to be set.

[William Anthony]

"A: Well, my alarm goes off many times. I'm a person who gets up in the middle of the night every night and walk around my house. I hear noises all the time. If he was concerned, he could look and put on my alarm when he left."

[William Anthony]

None of Simpson's family was on the property and his house guest could earn his keep by investigating and setting the alarm, imho.

[William Anthony]

I think Simpson and Baker were toying with Petrocelli. For instance,

January 25th

"BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: That's why I am asking you to tell me.

A: Tell you what?

Q: What you said, because--

A: I told them I went to McDonald's at approximately 9:00 o'clock. I told them I got home after the recital. They could check. Whatever time it was over. And I don't recall today if I knew, if I was clear to them that it was 7:00 o'clock, but probably I told them it was around 7:00 o'clock. I told them what luggage I took to Chicago. I told them what luggage I brought back from Chicago. All of those questions they asked, I answered, and many of them I don't see on their police report, so--and I don't think--they're 17 and 20 year detectives, so I think it's obvious they asked those questions, and I answered them.

Q: What I want to know is what answers you gave."

A: To what? Ask me the question like they asked me, and I'll give you an answer.

Q: Where were you between 10:00 and 11:00?

A: I don't know if they asked me that question. I was home.

Q: If they did ask you, what did you say?

A: I don't recall if they asked me, so I don't know what I said. Why don't you ask me?

Q: I just did. Where--

A: Why don't you ask me?

MR. BAKER: Time out. We are going to take a break right here.

MR. PETROCELLI: You know--

MR. BAKER: We are going to take a break right here.

Baker was polite, imho, because I would have objected on the basis of form, unintelligible and calls for speculation but Simpson's answer said it all.

[Its just me]

It's my understanding that Simpson was known to be very security conscious. Imo, he wasn't concerned about the noise or anyone being on the property because he knew he had made the noise. That's why the lax attitude toward setting the alarm. To me, it fits right into him being the killer. I'm sure his mind was racing in the limo after murdering two people and he may not have even thought of the alarm again until reaching the airport. A strange night indeed.

ETA: I always thought the door was locked just that the alarm needed to be set.

Thanks for bringing up the locked door.....there is something in OJ's testimony that doens't seem to be matching what Kato said....that may be it.

IMHOO there are lots and lots of things that fit right into him being the killer.

[William Anthony]

If it does not fit, you must acquit.:);):cool:

[Its just me]

It's my understanding that Simpson was known to be very security conscious.

He also said just after talking about Kato setting the alarm that he OJ did not set the motion alarm. That could only be set OJ's bedroom IIRC and he wouldn't tell what area it covered. For security reasons I actually don't have a problem with not telling....just strange he didn't set it if he was running on the Norm.

[William Anthony]

Normally, a defendant, who had brutally murder two people by stabbing them to death and nearly decapitating one, would have blood around where a bloody glove was allegedly found, if as alleged the defendant dropped it.

[tv]

He also said just after talking about Kato setting the alarm that he OJ did not set the motion alarm. That could only be set OJ's bedroom IIRC and he wouldn't tell what area it covered. For security reasons I actually don't have a problem with not telling....just strange he didn't set it if he was running on the Norm.

Kato was right when he said it was a strange night. There were so many unusual occurrences -- one or two might not seem so out of place but there was one after the other that pointed to him not running on the norm.

[William Anthony]

How could one be running on the norm when the house guest told him that he heard something, making him think that someone was on the property and the house guest wanted to investigate. Simpson left the alarm off the house not knowing his afraid house guest would only do some perfunctory searches.

[One2Snoop]

O/T Anyone else here having problems with the board? When I tried logging in today it took me to Insession. :confused: I sent a message to Deepwater to check it out.

[martin II]

sooo -- anyone know where or has seen the phone bill is that shows orenthal's call to kato to set the alarm?

KATO admitted receiving the call and oj admidded calling him there was no reason for le to seek the record but Clarke had katos bill.

[martin II]

O/T Anyone else here having problems with the board? When I tried logging in today it took me to Insession. :confused: I sent a message to Deepwater to check it out.

Me too

[martin II]

He also said just after talking about Kato setting the alarm that he OJ did not set the motion alarm. That could only be set OJ's bedroom IIRC and he wouldn't tell what area it covered. For security reasons I actually don't have a problem with not telling....just strange he didn't set it if he was running on the Norm.

OJ came down stairs with plans to load 4-5 bage and leave. It was Kato that caused him to be running late. OJ looked at the clock in the kitchen and saw it was late. He walked out the house and park was standing at the limo with the door open and he told oj 'WE MUST GO NOW" thats why oj left. It was no problem calling kato to set the alarm.

[martin II]

Thanks for bringing up the locked door.....there is something in OJ's testimony that doens't seem to be matching what Kato said....that may be it.

IMHOO there are lots and lots of things that fit right into him being the killer.

This is why Katos testimony is always suspect.
TWO lies/untruths testified to by kato.


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

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

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

A. Okay.

Q. Thanks.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. I don't know.

I don't think those are the exact words.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

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

A. Okay.

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

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

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Anyway, misstates the testimony.

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

A. True.

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

A. He said that, yes.

Q. And you have heretofore testified --

MR. BAKER: Can you bring that up.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page and line, please.

MR. P. BAKER: 19912.

MR. PETROCELLI: Is this the trial testimony?

MR. BAKER: It is.

MR. PETROCELLI: One second, please.

199 what?

MR. P. BAKER: 19912, line 15.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

(Transcript displayed.)

MR. BAKER: Pull it up.

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

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

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

A. Right.

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

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

Q. I see.

And you didn't testify that the first time you knew the alarm wasn't set is when you got a telephone call from O.J. Simpson while you were on the phone to Rachel Ferrara, isn't that true?

A. Correct, called me to set the alarm.

Q. You testified here in the courtroom today that the first time you knew that you had the duty to set the alarm is when you got a phone call from Mr. Simpson, after you'd gone back to your room, isn't that true?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Question is vague as to duty. He testified as to --

MR. BAKER: A request.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- two conversations about the alarm.

MR. BAKER: Well, I'm going to object.

THE COURT: Sustained. There's no testimony that -- regarding beauty -- duty.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know what that means.

MR. BAKER: Request. Let me -- I apologize.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You testified, sir, in this courtroom today, that the first time Mr. Simpson made a request of you to set the alarm was after he had left in the limousine and you had walked back around the property and gone back to your room and you were on the phone with Rachel Ferrara and you got beeped in on your call waiting service, correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No.

THE COURT: That's not correct. You may tell him it's not correct.

A. That's not correct.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you testified in the criminal trial that as you were going out the front door, Mr. Simpson had requested of you to set the alarm, that he would call you on the telephone and tell you the alarm code number, got into the limo and left, true?

[William Anthony]

KATO admitted receiving the call and oj admidded calling him there was no reason for le to seek the record but Clarke had katos bill.

The only reason to show that portion of the bill would be to refresh someone's memory about the time of the call or if there was some relevant and material dispute about the call, IMHO.

[martin II]

Kato was right when he said it was a strange night. There were so many unusual occurrences -- one or two might not seem so out of place but there was one after the other that pointed to him not running on the norm.

Some create all kinds of situations in their minds in a effort to hear what they want to hear. Testimony and facts do not matter.imo

[martin II]

Kato
In my above post at one time kato testified he said he and oj were in the kitchen when oj realized what time it was as they walked out oj told him he would call him and give him the code for the alarm and OJ WALKED OUT THE DOOR AND GOT INTO THE LIMO AND LEFT.

Then on the day of the above testimony Kato said he and oj were in the kitchen, that they walked out (he did not testify that oj immediately got into the limo and left) [B]kato saw a bag and "oj said no kato i will getr it'[/B On the same day when quesitoned by petro kato said the first time Oj told him about setting the alarm was when oj called him.

There are so many instances that kato gave different testimony at different times. So the question is which testimony does one believe.imo

[martin II]

He also said just after talking about Kato setting the alarm that he OJ did not set the motion alarm. That could only be set OJ's bedroom IIRC and he wouldn't tell what area it covered. For security reasons I actually don't have a problem with not telling....just strange he didn't set it if he was running on the Norm.

IJM

If the motion alarm had to be set in ojs bedroom how would he leave his bedroom, out the hall , walk down the stairs through the foyer and out the door without being detected by the motion alarm. Motion alarms detect motion in the house.imo

[William Anthony]

Kato
In my above post at one time kato testified he said he and oj were in the kitchen when oj realized what time it was as they walked out oj told him he would call him and give him the code for the alarm and OJ WALKED OUT THE DOOR AND GOT INTO THE LIMO AND LEFT.

Then on the day of the above testimony Kato said he and oj were in the kitchen, that they walked out (he did not testify that oj immediately got into the limo and left) [B]kato saw a bag and "oj said no kato i will getr it'[/B On the same day when quesitoned by petro kato said the first time Oj told him about setting the alarm was when oj called him.

There are so many instances that kato gave different testimony at different times. So the question is which testimony does one believe.imo

I have heard of lawyers making speaking objections and telling the witness how to answer but this takes the cake,

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You testified, sir, in this courtroom today, that the first time Mr. Simpson made a request of you to set the alarm was after he had left in the limousine and you had walked back around the property and gone back to your room and you were on the phone with Rachel Ferrara and you got beeped in on your call waiting service, correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

"A. No.

THE COURT: That's not correct. You may tell him it's not correct.

A. That's not correct."

Thanks as I am further reinforced in my opinion that this was a socio political production. No, wasn't good enough for the judge-tell him that is not correct. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

IJM

If the motion alarm had to be set in ojs bedroom how would he leave his bedroom, out the hall , walk down the stairs through the foyer and out the door without being detected by the motion alarm. Motion alarms detect motion in the house.imo

Maybe, with his arthritic conditions, he could do high grade complex gymnastic moves to avoid tripping those lazier beams. :);):cool:

[Its just me]

Some create all kinds of situations in their minds in a effort to hear what they want to hear. Testimony and facts do not matter.imo

Ha....Now ain't that the truth.

[martin II]

It's my understanding that Simpson was known to be very security conscious. Imo, he wasn't concerned about the noise or anyone being on the property because he knew he had made the noise. That's why the lax attitude toward setting the alarm. To me, it fits right into him being the killer. I'm sure his mind was racing in the limo after murdering two people and he may not have even thought of the alarm again until reaching the airport. A strange night indeed.

ETA: I always thought the door was locked just that the alarm needed to be set.

Your understanding may be wrong in my opinion. As a matter of fact oj did not have the best alarm system for the value of the items in his house. I am surprised that no windows were taped and that his alarm did not also go directly to the police.imo

[martin II]

Ha....Now ain't that the truth.

There are no holes in ojs testimony about the alarms.

[martin II]

Maybe, with his arthritic conditions, he could do high grade complex gymnastic moves to avoid tripping those lazier beams. :);):cool:


Many motion detectors are connected to the door alarm so as to evade this impossible problem.
Just goes to show nonsense equals nonsense.

[Its just me]

IJM

If the motion alarm had to be set in ojs bedroom how would he leave his bedroom, out the hall , walk down the stairs through the foyer and out the door without being detected by the motion alarm. Motion alarms detect motion in the house.imo

I went back to see what OJ said....it's not in the bedroom but it is up stairs in the hall. So you or William will need to call OJ to find out how all that is done. Sometimes you need to :read: before trying to make someone look like a fool. It actually gets old and it is sickening and it's disgusting.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Just so I am clear, you have only one location in the whole residence that's --
A: That's correct.

Q: subject to a motion detector, and when you activate the alarm, the motion detector goes on. Right?
A: Pardon me?

Q: When you set the alarm, that also activates the motion detector. Correct?
A: No.

Q: Do you have to also set the motion detector?
A: Yes.

Q: And how -- Can you do that from any of the keypads?
A: No.

Q: How do you set the motion detector?
A: By a pad that's upstairs, in my upstairs hall.
Q: You did give me a description of that pad before when you said you had one in your bedroom and one upstairs. Is that the upstairs one?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it a second pad next to the other pad for the doors?
A: Yes.

Q: And that's the only pad that activates a motion detector. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know how large of an area that motion detector covers?

[tv]

O/T Anyone else here having problems with the board? When I tried logging in today it took me to Insession. :confused: I sent a message to Deepwater to check it out.

No problems here, 12S. :seeya:

[tv]

Ha....Now ain't that the truth.

:beer:

[Its just me]

:beer:

:beer: I seriously doubt my post will ever be understood. It would be funny if not so sad.

[martin II]

I went back to see what OJ said....it's not in the bedroom but it is up stairs in the hall. So you or William will need to call OJ to find out how all that is done. Sometimes you need to :read: before trying to make someone look like a fool. It actually gets old and it is sickening disgusting.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Just so I am clear, you have only one location in the whole residence that's --
A: That's correct.

Q: subject to a motion detector, and when you activate the alarm, the motion detector goes on. Right?
A: Pardon me?

Q: When you set the alarm, that also activates the motion detector. Correct?
A: No.

Q: Do you have to also set the motion detector?
A: Yes.

Q: And how -- Can you do that from any of the keypads?
A: No.

Q: How do you set the motion detector?
A: By a pad that's upstairs, in my upstairs hall.
Q: You did give me a description of that pad before when you said you had one in your bedroom and one upstairs. Is that the upstairs one?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it a second pad next to the other pad for the doors?
A: Yes.

Q: And that's the only pad that activates a motion detector. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know how large of an area that motion detector covers?

Then the motion detector is normally only set when oj is up stairs and retiring for the night to protect the first floor of the house. If he decided to go down stairs at night he can click the motion off and back on when he is back upstairs.
This is why he did not set the motion detector before he left because he had a go down stairs and out the door and would have set the motion detecter off. imo

[Its just me]

Then the motion detector is normally only set when oj is up stairs and retiring for the night to protect the first floor of the house. If he decided to go down stairs at night he can click the motion off and back on when he is back upstairs.
This is why he did not set the motion detector before he left because he had a go down stairs and out the door and would have set the motion detecter off. imo

I'm asking you not to respond to any more of my posts today. I've had about all your mess I can take and I don't want a vacation. Just to make sure you read what I wrote in my post you replied to....

I went back to see what OJ said....it's not in the bedroom but it is up stairs in the hall. So you or William will need to call OJ to find out how all that is done. Sometimes you need to :read: before trying to make someone look like a fool. It actually gets old and it is sickening and it's disgusting.

ETA: The motion detector only covered a certain area....I'd just imagine OJ had enough sense to know where to walk. OJ didn't go into the details about going up or down stairs or when he normally did anything so stop trying to add something that has no facts to back it up.

[martin II]

I'm asking you not to respond to any more of my posts today. I've had about all your mess I can take and I don't want a vacation. Just to make sure you read what I wrote in my post you replied to....

I went back to see what OJ said....it's not in the bedroom but it is up stairs in the hall. So you or William will need to call OJ to find out how all that is done. Sometimes you need to before trying to make someone look like a fool. It actually gets old and it is sickening and it's disgusting.

I never read any testimony where oj said he had a motion detector switch in his bedroom so i questioned your claim. You made that statement not me.
If you had given the link to ojs testimony when you made the statement the correction could have been made then. imo

[tv]

:beer: I seriously doubt my post will ever be understood. It would be funny if not so sad.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.

[martin II]

The key words to the question, "that week".

HIS chilkdren were at the browns and he was about to go to jail.whats the problem.

[William Anthony]

I went back to see what OJ said....it's not in the bedroom but it is up stairs in the hall. So you or William will need to call OJ to find out how all that is done. Sometimes you need to :read: before trying to make someone look like a fool. It actually gets old and it is sickening and it's disgusting.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Just so I am clear, you have only one location in the whole residence that's --
A: That's correct.

Q: subject to a motion detector, and when you activate the alarm, the motion detector goes on. Right?
A: Pardon me?

Q: When you set the alarm, that also activates the motion detector. Correct?
A: No.

Q: Do you have to also set the motion detector?
A: Yes.

Q: And how -- Can you do that from any of the keypads?
A: No.

Q: How do you set the motion detector?
A: By a pad that's upstairs, in my upstairs hall.
Q: You did give me a description of that pad before when you said you had one in your bedroom and one upstairs. Is that the upstairs one?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it a second pad next to the other pad for the doors?
A: Yes.

Q: And that's the only pad that activates a motion detector. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know how large of an area that motion detector covers?


what was the date of this testimony, so I can see how large and area the motion detector covered, if Simpson knew?

[Its just me]

I never read any testimony where oj said he had a motion detector switch in his bedroom so i questioned your claim. You made that statement not me.
If you had given the link to ojs testimony when you made the statement the correction could have been made then. imo

OH....You trying to make me look like a fool is now all my fault. For some reason I didn't expect any different.

[Its just me]

what was the date of this testimony, so I can see how large and area the motion detector covered, if Simpson knew?

Look it up yourself..You are just as guilty as Martin with your smarty nonsense. It was uncalled for and I dang don't appreciate it...but Hey When all was said and done it wasn't I that looks foolish.

It is the 2nd or 3rd deposition in the civil case. I don't know if Simpson knew but Simpson didn't tell and I posted earlier that for security reasons I don't have a problem with Simpson not telling.

[martin II]

I'm asking you not to respond to any more of my posts today. I've had about all your mess I can take and I don't want a vacation. Just to make sure you read what I wrote in my post you replied to....

I went back to see what OJ said....it's not in the bedroom but it is up stairs in the hall. So you or William will need to call OJ to find out how all that is done. Sometimes you need to :read: before trying to make someone look like a fool. It actually gets old and it is sickening and it's disgusting.

ETA: The motion detector only covered a certain area....I'd just imagine OJ had enough sense to know where to walk. OJ didn't go into the details about going up or down stairs or when he normally did anything so stop trying to add something that has no facts to back it up.

motion detectors are usually set up high in a corner of a room pointing towards the door. they cover a whole room so it is not possible to walk around them.
you may be talking about a infra red bean detector when you say walk around.

imo

[Its just me]

motion detectors are usually set up high in a corner of a room pointing towards the door. they cover a whole room so it is not possible to walk around them.
you may be talking about a infra red bean detector when you say walk around.

imo


Martin IMHOO you've shown how smart you are on this subject....(Not) Leave me alone. What are you trying to do buy my vacation ticket. FWIW I'm ready for one.

[William Anthony]

Look it up yourself..You are just as guilty as Martin with your smarty nonsense. It was uncalled for and I dang don't appreciate it...but Hey When all was said and done it wasn't I that looks foolish.

It is the 2nd or 3rd deposition in the civil case. I don't know if Simpson knew but Simpson didn't tell and I posted earlier that for security reasons I don't have a problem with Simpson not telling.

What seems to be the problem. No one was trying to make you look foolish and I was commenting on what the testimony allegedly was. It wasn't that you did not make sense and were funny. It was that the alleged testimony didn't make sense and was funny. I understand if you do not want to play nice and I never said you looked or tried to make you look foolish. I don't know where you are coming from with this and why you would think that.

[Its just me]

What seems to be the problem. No one was trying to make you look foolish and I was commenting on what the testimony allegedly was. It wasn't that you did not make sense and were funny. It was that the alleged testimony didn't make sense and was funny. I understand if you do not want to play nice and I never said you looked or tried to make you look foolish. I don't know where you are coming from with this and why you would think that.

Well ....and aren't you just as sickening as Martin.....You two never do one thing wrong. You leave me alone too.

We used a term at the Tara Board that would be fitting here..... DAJA.

[tv]

Martin IMHOO you've shown how smart NOT you are on this subject....(Not) Leave me alone. What are you trying to do buy my vacation ticket. FWIW I'm ready for one.

IJM, sometimes it's a good idea to expand that ignore list. ;)

[William Anthony]

Well ....and aren't you just as sickening as Martin.....You two never do one thing wrong. You leave me alone too.

We used a term at the Tara Board that would be fitting here DAJA.

It seems I do some things wrong by trying to have a civil discussion with some. Since you have mentioned two other threads and what happens on them, are you still posting on the thread about the 8 year old murderer? Never mind, I read your last post there.

[Its just me]

IJM

If the motion alarm had to be set in ojs bedroom how would he leave his bedroom, out the hall , walk down the stairs through the foyer and out the door without being detected by the motion alarm. Motion alarms detect motion in the house.imo

Maybe, with his arthritic conditions, he could do high grade complex gymnastic moves to avoid tripping those lazier beams. :);):cool:

What seems to be the problem. No one was trying to make you look foolish and I was commenting on what the testimony allegedly was. It wasn't that you did not make sense and were funny. It was that the alleged testimony didn't make sense and was funny. I understand if you do not want to play nice and I never said you looked or tried to make you look foolish. I don't know where you are coming from with this and why you would think that.

Just to keep the record striaght. This "I didn't do this" blah blah or "I was doing this" is just more nonsense. The record speaks for itself.
Carry on I'm out of here.

[martin II]

Look it up yourself..You are just as guilty as Martin with your smarty nonsense. It was uncalled for and I dang don't appreciate it...but Hey When all was said and done it wasn't I that looks foolish.

It is the 2nd or 3rd deposition in the civil case. I don't know if Simpson knew but Simpson didn't tell and I posted earlier that for security reasons I don't have a problem with Simpson not telling.

When you make a claim it is good to give a link.

Again motion detectors are not the same as a infra red beam that you think oj could walk around. That is what you may not understand.imo

[William Anthony]

Just to keep the record striaght. This "I didn't do this" blah blah or "I was doing this" is just more nonsense. The record speaks for itself.
Carry on I'm out of here.

Yes, the record does speak for itself. :seeya:

[martin II]

You suggest oj could walk around a motion detector. tell me how please.


motion detectors are usually set up high in a corner of a room pointing towards the door. they cover a whole room so it is not possible to walk around them.
you may be talking about a infra red bean detector when you say walk around.

imo

[Its just me]

When you make a claim it is good to give a link.

Again motion detectors are not the same as a infra red beam that you think oj could walk around. That is what you may not understand.imo

Just so you know.....I'm familiar with security system (s) cameras, motion detectors and the infra red beam. Give it up....you and William have just showed just what kind of people you are.

I'm asking a second time....Do not respond to any more of my post today.

[William Anthony]

I found it January 24th,

"Q: Do you know how large of an area that motion detector covers?
A: A relatively large area, yes.

Q: Would it cover the kitchen?
A: I m not going to talk about that. I already had to spend a fortune changing my alarms, by talking about my alarm system in court.

Q: Have you changed it since the court case?
A: Yes. Made it better.

Q: Well, I am only interested in what it was at the time.
A: Well, some things are in the same place."

[William Anthony]

What type of person is William? I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut, we have different opinions on that. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

January 24th,

"Q: When you left the limo area, what did you do then?
A: Went to the plane.

Q: Went directly in the doors and up to the gate?
A: Yeah.

Q: Did you stop at any trash containers--
A: No.

Q: -- or receptacles?
A: No.

Q: None at all?
A: No.

Q: Did you stop to throw anything away?
A: No.

Q: Did you stop to rest any luggage on there in order to rearrange yourself or anything like that?
A: It's a possibility.

Q: When you say that's a possibility, give me your best recollection of whether you did that or not.

MR. BAKER: If you have a recollection.

THE WITNESS: I don't have a recollection. I just know that it wouldn't be unusual to stand by the ticket counter, put my bag on something, because I know he had people in front of him that he was dealing with, and I was beside him, and I might have put my bag either down or something to get my tickets out for him to give me my baggage claim.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: This is outside, you mean?
A: Yes.

Q: Where the baggage guy works behind that counter?
A: Yes.

Q: So you think you stopped there and rested your luggage?
A: Well, I know I stopped there and I know I went into my bag to get my ticket for him to, you know, do what he had to do, so I know that took place there. So if there was a garbage there, I could have been around a garbage there.

Q: Do you remember putting a bag on the garbage, though?
A: No. "

[weezer]

Thanks for the testimony. I recall that Bob Baker tried to say that Simpson called Kato from the limo and Simpson corrected him. I've always wondered why Simpson didn't take the extra minute it would have taken to set the alarm and do it himself. Especially since there was a chance of a prowler on the property.

Good suggestion about the ignore feature. It's really my only option. :)

okay -- so who is to say he didn't call arnelle at the same time he called kato? you know, having other people taking care of unfinished business while he ran. oh my, that does sound familiar when it comes to orenthal doesn't it?

[weezer]

time for a reality check I think: x 2

Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:

As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

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

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

. . .Mr. Cochran lead trial counsel responsible for the conduct of the defense team, but he is also the trial counsel presenting the testimony of the witness in question and had made untrue representations to the Court in reckless disregard for the truth. . .

[Its just me]

time for a reality check I think: x 2

Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:

As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

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

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

. . .Mr. Cochran lead trial counsel responsible for the conduct of the defense team, but he is also the trial counsel presenting the testimony of the witness in question and had made untrue representations to the Court in reckless disregard for the truth. . .

Thanks, I'm sticking with Judge Ito and IMHOO anything outside of that is the same farce I think it was in the trial.

[martin II]

What other week was he planning on shooting himself or running away.

i think most people will have all kinds of bad thoughts running around in their heads if you are a well known person wealthy or poor that is faced with media reports that you have killed your ex, you have two children to be concerned about and the lapd is on tv telling the world 'WE ARE LOOKING FOR OJ' because he failed to surrender on time. With the help of AC oj pulled himself togeather, faced his accusers and in the end the charges were not proven.I don't think anyone can say for sure what they would have done under simular circumstances.imo

There is no proof that oj did anything but visit nicoles grave, talked the situation out with AC and returned to his home to trun himself in. No proof of
running away to any place. imo

[martin II]

OH....You trying to make me look like a fool is now all my fault. For some reason I didn't expect any different.

ijm

If you make a untrue statement and others ask for proof, that is not making you look bad. We all make mistakes.

[martin II]

Well ....and aren't you just as sickening as Martin.....You two never do one thing wrong. You leave me alone too.

We used a term at the Tara Board that would be fitting here..... DAJA.

I don't think the personal comments are necessary because of your error.

[martin II]

okay -- so who is to say he didn't call arnelle at the same time he called kato? you know, having other people taking care of unfinished business while he ran. oh my, that does sound familiar when it comes to orenthal doesn't it?

When oj called kato about the code Arnell was not home.

[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.

I didn’t look at the video tape the lawyers and a witness did.

You say that “testifying to something someone else does as with unlocking a door is corroboration.” That would be true if they were all testifying about the same door. But that’s not what happened. Three detectives said Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it and they all entered the house through that door. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle enter the back door of the house with the three detectives and then he and the fourth detective followed them in. Arnelle Simpson said she took two detectives around the house to the front door and opened that door to let them into the house. The detectives didn’t corroborate Arnelle Simpson’s story, they impeached it.

Two quick things William,

You say you forgot the date when the video that shows the back door was shown in court; do you remember what witness was testifying when it was shown?

Please post Arnelle Simpson’s criminal trial testimony where she said she unlocked the front door, since I don’t recall ever reading where she said that.

bobaugust

[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.

Based on the evidence in this case and Arnelle Simpson’s lies I believe that a reasonable logical inference can be made that Simpson called his daughter when he landed in Chicago and asked her to wash his clothing in the middle of the night.

The prosecutors obtained the telephone records in this case, not the police, and all of those telephone records were telephone bills. 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]

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

I don’t see that as memory improvement I see it as responding to questions that were never asked before.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

What five witnesses corroborated Arnelle Simpson’s story?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

That’s right, inferences are drawn from evidence, and the evidence all points to Arnelle Simpson as the person who washed the clothing found in Simpson’s washing machine and then mistakenly failed to turn the house alarm back on when she left the house by unlocking and exiting the back door nearest her room. And then she lied to try and cover up her mistakes.

The logical inference that Simpson called Arnelle after he landed in Chicago is based on that evidence, and it answers the question why would Arnelle do laundry in the middle of the night and then lie to cover it up? Because her father called her and told her to wash his dark colored sweat suit he had left in his washing machine after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

Martin, you are incorrect. Phillips testified that he entered the back door of the house along with Arnelle Simpson, Lange, and Vannatter.

February 16, 1995

Q AND WHERE DID YOU WALK?
A WALKED TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE -- NOT TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE, BUT THE BACK PORTION OF THE MAIN HOUSE WHERE THERE WAS SOME FRENCH DOORS AND ANOTHER SMALLER DOOR RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
Q WHEN YOU WALKED TOWARD THE MAIN HOUSE, DID YOU PASS BY MR.
KAELIN'S ROOM?
A YES.
Q DID YOU LOOK INSIDE?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WALKED UP TO ONE -- ONE DOOR THAT LED INTO THE HOUSE AND ARNELLE SIMPSON UNLOCKED THE DOOR FOR US AND OPENED THE DOOR.
Q AND DID YOU ALL WALK INSIDE?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS WHO AT THAT POINT?
A THAT WAS ARNELLE SIMPSON, MYSELF, TOM LANGE AND PHIL VANNATTER.
Q WENT IN THROUGH THE REAR?
A YES.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin IMHOO you've shown how smart you are on this subject....(Not) Leave me alone. What are you trying to do buy my vacation ticket. FWIW I'm ready for one.

ijm
I have owned and used motion detectors previously. That is why i realized that you were confused when you said oj could walk around the detector.
i assumed you were talking about infra red beams ysed in some security systems. But i knew the testimony was about motion detectors not infra red beams.imo

[martin II]

Martin, you are incorrect. Phillips testified that he entered the back door of the house along with Arnelle Simpson, Lange, and Vannatter.

February 16, 1995

Q AND WHERE DID YOU WALK?
A WALKED TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE -- NOT TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE, BUT THE BACK PORTION OF THE MAIN HOUSE WHERE THERE WAS SOME FRENCH DOORS AND ANOTHER SMALLER DOOR RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
Q WHEN YOU WALKED TOWARD THE MAIN HOUSE, DID YOU PASS BY MR.
KAELIN'S ROOM?
A YES.
Q DID YOU LOOK INSIDE?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WALKED UP TO ONE -- ONE DOOR THAT LED INTO THE HOUSE AND ARNELLE SIMPSON UNLOCKED THE DOOR FOR US AND OPENED THE DOOR.
Q AND DID YOU ALL WALK INSIDE?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS WHO AT THAT POINT?
A THAT WAS ARNELLE SIMPSON, MYSELF, TOM LANGE AND PHIL VANNATTER.
Q WENT IN THROUGH THE REAR?
A YES.

bobaugust

Bob

you know as well as i know phillips testified on another ocassion that he entered the house into the living room.

[martin II]

what was the date of this testimony, so I can see how large and area the motion detector covered, if Simpson knew?

William from my experience i believe oj would have a motion detector located
at the top of the stairs that would cover the stairs and the halls leading to the top floor halls/rooms. That he would have one someplace near the south most door looking north to cover the bar area,family room and the living room. That he would have one around the nook area to cover the kitchen and foyer area.

If he did not turn on the motion detectors in the upstairs hall it would be because he would not be able to come down stairs without setting the alarm off. He did have the door alarms on when he called kato shortly after leaving. Those that have tried to make a issue of why he did not set the motion detector alarms just dont understand how that system works. imo

[martin II]

He also said just after talking about Kato setting the alarm that he OJ did not set the motion alarm. That could only be set OJ's bedroom IIRC and he wouldn't tell what area it covered. For security reasons I actually don't have a problem with not telling....just strange he didn't set it if he was running on the Norm.

If oj had set the motion alarm he would not have been able to leave the house without setting the alarm off.

[martin II]

Kato was right when he said it was a strange night. There were so many unusual occurrences -- one or two might not seem so out of place but there was one after the other that pointed to him not running on the norm.

Whats strange is the two different testimonies kato gave about what happened when he and oj left the kitchen and walked out of the house. Which version do you believe?

[martin II]

Thanks, I'm sticking with Judge Ito and IMHOO anything outside of that is the same farce I think it was in the trial.

Obviously what is being posted as Ito final decision is not true because the tapes were played. He clearly said on the tapes that he had planted evidence.imo

[martin II]

ijm-william
Is Katos testimony believable?

In the criminal trial Kato testified that when he and oj walked out of the kitchen oj got into the limo and left.

In the civil trial kato testified that he and oj walked out of the house and had some conversation about a bag that was seen at the Bently.

In the criminal trial Kato testified that in the kitchen oj informed him he was going to call him and give him the code to the alarm system.

In the civil trial Kato testified he did not know oj wanted him to set the alarm until oj called him from the airport.

Do you have a preferance of which of Katos testimony you believe. imo

[tv]

Kato's testimony seems consistent to me --


Civil Trial Testimony of Kato Kaelin:

A. So I was still sort of in the foyer area, and he said, well, set the alarm. I said, I don't know the alarm code. I said, you do. And that was the last --

Q. Had he ever asked you to set the alarm before?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever have anything to do with the alarm?

A. No.

Q. After he asked you to set the alarm and you said you didn't know how, what happened then?

A. Well, I assume that he was setting the alarm, and I started to walk and I saw that the duffel bag was still there.

Criminal Trial Testimony of Kato Kaelin:

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU PAUSED AND TALKED TO HIM IN THE FOYER AREA OF THE HOUSE, WHAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

A: HE WAS LEAVING AND IT WAS -- THERE IS AN ALARM AND HE WAS ASKING ME TO SET THE ALARM.
Q: HAD HE EVER ASKED YOU TO SET THE ALARM FOR HIM BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU KNOW THE CODE TO SET THE ALARM?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU WANT TO SET THE ALARM?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: JUST ANOTHER RESPONSIBILITY THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW THE ALARM CODE.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO SET THE ALARM?

A: "I DON'T KNOW THE CODE."

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE?

A: UMM, I DON'T -- I THINK HE WAS GOING TO SET IT, THAT HE WAS GOING TO SET THE ALARM.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU THAT OR --

A: YEAH, I THINK IT WAS THAT HE WOULD SET IT. IT WAS KIND OF AN UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET THE CODE, BUT I DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION AS FAR AS IF HE SET IT OR NOT.

Q: AND YOU HAD THAT CONVERSATION WHILE YOU WERE STANDING WITH HIM IN THE FOYER?

[Its just me]

Kato's testimony seems consistent to me --


Civil Trial Testimony of Kato Kaelin:

A. So I was still sort of in the foyer area, and he said, well, set the alarm. I said, I don't know the alarm code. I said, you do. And that was the last --

Q. Had he ever asked you to set the alarm before?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever have anything to do with the alarm?

A. No.

Q. After he asked you to set the alarm and you said you didn't know how, what happened then?

A. Well, I assume that he was setting the alarm, and I started to walk and I saw that the duffel bag was still there.

Criminal Trial Testimony of Kato Kaelin:

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU PAUSED AND TALKED TO HIM IN THE FOYER AREA OF THE HOUSE, WHAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

A: HE WAS LEAVING AND IT WAS -- THERE IS AN ALARM AND HE WAS ASKING ME TO SET THE ALARM.
Q: HAD HE EVER ASKED YOU TO SET THE ALARM FOR HIM BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU KNOW THE CODE TO SET THE ALARM?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU WANT TO SET THE ALARM?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: JUST ANOTHER RESPONSIBILITY THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW THE ALARM CODE.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO SET THE ALARM?

A: "I DON'T KNOW THE CODE."

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE?

A: UMM, I DON'T -- I THINK HE WAS GOING TO SET IT, THAT HE WAS GOING TO SET THE ALARM.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU THAT OR --

A: YEAH, I THINK IT WAS THAT HE WOULD SET IT. IT WAS KIND OF AN UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET THE CODE, BUT I DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION AS FAR AS IF HE SET IT OR NOT.

Q: AND YOU HAD THAT CONVERSATION WHILE YOU WERE STANDING WITH HIM IN THE FOYER?

Of course Kato was consistent. It's just so amazing that everybody that testified is lying and out to get OJ. :rolleyes: For some reason "blinders" come to mind. I'd tell how that term come into use but it just wouldn't do.... but its funny and has a lot of meaning especially using it in relation to what some seem to think about Kato. Kato had no reason to lie and it's nonsense to try and pick his testimony to prove a murderer is not one.

Adding IMHOO but I actually don't want to.

[Its just me]

i think most people will have all kinds of bad thoughts running around in their heads if you are a well known person wealthy or poor that is faced with media reports that you have killed your ex, you have two children to be concerned about and the lapd is on tv telling the world 'WE ARE LOOKING FOR OJ' because he failed to surrender on time. With the help of AC oj pulled himself togeather, faced his accusers and in the end the charges were not proven.I don't think anyone can say for sure what they would have done under simular circumstances.imo

There is no proof that oj did anything but visit nicoles grave, talked the situation out with AC and returned to his home to trun himself in. No proof of
running away to any place. imo

ijm

If you make a untrue statement and others ask for proof, that is not making you look bad. We all make mistakes.

I don't think the personal comments are necessary because of your error.

I asked you not to respond to my posts because I had enough of your nonsense and your smarty remarks about OJ turning on the motion detector upstairs which only showed you had "NO" knowledge of what you were/are talking about. But instead of acknowledging that you place the blame on me and all anyone has to do is read to see it.
I'm not quoting all the above where you continue to bully to respond to you. Only to show the cyber world who may be reading a personal picture of Martin II....those here who don't wear those blinders I just posted about have seen it many times.

I'm not a post or member reporter but I'm starting today so I suggest you govern yourself with that knowledge. I'm thinking I can learn to be a crybaby.

I continue to ask you put me on ignore.

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito saw the error of his ways, based on new evidence, six days after the alleged final ruling when MF took the stand and the defense was allowed to ask him did he plant evidence in this case, to which MF took the 5th.

[William Anthony]

I didn’t look at the video tape the lawyers and a witness did.

You say that “testifying to something someone else does as with unlocking a door is corroboration.” That would be true if they were all testifying about the same door. But that’s not what happened. Three detectives said Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it and they all entered the house through that door. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle enter the back door of the house with the three detectives and then he and the fourth detective followed them in. Arnelle Simpson said she took two detectives around the house to the front door and opened that door to let them into the house. The detectives didn’t corroborate Arnelle Simpson’s story, they impeached it.

Two quick things William,

You say you forgot the date when the video that shows the back door was shown in court; do you remember what witness was testifying when it was shown?

Please post Arnelle Simpson’s criminal trial testimony where she said she unlocked the front door, since I don’t recall ever reading where she said that.

bobaugust

Since you say that you did not look at the video, then post the testimony of those that did and said the clothes were freshly washed, please?

The corroboration was the testimony and the technology.

No, but the fact that you recall the video, showing the only door that could be unlocked without entering through the garage means there is no genuine issue in dispute on that subject. However, IIRC, it was posted before.

The network connection to the transcripts is timed out at the present.

[William Anthony]

What five witnesses corroborated Arnelle Simpson’s story?

bobaugust

The three detectives, Kato and MF.

[William Anthony]

That’s right, inferences are drawn from evidence, and the evidence all points to Arnelle Simpson as the person who washed the clothing found in Simpson’s washing machine and then mistakenly failed to turn the house alarm back on when she left the house by unlocking and exiting the back door nearest her room. And then she lied to try and cover up her mistakes.

The logical inference that Simpson called Arnelle after he landed in Chicago is based on that evidence, and it answers the question why would Arnelle do laundry in the middle of the night and then lie to cover it up? Because her father called her and told her to wash his dark colored sweat suit he had left in his washing machine after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

My, my, my, I see that there may be a tendency to claim evidence but did you forget you said this, " Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
That’s correct, there is no evidence[/SIZE] [SIZE="5"]that Simpson called Arnelle and told her to wash his dark colored sweat suit, there is only the logical inference that he did.

bobaugust"?

You admit that inferences are drawn from evidence and that there is no evidence that Simpson ever called Ms. Arnelle and told or asked her to engage in any criminal conduct but then you claim that is a "logical inference" and in the next post you become rude and uncivil, talking about my foolish fantasies. Smile, wink cool

[William Anthony]

I don’t see that as memory improvement I see it as responding to questions that were never asked before.

bobaugust

It took some time but here it is.

"Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
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"?"
__________________
Doc Holiday

[martin II]

It took some time but here it is.

"Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
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"?"
__________________
Doc Holiday

I have posted Katos testimony where he definately testified differently on the same issue in the criminal trial and the civil trial. This proves that those that have such strong faith in Katos testimony may be on shaky grounds.imo

[martin II]

Kato's testimony seems consistent to me --


Civil Trial Testimony of Kato Kaelin:

A. So I was still sort of in the foyer area, and he said, well, set the alarm. I said, I don't know the alarm code. I said, you do. And that was the last --

Q. Had he ever asked you to set the alarm before?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever have anything to do with the alarm?

A. No.

Q. After he asked you to set the alarm and you said you didn't know how, what happened then?

A. Well, I assume that he was setting the alarm, and I started to walk and I saw that the duffel bag was still there.

Criminal Trial Testimony of Kato Kaelin:

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU PAUSED AND TALKED TO HIM IN THE FOYER AREA OF THE HOUSE, WHAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

A: HE WAS LEAVING AND IT WAS -- THERE IS AN ALARM AND HE WAS ASKING ME TO SET THE ALARM.
Q: HAD HE EVER ASKED YOU TO SET THE ALARM FOR HIM BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU KNOW THE CODE TO SET THE ALARM?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU WANT TO SET THE ALARM?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: JUST ANOTHER RESPONSIBILITY THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW THE ALARM CODE.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO SET THE ALARM?

A: "I DON'T KNOW THE CODE."

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE?

A: UMM, I DON'T -- I THINK HE WAS GOING TO SET IT, THAT HE WAS GOING TO SET THE ALARM.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU THAT OR --

A: YEAH, I THINK IT WAS THAT HE WOULD SET IT. IT WAS KIND OF AN UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET THE CODE, BUT I DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION AS FAR AS IF HE SET IT OR NOT.

Q: AND YOU HAD THAT CONVERSATION WHILE YOU WERE STANDING WITH HIM IN THE FOYER?

In the criminal trial Kato testified that in the foyer Oj spoke to him about setting the alarm.In the criminal trial Kato testified that he and Oj left the foyer and oj immediately got into the limo and left.

In the civil trial Kato testified that the first time oj spoke to him about the alarm was when oj called him on the phone after Kato had returned to his room. In the civil trial Kato testified that after he and oj left the foyer and were out side there was conversation about who would pick up the bag.NOT THAT OJ IMMEDIATELY GOT INTO THE LIMO AS HE TESTIFIED IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL

Below is what he testified to both times.His testimony did change.


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

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

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

A. Okay.

Q. Thanks.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. I don't know.

I don't think those are the exact words.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

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

A. Okay.

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

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

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Anyway, misstates the testimony.

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

A. True.

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

A. He said that, yes.

Q. And you have heretofore testified --

MR. BAKER: Can you bring that up.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page and line, please.

MR. P. BAKER: 19912.

MR. PETROCELLI: Is this the trial testimony?

MR. BAKER: It is.

MR. PETROCELLI: One second, please.

199 what?

MR. P. BAKER: 19912, line 15.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

(Transcript displayed.)

MR. BAKER: Pull it up.

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

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

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

A. Right.

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

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

Q. I see.

And you didn't testify that the first time you knew the alarm wasn't set is when you got a telephone call from O.J. Simpson while you were on the phone to Rachel Ferrara, isn't that true?

A. Correct, called me to set the alarm.

Q. You testified here in the courtroom today that the first time you knew that you had the duty to set the alarm is when you got a phone call from Mr. Simpson, after you'd gone back to your room, isn't that true?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Question is vague as to duty. He testified as to --

MR. BAKER: A request.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- two conversations about the alarm.

MR. BAKER: Well, I'm going to object.

THE COURT: Sustained. There's no testimony that -- regarding beauty -- duty.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know what that means.

MR. BAKER: Request. Let me -- I apologize.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You testified, sir, in this courtroom today, that the first time Mr. Simpson made a request of you to set the alarm was after he had left in the limousine and you had walked back around the property and gone back to your room and you were on the phone with Rachel Ferrara and you got beeped in on your call waiting service, correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No.

THE COURT: That's not correct. You may tell him it's not correct.

A. That's not correct.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you testified in the criminal trial that as you were going out the front door, Mr. Simpson had requested of you to set the alarm, that he would call you on the telephone and tell you the alarm code number, got into the limo and left, true?

[martin II]

Since we have talked about phones i thought i would offer the below info for the benefit of posters. If there are complaints that it is OT i will ask the moderator to delete it.


REMINDER..... all cell phone numbers
> are being released to telemarketing companies and you will
> start to receive sales calls.
>
> YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS
>
To
> prevent this, call the following number from your cell
> phone: 888-382-1222.
>
> It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will
> only take a minute of your time.. It blocks your number for
> five (5) years.. You must call from the cell phone number you
> want to have blocked. You cannot call from a different phone
> number.
>
>
>

[tv]

In the criminal trial Kato testified that in the foyer Oj spoke to him about setting the alarm.In the criminal trial Kato testified that he and Oj left the foyer and oj immediately got into the limo and left.

In the civil trial Kato testified that the first time oj spoke to him about the alarm was when oj called him on the phone after Kato had returned to his room. In the civil trial Kato testified that after he and oj left the foyer and were out side there was conversation about who would pick up the bag.NOT THAT OJ IMMEDIATELY GOT INTO THE LIMO AS HE TESTIFIED IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL

Below is what he testified to both times.His testimony did change.


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

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

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

A. Okay.

Q. Thanks.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. I don't know.

I don't think those are the exact words.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

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

A. Okay.

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

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

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Anyway, misstates the testimony.

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

A. True.

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

A. He said that, yes.

Q. And you have heretofore testified --

MR. BAKER: Can you bring that up.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page and line, please.

MR. P. BAKER: 19912.

MR. PETROCELLI: Is this the trial testimony?

MR. BAKER: It is.

MR. PETROCELLI: One second, please.

199 what?

MR. P. BAKER: 19912, line 15.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

(Transcript displayed.)

MR. BAKER: Pull it up.

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

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

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

A. Right.

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

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

Q. I see.

And you didn't testify that the first time you knew the alarm wasn't set is when you got a telephone call from O.J. Simpson while you were on the phone to Rachel Ferrara, isn't that true?

A. Correct, called me to set the alarm.

Q. You testified here in the courtroom today that the first time you knew that you had the duty to set the alarm is when you got a phone call from Mr. Simpson, after you'd gone back to your room, isn't that true?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Question is vague as to duty. He testified as to --

MR. BAKER: A request.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- two conversations about the alarm.

MR. BAKER: Well, I'm going to object.

THE COURT: Sustained. There's no testimony that -- regarding beauty -- duty.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know what that means.

MR. BAKER: Request. Let me -- I apologize.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You testified, sir, in this courtroom today, that the first time Mr. Simpson made a request of you to set the alarm was after he had left in the limousine and you had walked back around the property and gone back to your room and you were on the phone with Rachel Ferrara and you got beeped in on your call waiting service, correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No.

THE COURT: That's not correct. You may tell him it's not correct.

A. That's not correct.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you testified in the criminal trial that as you were going out the front door, Mr. Simpson had requested of you to set the alarm, that he would call you on the telephone and tell you the alarm code number, got into the limo and left, true?

It's time for you to admit your error. This never happened.

[martin II]

It's time for you to admit your error. This never happened.


Katos testimony proves he testified differently. I posted it in english. It is your option to understand it or ignore it.I have posted it twice and believe
that is enough for those seeking the truth. I see no reason to argue with you when the testimony speaks for itself.imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

William

Reviewing ojs house layout it is possible for him to cover his entire first floor with 2-3 motion detectors. The distance covered is controlled by the strength of the detector. The detectors view spreads out in a fan shape left to right. In ojs case there was no infra red bean from a source to a mirrow on the other side of the room and back to the source. If one knows where the beam is one can try to evade it but the beam can be moved from day to day.

Contrary to one persons belief this was not the system installed in ojs house so there was no beam for him to evade.imo

He did not turn on his motion detector. So what? He forgot to set his alarm. So what? At the most this is evidence that he was forgetful or rushing to get to the airport. :);):cool:

[martin II]

I didn’t look at the video tape the lawyers and a witness did.

You say that “testifying to something someone else does as with unlocking a door is corroboration.” That would be true if they were all testifying about the same door. But that’s not what happened. Three detectives said Arnelle unlocked the back door before she opened it and they all entered the house through that door. Kato Kaelin testified he saw Arnelle enter the back door of the house with the three detectives and then he and the fourth detective followed them in. Arnelle Simpson said she took two detectives around the house to the front door and opened that door to let them into the house. The detectives didn’t corroborate Arnelle Simpson’s story, they impeached it.

Two quick things William,

You say you forgot the date when the video that shows the back door was shown in court; do you remember what witness was testifying when it was shown?

Please post Arnelle Simpson’s criminal trial testimony where she said she unlocked the front door, since I don’t recall ever reading where she said that.

bobaugust


She said it imo

[William Anthony]

I posted the reason oj would not turn on the motion detector while he was still up stairs. The person that brought up the subject just does not understand motion detectors. Kato took up his time with the earthquake talk and Park told oj 'WE MUST LEAVE NOW"

No reason for oj to miss his flight.
But as you say SO WHAT. IT MEANS NOTHING.

If you are looking for evidence of guilt show me bloody clothing, a murder weapon, an eye witness or reliable circumstantial evidence.

[ronaldlupe]

when Terri dared to do just that her ancestors was bent and questioned her on why she would wish to aching humans that way.


_________________
Orange County's best criminal attorneys (http://skbesq.com/)

[William Anthony]

when Terri dared to do just that her ancestors was bent and questioned her on why she would wish to aching humans that way.


_________________
Orange County's best criminal attorneys (http://skbesq.com/)

Welcome aboard.

[martin II]

If you are looking for evidence of guilt show me bloody clothing, a murder weapon, an eye witness or reliable circumstantial evidence.

The criminal jury was not presented with either.Thats why they voted as they did.imo

[Hotwater]

Announcement

If someone has requested you not respond to their posts then I expect you to respect their request. Just don't do it otherwise you risk being timed out.

Ignore Feature
Please check out the "Ignore" feature located in the UserCP/Settings & Options/Edit Ignore List

Those members who don't post well together should put each other on ignore. This keeps case discussions going and spats to a minimum.

HW

[martin II]

If you are looking for evidence of guilt show me bloody clothing, a murder weapon, an eye witness or reliable circumstantial evidence.

In the criminal trial the prosecution had no eye witness or murder items so they had a rely on circumstantial evidence. Witness testimony in most instances on cross examination proved to be unbelievable or suspect.
This caused the jury to realize that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.imo

[tv]

Katos testimony proves he testified differently. I posted it in english. It is your option to understand it or ignore it.I have posted it twice and believe
that is enough for those seeking the truth. I see no reason to argue with you when the testimony speaks for itself.imo:cool:

Yesterday I was badgered when I made a mistake and said something was testimony when it was actually from Lange and Vannatter's book. I admitted my mistake. Kato clearly says in both trials that OJ Simpson asked him to set the alarm, he told him Simpson he didn't have the code and he thought Simpson had set it until after Simpson had left for the airport and he saw the green light was still on. His testimony is that Simpson then called him, gave him the code and asked him to set it. If you have found testimony of Kato's that states otherwise please post it.

By the way, it wasn't necessary for you to make the nasty remark that you posted it in English. Is it impossible for you to discuss this case in a civil manner?

[William Anthony]

In the criminal trial the prosecution had no eye witness or murder items so they had a rely on circumstantial evidence. Witness testimony in most instances on cross examination proved to be unbelievable or suspect.
This caused the jury to realize that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.imo

I totally agree with your opinion and, unlike what those who write books and others do, the jury was not allowed to speculate but took an oath to decide the case on the evidence they heard. I think this is also the oath taken in the socio political production. I saw the discrepancies of which you spoke in Kato's testimonies as did Baker when he pointed them out. I think Baker was trying to show that Kato was not as clear on the events as he should have been or that Kato changed his testimony to suit the fancy of those asking the questions.

[William Anthony]

September 7th,

"THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. The record in this case indicates in our hearing yesterday outside the presence of the jury--and that was an appropriate procedure to proceed outside the presence of the jury because the counsel for Mr. Fuhrman, Darryl Mounger, did advise the court that it was a--and counsel that it was a possibility, in fact, a likelihood that Mr. Fuhrman would in fact seek to exercise his right not to testify under the 5th amendment to the United States constitution. After we held our hearing yesterday afternoon, the record is also clear that Mr. Fuhrman will refuse to answer any further questions as a witness in this case and he is, therefore, unavailable within the definition of evidence code section 240. The record is equally clear that when we adjourned, that the cross-examination as to Detective Fuhrman was adjourned subject to recall for further cross-examination. The subject matter that Mr. Fuhrman is likely and reasonably and appropriately subject to further cross-examination, we have heard over the last day and a half four witnesses who have come in to testify for the specific reason to impeach the testimony of Detective Fuhrman. Kathleen Bell was called--and this is not a particularly compelling reason for further cross-examination since Detective Fuhrman was in fact asked questions about Miss Bell on direct examination and cross-examination and there was sufficient opportunity since counsel on both sides were aware of the facts and circumstances that led to Miss Bell coming to the attention of counsel on both sides. However, as to Miss Singer, as to Mr. Hodge and as to Miss McKinny, Detective Fuhrman was not direct or cross-examined as to any of the statements made by those three witnesses who were called for the specific purpose of impeaching Detective Fuhrman. The prejudice to the Defendant based upon this unique set of circumstances is the inability to further cross-examine as to these three witnesses and the impeachment evidence that they have offered through their testimony; that is Singer, Hodge and McKinny. However, the case law is equally clear to the court that it is not appropriate to call a witness before a jury that counsel know will invoke the privilege, and that is clearly the fact and circumstance here. And the court will, therefore, deny the request to recall Detective Fuhrman at this time in front of the jury. The instruction offered as an alternative by the Defense, which has been already read into the record and which is page 3 of the Defendant's points and authorities, does have the disability of mentioning the invocation of the right against self-incrimination. Evidence code section 913 clearly states that it is not appropriate to comment upon or bring to the finder of fact's attention the invocation of a privilege. California jury instruction 2.25, Caljic 2.25 deals with the situation where a witness in the course of testifying before the jury invokes the privilege and then the jury is then instructed not to infer or imply anything from that invocation. Therefore, the court will instruct the jury as possible--excuse me--as follows: Detective Mark Fuhrman is not available for further testimony as a witness in this case. His unavailability for further testimony both on cross-examination--excuse me--on cross-examination is a factor which you may consider in evaluating his credibility as a witness. Now, having found that Detective Fuhrman is unavailable as a witness under evidence code section 240, the court then has reexamined its ruling with regards to the five excerpts which are now offered as statements against penal interest, and the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. All right. Are you ready to proceed?"

It seems that judge Ito may have been aware that the statute of limitations had expired on the incidents in the statements that were offered against penal interest.

[martin II]

Yesterday I was badgered when I made a mistake and said something was testimony when it was actually from Lange and Vannatter's book. I admitted my mistake. Kato clearly says in both trials that OJ Simpson asked him to set the alarm, he told him Simpson he didn't have the code and he thought Simpson had set it until after Simpson had left for the airport and he saw the green light was still on. His testimony is that Simpson then called him, gave him the code and asked him to set it. If you have found testimony of Kato's that states otherwise please post it.

By the way, it wasn't necessary for you to make the nasty remark that you posted it in English. Is it impossible for you to discuss this case in a civil manner?

Please review my last post including my last line. Please try not to chastise me if you are going to post to me or tell me what is impossible for me to do.
Thanks.

Katos testimony proves he testified differently. I posted it in english. It is your option to understand it or ignore it.I have posted it twice and believe
that is enough for those seeking the truth. I see no reason to argue with you when the testimony speaks for itself.imo

[martin II]

I totally agree with your opinion and, unlike what those who write books and others do, the jury was not allowed to speculate but took an oath to decide the case on the evidence they heard. I think this is also the oath taken in the socio political production. I saw the discrepancies of which you spoke in Kato's testimonies as did Baker when he pointed them out. I think Baker was trying to show that Kato was not as clear on the events as he should have been or that Kato changed his testimony to suit the fancy of those asking the questions.

Kato consistantly gave testimony in favor of the prosecution and the plaintiffs lawyer when questioned on direct only to be caught being favorable or out right lying when questioned by the defense on cross as he was in my previous post of his testimony.

Bakers tone indicates he believed and showed the latter in your post.imo

[Its just me]

Hotwater, I sincerely Thank You. IJM

[martin II]

Yesterday I was badgered when I made a mistake and said something was testimony when it was actually from Lange and Vannatter's book. I admitted my mistake. Kato clearly says in both trials that OJ Simpson asked him to set the alarm, he told him Simpson he didn't have the code and he thought Simpson had set it until after Simpson had left for the airport and he saw the green light was still on. His testimony is that Simpson then called him, gave him the code and asked him to set it. If you have found testimony of Kato's that states otherwise please post it.

By the way, it wasn't necessary for you to make the nasty remark that you posted it in English. Is it impossible for you to discuss this case in a civil manner?

TV

Fact

Kato testified that when he opened the gate for the limo he walked/ran around the north side of the house then directly south to his room. He did not walk to the front door where the alarm pad was so there was no opportunity for him to see ANY ALARM PAD LIGHT GREEN after oj had left for the airport. imo

[Hipcheck]

www.stephww.wordpress.com

Mark Fuhrman has written a new book. He also expains why he took the fifth in the O.J. Simspon murder trial.

[socaldiva]

www.stephww.wordpress.com

Mark Fuhrman has written a new book. He also expains why he took the fifth in the O.J. Simspon murder trial.

Excellent! Thanks for the info.

[Its just me]

www.stephww.wordpress.com

Mark Fuhrman has written a new book. He also expains why he took the fifth in the O.J. Simspon murder trial.

Thanks for the link. It's funny how things some times turn out the way they were suppose to before getting side tracked. Today MF continues excellent work in the LE field and OJ is sitting in jail. That is great.

[weezer]

www.stephww.wordpress.com

Mark Fuhrman has written a new book. He also expains why he took the fifth in the O.J. Simspon murder trial.

thank you! hope they plan on converting it to Kindle. . .

[tv]

Please review my last post including my last line. Please try not to chastise me if you are going to post to me or tell me what is impossible for me to do.
Thanks.

Katos testimony proves he testified differently. I posted it in english. It is your option to understand it or ignore it.I have posted it twice and believe
that is enough for those seeking the truth. I see no reason to argue with you when the testimony speaks for itself.imo

You're right about one thing -- the testimony speaks for itself.

I've read the criminal testimony of Kato, the grand jury testimony of Kato, the preliminary testimony of Kato, the civil trial testimony of Kato and the depositions of Kato and nowhere does he say that Simpson was supposed to call him with the alarm code.

[tv]

www.stephww.wordpress.com

Mark Fuhrman has written a new book. He also expains why he took the fifth in the O.J. Simspon murder trial.

Thanks, Hipcheck! :)

[tv]

Thanks for the link. It's funny how things some times turn out the way they were suppose to before getting side tracked. Today MF continues excellent work in the LE field and OJ is sitting in jail. That is great.

Like my grandmother always said -- everything always comes out in the wash. :)

[weezer]

Like my grandmother always said -- everything always comes out in the wash. :)

pun intended? ;)

[tv]

pun intended? ;)

lol, what do you think? ;)

[tv]

thank you! hope they plan on converting it to Kindle. . .

I bet they will. His books are usually very popular.

[William Anthony]

Kato consistantly gave testimony in favor of the prosecution and the plaintiffs lawyer when questioned on direct only to be caught being favorable or out right lying when questioned by the defense on cross as he was in my previous post of his testimony.

Bakers tone indicates he believed and showed the latter in your post.imo

Kato did not become a movie star and I think he blamed that on being friends with Simpson rather than not having enough talent.

[William Anthony]

www.stephww.wordpress.com

Mark Fuhrman has written a new book. He also expains why he took the fifth in the O.J. Simspon murder trial.

The reason to take the 5th is self-explanatory, because a person has the right not to be a witness against him/herself.

[William Anthony]

MF gets paid for embellishing the truth through works of fiction. It amazes me how some in America embrace, defend and praise someone, who the prosecution said was a racist and a liar. Let's see how Marcia Clark sung MF's praises?

"Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Just so it is clear. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worse LAPD has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by LAPD? Yes. Should LAPD have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there were no such person on the planet? Yes."

[William Anthony]

This was the reason given in the court by an officer of the court with speaking authority for MF.

September 6th,

"MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, over the break, I talked to Mr. Fuhrman, and it is our position that because I am walking into this trial after eight months, I am unfamiliar with all of the testimony. I have been handling my own cases and not followed this trial intimately. I have come into this court asking for the McKinny tapes and a copy of the transcripts so that I might review them with my client, although I have reviewed most of them. I have tried to correlate that information and interview my client, and I'm unable to put it in the context which it deserves. Based upon this court's July 31st--I'm sorry--August 31st ruling and the words specifically I believe on page 5, on the information I do know and the information especially I do not know, I have advised Mr. Fuhrman that he should not answer any questions before this court. Therefore, it is my understanding that he will assert his 5th amendment privilege if asked any questions."

[weezer]

for the posters who don't know, Fuhrman wanted a stipulation that the questions would not include the area where he was being charged with perjury but was willing to answer other questions. In their little cat and mouse game, the criminal defense refused and forced Fuhrman to plead the 5th.

[tv]

for the posters who don't know, Fuhrman wanted a stipulation that the questions would not include the area where he was being charged with perjury but was willing to answer other questions. In their little cat and mouse game, the criminal defense refused and forced Fuhrman to plead the 5th.

Thanks. It helps to clarify this from time to time. :)

[William Anthony]

September 6th,

"THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Mounger, Mr. Darryl Mounger is also here with us, counsel for Mr. Fuhrman. Good afternoon, counsel.

MR. MOUNGER: Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: You've been present for our discussion regarding the Defense motion to--based upon newly discovered evidence, to revisit the motion to suppress, and one of the key issues is whether or not the court would allow your client to be recalled as a witness for additional testimony. Do you have any observations regarding that?

MR. MOUNGER: Well, before I answer that question, may I be allowed to speak briefly about the motion?

THE COURT: Well, I think the issue is whether or not your client is available to testify.

MR. MOUNGER: Well, your Honor, first, I would ask that, similar to the issue when Mr. Kardashian was asked to be a witness, because of the position that Detective Fuhrman is in, I would first like to see if the court could allow it, the questions, the exact questions that they plan on asking him because asking him to testify at this point in time may have a difference depending upon the questions that are asked.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, do you have an additional copy of your specific offer of proof regarding this issue available?

MR. UELMEN: I'm sure we can have a copy duplicated, but we don't believe a witness is entitled to a preview of the questions that they're going to be asked on cross-examination. The whole purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of the witness in reacting to questions as they are put and--

THE COURT: Well, at this point, counsel, since--I mean, that offer of proof is not under seal. It's not exactly a mystery as to what it is we're talking about here and we've discussed it here in open court just now.

MR. UELMEN: Yes. Well, I'm sure we can simply duplicate the copy we have available."

[tv]

We've come a long way. I can remember not having a dishwasher among many other things. FWIW I've also seen it written.....It's available on CD. :rolleyes:

I want to read MF book....putting it on CD would even be better for this old gal.

I haven't checked this out yet. Is this book about the case or is the case just mentioned in it? I'm glad it's on CD -- I like listening to books on CD when I'm driving.

[weezer]

guess we can't be expected to be all-knowing EVEN if. . . .

AC Cowlings Deposition of April 16:

Q: Prior to your meetings with Cici and Cora and [Name Deleted] and speaking to Reichardt, had you spoken to Mr. Shapiro at all during that time period?

MR. RE: Wait a second. During what time period are you talking about?

MR. KELLY: Prior to his meeting with these individuals and after June 17th.

MR.RE: Well, that's the period of time that we are asserting the privilege to.

MR. KELLY: Okay. So you don't want him answering anything -

MR. RE: Right.

MR. KELLY: - in that time frame.

[Its just me]

for the posters who don't know, Fuhrman wanted a stipulation that the questions would not include the area where he was being charged with perjury but was willing to answer other questions. In their little cat and mouse game, the criminal defense refused and forced Fuhrman to plead the 5th.

Thanks, Fuhrman was not the only one the criminal defense played their little cat and mouse game with...IMHOO. I glad MF is doing good and continuing to help catch the criminals.

[tv]

guess we can't be expected to be all-knowing EVEN if. . . .

AC Cowlings Deposition of April 16:

Q: Prior to your meetings with Cici and Cora and [Name Deleted] and speaking to Reichardt, had you spoken to Mr. Shapiro at all during that time period?

MR. RE: Wait a second. During what time period are you talking about?

MR. KELLY: Prior to his meeting with these individuals and after June 17th.

MR.RE: Well, that's the period of time that we are asserting the privilege to.

MR. KELLY: Okay. So you don't want him answering anything -

MR. RE: Right.

MR. KELLY: - in that time frame.Mark Fuhrman has the same rights as AC Cowlings and I've seen this done before -- and I'm no lawyer.

[weezer]

I haven't checked this out yet. Is this book about the case or is the case just mentioned in it? I'm glad it's on CD -- I like listening to books on CD when I'm driving.

the review I read had an excerpt where he talked about being forced to plead the 5th -- so I don't know if it has more than that in it. I don't know that there is a lot more to tell about orenthal except by arnelle and ac.

[tv]

the review I read had an excerpt where he talked about being forced to plead the 5th -- so I don't know if it has more than that in it. I don't know that there is a lot more to tell about orenthal except by arnelle and ac.

I have to agree -- they know a lot, imo.

[Its just me]

I haven't checked this out yet. Is this book about the case or is the case just mentioned in it? I'm glad it's on CD -- I like listening to books on CD when I'm driving.

This is what was written at the link provided by Hipcheck. ETA: I agree with you and weezer that ac and arnelle hasn't told all they know.

http://stephww.wordpress.com/

Mark’s book provides explosive insight into cases like Casey Anthony (which Mark and I worked on together), Scott Peterson, Trenton Duckett, Haleigh Cummings and Jon Bonnet Ramsey. The book is an honest look at what is happening in our culture as we try to feed the 24-hour news cycle with our appetite for crime. And now, for the first time ever, Fuhrman recounts in detail, what really happened behind the scenes of the OJ trial.

[William Anthony]

MF exercised his right when Uelmen asked MF if MF planted evidence in this case.

[tv]

This is what was written at the link provided by Hipcheck. ETA: I agree with you and weezer that ac and arnelle hasn't told all they know.

http://stephww.wordpress.com/

Mark’s book provides explosive insight into cases like Casey Anthony (which Mark and I worked on together), Scott Peterson, Trenton Duckett, Haleigh Cummings and Jon Bonnet Ramsey. The book is an honest look at what is happening in our culture as we try to feed the 24-hour news cycle with our appetite for crime. And now, for the first time ever, Fuhrman recounts in detail, what really happened behind the scenes of the OJ trial.This sounds like something I'd enjoy reading/listening to. I'm always ready for new insight into the Simpson case and I've followed the other cases just not as closely.

As for Arnelle and AC, I think Simpson trusted them more than anyone in his life. He had a lot of friends but I don't think they were all friends he could be completely himself with -- this is only an opinion. Some people think Cathy Randa might know a lot but I don't think she knew as much as Arnelle and AC.

[Its just me]

This sounds like something I'd enjoy reading/listening to. I'm always ready for new insight into the Simpson case and I've followed the other cases just not as closely.

As for Arnelle and AC, I think Simpson trusted them more than anyone in his life. He had a lot of friends but I don't think they were all friends he could be completely himself with -- this is only an opinion. Some people think Cathy Randa might know a lot but I don't think she knew as much as Arnelle and AC.

I see MF sometimes with Greta. I'd love for him to review Tara's case. That is an interesting thought....maybe that is something the Tara group can go to work on. Greta did a couple of shows about Tara. It will be 4 years at the end of this month since she disappeared.

[GreenIce]

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

Mr. August,

What don't you focus on the law? Like a civilian never ever should be used as a human shield to protect LE members. Regardless of how slight of the chance.

Like, when being told by two witnesses who lived on the property that Simpson was not home, they should have left the property.

The evidence proves that the detectives lied on several key issue. If they are willing to submit a search warrant, knowing they are breaking the law and knowing that they have involved a judge, it is not a great leap of logic that they would lied about what door they entered.

And FYI, Arnelle having clothes in a basket, washing machine, in a hamper, is not against the law, even if she is OJ Simpson's daughter.

[GreenIce]

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

Mr. August,

MF impeaches Kato on this issue. I don't believe MF ever testified that he saw Arnelle or the detectives enter the main house.

[Hipcheck]

Does anyone know when Mark Fuhrman's book will be coming out? I'll have to check at Amazon to see if I can preorder it.

I've loved all the books Mark has written as he is a really good author. I bet he's making alot ore than he was being a detective. God bless him for helping solve all these crimes.

[tv]

I see MF sometimes with Greta. I'd love for him to review Tara's case. That is an interesting thought....maybe that is something the Tara group can go to work on. Greta did a couple of shows about Tara. It will be 4 years at the end of this month since she disappeared.I think he's an excellent detective. Tara's case seems like just the thing he could sink his teeth into. I say go for it -- he might decide to do it. It might take some persistence but you never know until you try. Did I read that her mother passed away?

We better change the subject. I'm sure we've been reported by now for being off-topic.

[GreenIce]

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,

The point is, the NG's did not make up anything about Nicole's alleged drug use. And to be fair, G's did not make up the fact that Simpson had some pot in his system.

The fact is that it was her "best friend" who discussed Nicole's drug use.

The fact is that if you believe everything she said about Simpson, then you have to believe her about all the negative comments, to include drug use.

[Its just me]

I think he's an excellent detective. Tara's case seems like just the thing he could sink his teeth into. I say go for it -- he might decide to do it. It might take some persistence but you never know until you try. Did I read that her mother passed away?

I think we need to ask MF's help as a group. I'm not going to get any hopes up but you never know unless you ask.

Sadly Tara's mother did pass away.....never knowing what happened to her daughter.

[tv]

Does anyone know when Mark Fuhrman's book will be coming out? I'll have to check at Amazon to see if I can preorder it.

I've loved all the books Mark has written as he is a really good author. I bet he's making alot ore than he was being a detective. God bless him for helping solve all these crimes.It looks like it's coming out Nov. 1 on audiobook. It's called The Murder Business and is about high profile crimes. I'm sure it will be good -- all his books are.

[Hipcheck]

I think we need to ask MF's help as a group. I'm not going to get any hopes up but you never know unless you ask.

Sadly Tara's mother did pass away.....never knowing what happened to her daughter.

May I ask who Tara is?

[Its just me]

I think he's an excellent detective. Tara's case seems like just the thing he could sink his teeth into. I say go for it -- he might decide to do it. It might take some persistence but you never know until you try. Did I read that her mother passed away?

We better change the subject. I'm sure we've been reported by now for being off-topic.


I know....LOL Maybe we can think of another one tomorrow....I have no interest with the latest subject at hand and I think it's againts the rules. I'm calling it a night this time for sure.

[tv]

I think we need to ask MF's help as a group. I'm not going to get any hopes up but you never know unless you ask.

Sadly Tara's mother did pass away.....never knowing what happened to her daughter.That is so sad, IJM. Her heart must have been broken. I hope you have good luck getting him interested. It deserves a fresh look.

[tv]

I know....LOL Maybe we can think of another one tomorrow....I have no interest with the latest subject at hand and I think it's againts the rules. I'm calling it a night this time for sure.You have a good night. See you here soon. :seeya:

[Its just me]

May I ask who Tara is?


Hi, Tara Grinstead is a 30 year old teacher who disappeared from Ocilla, Georgia Oct 2005. There have been several message boards for her and there is one here at CL. Greta, Nancy Grace, 48 hours and others did segments/episodes about her disappearance.

[Hipcheck]

Hi, Tara Grinstead is a 30 year old teacher who disappeared from Ocilla, Georgia Oct 2005. There have been several message boards for her and there is one here at CL. Greta, Nancy Grace, 48 hours and others did segments/episodes about her disappearance.

I'll have to read up on that case.

I sure hope Mark Fuhrman would look into this case. You couldn't find a better a better investigator than him. He just might be able to solve that case. He solved others that no one else could.

[GreenIce]

www.stephww.wordpress.com

Mark Fuhrman has written a new book. He also expains why he took the fifth in the O.J. Simspon murder trial.

Hipcheck,

MF has already explained why he took the 5th in the Simpson case. It will be interesting to see if his story changes and who he throws under the bus this time.

However, the fact is and the fact will always remain that he was given ample opportunity, even if the very first few weeks after the murders to come clean about his past.

He had ample opportunity to tell the DA's about his participation in a screen play and why he got involved in it and what he was hoping to accomplish.

He does not need to explain why he took the fifth, he needs to explain why he allowed himself to be put in that position in the first place.

He also needs to explain why his version of events contradict several key points of his fellow detectives.

He also needs to explain why after writing a book explaining his actions in the Simpson trial and later refusing to discuss it in interviews (which I can't blame him) that he now feels the need to "re-explain" himself on subject that he declared closed several years ago.

He also needs to explain his comment about him being the most important witness in the trial of the century, why if he goes down, the glove goes down and the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it.

He needs to explain why he held the DA's case hostage and allowed himself to be blamed for losing the case. Which I don't think he was but he likes to take on that title.

[martin II]

for the posters who don't know, Fuhrman wanted a stipulation that the questions would not include the area where he was being charged with perjury but was willing to answer other questions. In their little cat and mouse game, the criminal defense refused and forced Fuhrman to plead the 5th.

I think it was the judge that forced MF to the stand by law that requiired him to take the 5th in front of the jury. The derfense has no power to do so.imo

[bobaugust]

Bob

you know as well as i know phillips testified on another ocassion that he entered the house into the living room.

Martin, you are wrong. Phillips never testified he entered Simpson’s house through any other door except the same back door that everyone else entered that morning. Phillips never said he entered into the living room, he said when he entered the house through the back door with Arnelle, Lange and Vannatter that Arnelle had opened, “WE walked in through the living room AREA and then into a kitchen area and from the kitchen area WE walked around to a maid’s quarters that was off the kitchen.”

Do you not understand Phillips did not say the word HE, he said WE referring to Arnelle Simpson, Lange, Vannatter, and himself.

You claimed the living room area was the living room because you incorrectly thought that the living room was the only room that had two French doors, when in fact the family room also has two French doors right next to the small door that Phillips described that Arnelle opened.

You also can’t seem to grasp the fact that different witnesses referred to the family room using different names. Lange called it the rear den, Kaelin and Vannatter called it the bar area, Arnelle called It the TV room, and Phillips called it the living room area. Phillips even described some of the furniture in that room when Cochran questioned him confirming the fact that he was referring to the family room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Since you say that you did not look at the video, then post the testimony of those that did and said the clothes were freshly washed, please?

The corroboration was the testimony and the technology.

No, but the fact that you recall the video, showing the only door that could be unlocked without entering through the garage means there is no genuine issue in dispute on that subject. However, IIRC, it was posted before.

The network connection to the transcripts is timed out at the present.

Just before Darden showed Gigi the video tape of the washing machine he asked her.

MR. DARDEN: You wouldn't leave for the weekend and leave wet laundry in the washing machine, would you?
MS. GUARIN: No, I will not.

You say that Lange, Phillips, Vannatter, Fuhrman, and Kaelin corroborate Arnelle Simpson’s story? Based on that comment I’m sorry to say you don’t seem to know the difference between impeachment and corroboration.

The fact is that the four detectives and Kato Kaelin all testified that they entered Simpson’s house that morning through the back door of the house, not the front door. Their testimony clearly impeached Arnelle Simpson’s story that she led two detectives around to the front of the house and opened the front door to let them into the house, it did not corroborate it.

The video showing the back door could not be locked or unlocked from the outside clearly proved the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking it before she opened it. That video also proved that the door was already unlocked because Arnelle was able to open it. That video and the three detective’s testimony had absolutely nothing to do with the front door that Arnelle fabricated a story about.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

My, my, my, I see that there may be a tendency to claim evidence but did you forget you said this, " Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
That’s correct, there is no evidence[/SIZE] [SIZE="5"]that Simpson called Arnelle and told her to wash his dark colored sweat suit, there is only the logical inference that he did.

bobaugust"?

You admit that inferences are drawn from evidence and that there is no evidence that Simpson ever called Ms. Arnelle and told or asked her to engage in any criminal conduct but then you claim that is a "logical inference" and in the next post you become rude and uncivil, talking about my foolish fantasies. Smile, wink cool

I listed the evidence that points to Arnelle Simpson as the person who washed the clothing in Simpson’s washing machine before the police arrived and I said based on that evidence a logical inference can be made as to why she did that and why she then lied in court. She didn’t just do that out of the blue, I think it is reasonable to infer she was told to do it by her father. Based on the fact that Simpson flew to Chicago before Arnelle got home that night he would have called her when he landed in Chicago. Based on the time difference between LA and Chicago Arnelle would have received his call about an hour or so before the police arrived at Rockingham.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It took some time but here it is.

"Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
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"?"
__________________
Doc Holiday

I repeat. In the civil trial Park was responding to questions that were never asked before.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

She said it imo

Support your opinion and post where Arnelle Simpson said she unlocked the front door to let the detectives into the house in her criminal trial testimony or her preliminary hearing testimony.

bobaugust

[martin II]

William

It was claimed that kato saw a alarm green light as he went from opening the gate for oj in the limo to his room.

This should show that was not possible.

Fact

Kato testified that when he opened the gate for the limo he walked/ran around the north side of the house then directly south to his room. He did not walk to the front door where the alarm pad was so there was no opportunity for him to see ANY ALARM PAD LIGHT GREEN after oj had left for the airport. imo

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

MF has already explained why he took the 5th in the Simpson case. It will be interesting to see if his story changes and who he throws under the bus this time.

However, the fact is and the fact will always remain that he was given ample opportunity, even if the very first few weeks after the murders to come clean about his past.

He had ample opportunity to tell the DA's about his participation in a screen play and why he got involved in it and what he was hoping to accomplish.

He does not need to explain why he took the fifth, he needs to explain why he allowed himself to be put in that position in the first place.

He also needs to explain why his version of events contradict several key points of his fellow detectives.

He also needs to explain why after writing a book explaining his actions in the Simpson trial and later refusing to discuss it in interviews (which I can't blame him) that he now feels the need to "re-explain" himself on subject that he declared closed several years ago.

He also needs to explain his comment about him being the most important witness in the trial of the century, why if he goes down, the glove goes down and the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it.

He needs to explain why he held the DA's case hostage and allowed himself to be blamed for losing the case. Which I don't think he was but he likes to take on that title.

We know MF will never address those questions.Maby he will toss VA and lang under the bus again. I bet he will not address Clarks description of him in her closing. imo

[martin II]

www.stephww.wordpress.com

Mark Fuhrman has written a new book. He also expains why he took the fifth in the O.J. Simspon murder trial.

MF reason for taking the 5th is already recorded for history in court testimony. I don't think he can change that.

[Its just me]

I'll have to read up on that case.

I sure hope Mark Fuhrman would look into this case. You couldn't find a better a better investigator than him. He just might be able to solve that case. He solved others that no one else could.


If you read up on Tara's case and have any questions put them on Tara's board and I or someone will answer the best we can. Boards were created immediately and lots of local people participated and sadly lots of good information has been deleted because when certain things were discussed certain members posting at the time come on only to start trouble. It probably will be difficult to follow until you get familiar with the members...LOL We realized the information was only as credible as the person posting. We found out not long ago that 2 people used many many nics thru the course of time. IMHOO there is a mystery with the nics as they personally knew Tara and family and a POI. Why get on the board and post untruths that mislead. The investigators kept up with what was posted on the boards and a few of us that post on a private board have meet with LE/GBI at their request to discuss things we were able to dig up because we are local. It's been an interesting 4 years with Tara's message boards but there is little activity going on now. Maybe new eyes will bring out something that has been overlooked.

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

MF has already explained why he took the 5th in the Simpson case. It will be interesting to see if his story changes and who he throws under the bus this time.

However, the fact is and the fact will always remain that he was given ample opportunity, even if the very first few weeks after the murders to come clean about his past.

He had ample opportunity to tell the DA's about his participation in a screen play and why he got involved in it and what he was hoping to accomplish.

He does not need to explain why he took the fifth, he needs to explain why he allowed himself to be put in that position in the first place.

He also needs to explain why his version of events contradict several key points of his fellow detectives.

He also needs to explain why after writing a book explaining his actions in the Simpson trial and later refusing to discuss it in interviews (which I can't blame him) that he now feels the need to "re-explain" himself on subject that he declared closed several years ago.

He also needs to explain his comment about him being the most important witness in the trial of the century, why if he goes down, the glove goes down and the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it.

He needs to explain why he held the DA's case hostage and allowed himself to be blamed for losing the case. Which I don't think he was but he likes to take on that title.

Why would Mark Fuhrman tell the prosecutors about a screen play he wrote years ago? What exactly does Mark Fuhramn writting a screen play have to do with the murers of Nicole and Ron?

Mark Fuhrman had no idea that F. Flea Bailey was going to ask him he if had ever used the "N" word and Ito should have never allowed that question to be asked in the first place.

[martin II]

Why would Mark Fuhrman tell the prosecutors about a screen play he wrote years ago? What exactly does Mark Fuhramn writting a screen play have to do with the murers of Nicole and Ron?

Mark Fuhrman had no idea that F. Flea Bailey was going to ask him he if had ever used the "N" word and Ito should have never allowed that question to be asked in the first place.

Clakre and Darden have stated that MF as a witness had a obligation to tell them about his history especially since it involved R***** RANTS. He should haver told them about his history when they prepped him for his testimony.

No witness knows all the questions he will be asked during testimony. He should be prepared to tell the truth to all questions.
What law do you belive ITO should have used to prevent Bailey from asking MF a question.imo

Two witnesses testified to MF using r***** comments to them.

The bottom line is MF did not tell the prosecutors about his history and he took the stand and lied which blew the case wide open and caused the prosecution great pain.
Darden stated that as far as he was concerned MF was worse than Oj.imo

[weezer]

I think the NG's miss the point that whatever Fuhrman was or is, he was not accused of murder -- orenthal was. Fuhrman's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints was not found at the murder scene or rockingham -- orenthal's was.

[Hipcheck]

:cool:Clakre and Darden have stated that MF as a witness had a obligation to tell them about his history especially since it involved R***** RANTS. He should haver told them about his history when they prepped him for his testimony.

No witness knows all the questions he will be asked during testimony. He should be prepared to tell the truth to all questions.
What law do you belive ITO should have used to prevent Bailey from asking MF a question.imo

Two witnesses testified to MF using r***** comments to them.

The bottom line is MF did not tell the prosecutors about his history and he took the stand and lied which blew the case wide open and caused the prosecution great pain.
Darden stated that as far as he was concerned MF was worse than Oj.imo

When a police officer meets with the prosecutors it's to talk about the case in hand and not to talk about your life history.

Ito should not have allowed F. Flea Bailey to ask that question because it had nothing to do with the murders of Nicole and Ron. Writing a screen play doesn't make Mark to be a racist.

[Its just me]

I think the NG's miss the point that whatever Fuhrman was or is, he was not accused of murder -- orenthal was. Fuhrman's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints was not found at the murder scene or rockingham -- orenthal's was.

Exactly. One can always find and excuse and Mark F. was/is a weak excuse to over look all the evidence against OJ. IMHOO And OJ telling lies is never considered for some reason.

[Hipcheck]

I think the NG's miss the point that whatever Fuhrman was or is, he was not accused of murder -- orenthal was. Fuhrman's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints was not found at the murder scene or rockingham -- orenthal's was.

ITA.

The 'NG's" want to paint Mark as a bad guy. The facts show tha Mark was an excellent detective received numerous acomindations during his employement with the LAPD.

Mark is still an excellent investigator and a wonderful author who had gotten rich since leaving his position with the LAPD and he deserves all the money that he has gotten.

[martin II]

:cool:

When a police officer meets with the prosecutors it's to talk about the case in hand and not to talk about your life history.

Ito should not have allowed F. Flea Bailey to ask that question because it had nothing to do with the murders of Nicole and Ron. Writing a screen play doesn't make Mark to be a racist.

If you believe the prosecution has no right to know or ask about the history of their witnesses i cannot help you with that.

It is what mf said in the play that exposed him for what he is. He is the one that told us what he did as a lapd officer to citizens. imo
No one forced him to lie on the stand. He did that all on his own.

[socaldiva]

ITA.

The 'NG's" want to paint Mark as a bad guy. The facts show tha Mark was an excellent detective received numerous acomindations during his employement with the LAPD.

Mark is still an excellent investigator and a wonderful author who had gotten rich since leaving his position with the LAPD and he deserves all the money that he has gotten.

:beer::beer::beer: Orenthal is in jail & MF is a wealthy, law abiding citizen. Justice. imo

[martin II]

Here kato says he is not positive but oj may have had on some sweats when he left for the airport but them he changes and says he did not know what oj had on.

In the criminal trial testimony was that oj had on jeans and a white shirt when he was leaving.

Park told Shaperio that oj had on a black overcoat when he came out of the house to leave for the airport.



Q Oh, Mr. Kaelin, do you remember what the
21 defendant was wearing when he was about to leave for the
22 airport, when he was getting ready to get into the limo?
23 A I'm not positive. I think it was sweats. A
24 sweat outfit.
25 Q Okay. Do you think it was the same sweat
26 outfit you saw him wearing earlier that night when you
27 went to Mc Donald's?
28 A I couldn't say.
0127
01 MR. SHAPIRO: Objection; calls for speculation.
02 THE COURT: Overruled.
03 Do you know the answer to that question?
04 THE WITNESS: No.
05 BY MS. CLARK:
06 Q You don't know?
07 A I don't know exactly what he was wearing.
08 MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

[Hipcheck]

If you believe the prosecution has no right to know or ask about the history of their witnesses i cannot help you with that.

It is what mf said in the play that exposed him for what he is. He is the one that told us what he did as a lapd officer to citizens. imo
No one forced him to lie on the stand. He did that all on his own.

Mark did not write about true life incidents while he was a employee of the LAPD. So you are wrong.

Mark said he never called anyone one the "N" word in real life but used it in a screen play.

I can see you are a Mark Fuhrman hater.

[Hipcheck]

:beer::beer::beer: Orenthal is in jail & MF is a wealthy, law abiding citizen. Justice. imo

And the "NG's" just hate reading this.

[tv]

:beer::beer::beer: Orenthal is in jail & MF is a wealthy, law abiding citizen. Justice. imo

Exactly. You make your own luck in this life. OJ Simpson has been involved in questionable activities for years.

[tv]

Exactly. One can always find and excuse and Mark F. was/is a weak excuse to over look all the evidence against OJ. IMHOO And OJ telling lies is never considered for some reason.

They had to come up with something as a defense. Mark Fuhrman was a made to order scapegoat after they found out about the screenplay.

[tv]

Mark did not write about true life incidents while he was a employee of the LAPD. So you are wrong.

Mark said he never called anyone one the "N" word in real life but used it in a screen play.

I can see you are a Mark Fuhrman hater.

Mark Fuhrman has been investigated inside and out and nothing has been found to implicate him in police misconduct. He's been convicted of one thing -- perjury -- and even that was questionable under the criteria for perjury in a criminal proceeding.

[martin II]

And the "NG's" just hate reading this.

Many here have read mf praise long before your post. nothing really new.Sorry.

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman has been investigated inside and out and nothing has been found to implicate him in police misconduct. He's been convicted of one thing -- perjury -- and even that was questionable under the criteria for perjury in a criminal proceeding.

I just think some may want to change words of support to the purchase of several dozen of the new book and give them to friends. xmas gifts, This way MF will receive financial benefit not just words of support. imo.

[martin II]

They had to come up with something as a defense. Mark Fuhrman was a made to order scapegoat after they found out about the screenplay.

tv
wonder why MF when asked that question didn't just say YES ?

[Its just me]

Exactly. You make your own luck in this life. OJ Simpson has been involved in questionable activities for years.

You are correct. I've often thought OJ could have been a blessing to many young people. He had the fame and personality but I've never seen any sign OJ was about anything but OJ. I see it as such a waste and a negelected opportunity to possibly have made a difference in a world full of children who need all the help they can get. Sadly history will not serve him well....but it's like the old saying goes.....You make the bed you will lay on. Its just an undeniable fact....OJ is reaping his own rewards sitting in that jail cell.

[tv]

You are correct. I've often thought OJ could have been a blessing to many young people. He had the fame and personality but I've never seen any sign OJ was about anything but OJ. I see it as such a waste and a negelected opportunity to possibly have made a difference in a world full of children who need all the help they can get. Sadly history will not serve him well....but it's like the old saying goes.....You make the bed you will lay on. Its just an undeniable fact....OJ is reaping his own rewards sitting in that jail cell.

I agree, IJM. His life has been tragically altered and his potential unrealized but it's been his own doing.

[tv]

tv
wonder why MF when asked that question didn't just say YES ?

You don't believe anything he says so I see no reason to get into it but if you sincerely want to know the answer to your question you can find it in his book MURDER IN BRENTWOOD -- available for pennies on Ebay just like the juror's book.

[GreenIce]

Why would Mark Fuhrman tell the prosecutors about a screen play he wrote years ago? What exactly does Mark Fuhramn writting a screen play have to do with the murers of Nicole and Ron?

Mark Fuhrman had no idea that F. Flea Bailey was going to ask him he if had ever used the "N" word and Ito should have never allowed that question to be asked in the first place.

Hipcheck,

MF knew exactly what questions he was going to be asked. He knew that there were witnesses who had contacted the court regarding their encounters with him. There was at least one other detective who felt the need to keep a log of MF's activities.

MF was ordered not to speak the author, he disobeyed that order and bragged not only how important he was to the case, but what would happen if his credibility was destroyed.

Just as many NG's feel that Judge Ito rulings didn't make sense, G's have replied that was his ruling and live with it. The same can be said about the rulings he made that G's didn't like, he made them, live with it.

MF also knew that he was accused of planting evidence and the first trial was basically a hung jury, the city of LA decided to settle with petty criminal rather then have MF being involved in a trial where he was AGAIN being accused of planting evidence.

[GreenIce]

:cool:

When a police officer meets with the prosecutors it's to talk about the case in hand and not to talk about your life history.

Ito should not have allowed F. Flea Bailey to ask that question because it had nothing to do with the murders of Nicole and Ron. Writing a screen play doesn't make Mark to be a racist.

Hipcheck,

A police officer's credibility and past performance on the job is always, always, essential to the DA's case.

MF claims he tried to warn MC about his past but didn't know exactly what would come out but he knew it would come out. MC says that MF basically made lame attempts to tell her. And much of his past had nothing to do with any verbal issues MF had.

It is clear that MF skirted around the real issues and MC and the DA's were more then happy to keep their heads in the sand, even if their head never even came close to the beach.

Again, just to be clear, the issues that I am talking about have nothing to do with his using a particiular word. It has never been about the "word".

[GreenIce]

Clakre and Darden have stated that MF as a witness had a obligation to tell them about his history especially since it involved R***** RANTS. He should haver told them about his history when they prepped him for his testimony.

No witness knows all the questions he will be asked during testimony. He should be prepared to tell the truth to all questions.
What law do you belive ITO should have used to prevent Bailey from asking MF a question.imo

Two witnesses testified to MF using r***** comments to them.

The bottom line is MF did not tell the prosecutors about his history and he took the stand and lied which blew the case wide open and caused the prosecution great pain.
Darden stated that as far as he was concerned MF was worse than Oj.imo

Martin,

MC had a obligation to at least listen to anyone who knew there was going to be a problem with MF. MC made it clear she did not want to hear it. IMO, she used the word as her cover for ignoring the planting of evidence and other police misconduct. She used the word to take the focus off of the
other problems of evidence--or used the word to mask the other police and SID misconduct.

Also, it is a joke to believe that MF didn't know what was was coming. He was not tricked into anything. He took several hits at his own team. IMO, he was more intent of getting even with the LAPD and the DA's then he ever was about securing a conviction against Simpson, IMO.

Like I have posted before, he made no mistakes, he made no slip of the tongue, he played a high stake game of "chicken" and IMO, he won it. Look at how many people he had quaking in their boots. Yet, he never had Simpson quaking. Isn't that odd?:)

[GreenIce]

The bottom line is MF did not tell the prosecutors about his history and he took the stand and lied which blew the case wide open and caused the prosecution great pain.


Martin,

I totally disagree. I think the tapes only proved what many commissions and lawyers have said for years regarding police perjury. In one of his early comments about the Simpson trial, before he was a member of the team, AD talked about how it was nearly impossible to prove police perjury unless you caught it on tape. Well, that did happen, but it really had no effect, or it appears not to have any effect on a majority of people who just don't care if they lie on the stand.

What I think what blew this case wide open was the obvious problems of evidence. The same problems of evidence surrounded every piece of evidence. I also think what blew the case wide open were the state's own witnesses. I believe the defense won the case in the DA's case in chief and I don't think many people want to acknowledge that. Remember when Barry Scheck was called "mean" because of his cross of Dennis Fung?

I understand what JC meant when he called the tapes a bombshell, but it is obvious, that it was not. It should have been but it wasn't, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Mr. August,

I think I have just found flaws in your Arnelle theory and the sweat suit theory.

Darden asked GiGi about the laundry, he asks her if she would ever leave wet clothes in the dryer. Don't these questions prove that Petrocelli was wrong in claiming he was the only one to put to this together?

Also, GiGi and Arnelle were never asked to identify the dark items in the washing machine. Why didn't he ask?

I have never read Arnelle's depo, I can't find it, but did Petrocelli ask her about this?

If Petrocelli honestly thought Arnelle was involved, he never would have asked her about her state of mind or how much sleep she got when the detectives knocked on her door. He never would have said that she may have been mistaken regarding which door she entered. iMO.

ANOTHER HUGE FLAW,

Mr. August,

IMO, this issue about the door is another example of just how far you have dug yourself into the sand.

If Arnelle and the detectives all told the same story about which door they entered, would it change your mind about her involvement? It appears to me that even if they told the same story, you would say of course she locked the house and set the alarm. She didn't want any body to know she was in the house.

Or, you claim that it was Simpson who did it or some one else. The door they enterd means nothing, it is just another red herring, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Mark did not write about true life incidents while he was a employee of the LAPD. So you are wrong.

Mark said he never called anyone one the "N" word in real life but used it in a screen play.

I can see you are a Mark Fuhrman hater.

Hipcheck,

MF did speak of true life incidents while he was a member of the LAPD. LHM testified about this. She made it clear what she wanted from MF and he delivered.

You are again wrong about MF only using that word in a screen play. There were at least 3 witnesses who testified to this and there were more witnesses to this but Judge Ito thought three was enough--plus the tapes.

Another point, do you think only NG's "hate" MF? There are millions of people who hate MF who believe Simpson is guilty---and I bet a good many of them LE members. IMO.

[GreenIce]

ITA.

The 'NG's" want to paint Mark as a bad guy. The facts show tha Mark was an excellent detective received numerous acomindations during his employement with the LAPD.

Mark is still an excellent investigator and a wonderful author who had gotten rich since leaving his position with the LAPD and he deserves all the money that he has gotten.

Hipcheck,

Your comments about MF is one of the reasons why I believe he went to Rockingham long before Lange and VA even got to Bundy.

BTW, in regards to where Simpson is today, many NG's may feel he is innocent or not guilty of the murders but that does not mean they all feel that he was not guilty in the Vegas trial. Also, regardless if he is guilty or not the crimes in Vegas, I don't think he will get much sympathy for putting himself in that position.

[GreenIce]

The reason to take the 5th is self-explanatory, because a person has the right not to be a witness against him/herself.

William,

IMO, what some G's are forgetting that real issue with MF is if he planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. IMO, refuse to see the real reason why he took the fifth and why he plead out his case rather fight it out in court.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I think I have just found flaws in your Arnelle theory and the sweat suit theory.

Darden asked GiGi about the laundry, he asks her if she would ever leave wet clothes in the dryer. Don't these questions prove that Petrocelli was wrong in claiming he was the only one to put to this together?

Also, GiGi and Arnelle were never asked to identify the dark items in the washing machine. Why didn't he ask?

I have never read Arnelle's depo, I can't find it, but did Petrocelli ask her about this?

If Petrocelli honestly thought Arnelle was involved, he never would have asked her about her state of mind or how much sleep she got when the detectives knocked on her door. He never would have said that she may have been mistaken regarding which door she entered. iMO.

ANOTHER HUGE FLAW,

Mr. August,

IMO, this issue about the door is another example of just how far you have dug yourself into the sand.

If Arnelle and the detectives all told the same story about which door they entered, would it change your mind about her involvement? It appears to me that even if they told the same story, you would say of course she locked the house and set the alarm. She didn't want any body to know she was in the house.

Or, you claim that it was Simpson who did it or some one else. The door they enterd means nothing, it is just another red herring, IMO.

Read what Darden asked Gigi again. You are mistaken, he didn’t say dryer he said the washing machine and then he played the video showing the clothing in the washing machine and the laundry basket in the laundry room. The prosecutors knew about the freshly washed laundry, they knew that it included some of Arnelle’s clothing, they knew that it was her laundry basket, and they knew that Arnelle was telling a different story than the other five witnesses, but they evidently never figured out what it meant that the back door was unlocked and the house alarm was off when Arnelle opened the back door to let the detectives into the house. Or maybe they did eventually figure it out but maybe they were too embarrassed to admit it since when the second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and get the dark colored sweat suit, it was gone.

MR. DARDEN: You wouldn't leave for the weekend and leave wet laundry in the washing machine, would you?
MS. GUARIN: No, I will not.

If Arnelle had actually led the detectives around the house to the front door, and turned off the house alarm, as she fabricated she did, the detectives would have testified to that fact and Kato Kaelin would not have seen them enter the house from his room and he and Fuhrman would not have entered the house through the back door as they testified they did. Then the only evidence pointing to Arnelle would have been her clothing and her laundry basket. Not enough evidence to draw any logical inferences from.

But that didn’t happen because after Arnelle Simpson started the last load of laundry she made the mistake of not exiting the house the same way she had entered it by going back to the front door, turning the house alarm back on, and walking the long way around the house to get back to her room. The evidence is that she left the house to go back to her room the shortest way by unlocking and exiting the back door that was nearest to her room. When she exited that back door it remained unlocked and the house alarm remained off.

That’s why she testified to a fabricated story and lied in court, to try and cover up her mistake.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

Read what Darden asked Gigi again. You are mistaken, he didn’t say dryer he said the washing machine and then he played the video showing the clothing in the washing machine and the laundry basket in the laundry room. The prosecutors knew about the freshly washed laundry, they knew that it included some of Arnelle’s clothing, they knew that it was her laundry basket, and they knew that Arnelle was telling a different story than the other five witnesses, but they evidently never figured out what it meant that the back door was unlocked and the house alarm was off when Arnelle opened the back door to let the detectives into the house. Or maybe they did eventually figure it out but maybe they were too embarrassed to admit it since when the second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and get the dark colored sweat suit, it was gone.

MR. DARDEN: You wouldn't leave for the weekend and leave wet laundry in the washing machine, would you?
MS. GUARIN: No, I will not.

If Arnelle had actually led the detectives around the house to the front door, and turned off the house alarm, as she fabricated she did, the detectives would have testified to that fact and Kato Kaelin would not have seen them enter the house from his room and he and Fuhrman would not have entered the house through the back door as they testified they did. Then the only evidence pointing to Arnelle would have been her clothing and her laundry basket. Not enough evidence to draw any logical inferences from.

But that didn’t happen because after Arnelle Simpson started the last load of laundry she made the mistake of not exiting the house the same way she had entered it by going back to the front door, turning the house alarm back on, and walking the long way around the house to get back to her room. The evidence is that she left the house to go back to her room the shortest way by unlocking and exiting the back door that was nearest to her room. When she exited that back door it remained unlocked and the house alarm remained off.

That’s why she testified to a fabricated story and lied in court, to try and cover up her mistake.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I meant to say washing machine.

So, in other words, even if Arnelle and the detectives told the same story on what door they entered, etc., the clothes in the washing machine would mean nothing because the door was locked and the alarm was on?

And the DA's went out of their way to give the impression that the only door Simpson could have entered was his front door.

Also, the second search warrant clearly states, that they were not sure if there were sweats and waiting two weeks makes no sense, when they knew that day what he was wearing. They knew what he was wearing before the released Rockingham.

Did Arnelle talk about this in her deposition?

[martin II]

Mr. August,

I meant to say washing machine.

So, in other words, even if Arnelle and the detectives told the same story on what door they entered, etc., the clothes in the washing machine would mean nothing because the door was locked and the alarm was on?

And the DA's went out of their way to give the impression that the only door Simpson could have entered was his front door.

Also, the second search warrant clearly states, that they were not sure if there were sweats and waiting two weeks makes no sense, when they knew that day what he was wearing. They knew what he was wearing before the released Rockingham.

Did Arnelle talk about this in her deposition?

Tippin SP interviewed Kato in the rockingham house on 6/13 they knew what kato thought oj was wearing then although Kato was ot sure what he was wearing. They had the fibers from rons shirt etc at least a day or two later.

Why they waited two weeks to go to ojs looking for some sweats i don't know.To say they did not know what they were doing is to say they didn't know what they were doing on other things.
I believe the LA TIMES report that the dark colored clothing was collected by le and tested. The fact that the fibers did not match the sweats is proof that those dark colored clothing were not at Bundy and le's story that they went back to rockingham two weeks later to look for some sweats was a false story to try to blame oj.imo

[GreenIce]

Tippin SP interviewed Kato in the rockingham house on 6/13 they knew what kato thought oj was wearing then although Kato was ot sure what he was wearing. They had the fibers from rons shirt etc at least a day or two later.

Why they waited two weeks to go to ojs looking for some sweats i don't know.To say they did not know what they were doing is to say they didn't know what they were doing on other things.
I believe the LA TIMES report that the dark colored clothing was collected by le and tested. The fact that the fibers did not match the sweats is proof that those dark colored clothing were not at Bundy and le's story that they went back to rockingham two weeks later to look for some sweats was a false story to try to blame oj.imo

Martin,

You know, the more I think about these types of issues, the more convinced I become that Lange and Vanatter and MF were already engaging in a battle of credibility. IMO, I think they may believe that MF was source of a lot of leaks and he was the source because he was trying to make sure that not only would he be the star witness, but he wanted to be the star detective. Proofing that MF should not have been turned down for their unit.

I agree with you about clothes, I think they were taken and I think they were tested and there was nothing there. I don't know why people believe that just washing clothes will remove all traces of blood stains.

Unless there is some magical laundry soap that I have never been able to find. I would have saved alot of money if there is one.)

[weezer]

Read what Darden asked Gigi again. You are mistaken, he didn’t say dryer he said the washing machine and then he played the video showing the clothing in the washing machine and the laundry basket in the laundry room. The prosecutors knew about the freshly washed laundry, they knew that it included some of Arnelle’s clothing, they knew that it was her laundry basket, and they knew that Arnelle was telling a different story than the other five witnesses, but they evidently never figured out what it meant that the back door was unlocked and the house alarm was off when Arnelle opened the back door to let the detectives into the house. Or maybe they did eventually figure it out but maybe they were too embarrassed to admit it since when the second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and get the dark colored sweat suit, it was gone.

MR. DARDEN: You wouldn't leave for the weekend and leave wet laundry in the washing machine, would you?
MS. GUARIN: No, I will not.

If Arnelle had actually led the detectives around the house to the front door, and turned off the house alarm, as she fabricated she did, the detectives would have testified to that fact and Kato Kaelin would not have seen them enter the house from his room and he and Fuhrman would not have entered the house through the back door as they testified they did. Then the only evidence pointing to Arnelle would have been her clothing and her laundry basket. Not enough evidence to draw any logical inferences from.

But that didn’t happen because after Arnelle Simpson started the last load of laundry she made the mistake of not exiting the house the same way she had entered it by going back to the front door, turning the house alarm back on, and walking the long way around the house to get back to her room. The evidence is that she left the house to go back to her room the shortest way by unlocking and exiting the back door that was nearest to her room. When she exited that back door it remained unlocked and the house alarm remained off.

That’s why she testified to a fabricated story and lied in court, to try and cover up her mistake.

bobaugust

I'm still baffled as to why once LE went back with the second search warrant OR even in the months and months after, arnelle didn't just say that "Yes, that was my laundry and here's my sweatsuit." oh, that's right -- she couldn't.

[tv]

I'm still baffled as to why once LE went back with the second search warrant OR even in the months and months after, arnelle didn't just say that "Yes, that was my laundry and here's my sweatsuit." oh, that's right -- she couldn't.

Exactly -- we know the laundry basket and underclothes were Arnelle's. Why didn't she just say she was in the house sometime after the maid left and washed her clothes? Why lie about such a simple matter? She had to, of course.

[weezer]

I'm still baffled as to why once LE went back with the second search warrant OR even in the months and months after, arnelle didn't just say that "Yes, that was my laundry and here's my sweatsuit." oh, that's right -- she couldn't.

and, IF LE took the sweatsuit, when the issue came up why wouldn't arnelle (and criminal defense) yelled and hollered and accused LE of stealing her clothes? oh, that's right -- she/they couldn't.

[GreenIce]

I just think some may want to change words of support to the purchase of several dozen of the new book and give them to friends. xmas gifts, This way MF will receive financial benefit not just words of support. imo.

Martin,

IMO, MF's refusal to fight these charges speaks volumes. He knew, as did his lawyers that he was not being charged with perjury over one word. The real charge would have been regarding the planting and/or manufacturing of evidence.

I think the soft punishment he got also proves, that again, MF had the LAPD and the City of LA by the throat.

I also think that money was not the reason he refused to fight the charges. I am sure he already knew how much money he was going to make a book deal. For him to claim money was an issue, IMO, just doesn't ring true. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Exactly -- we know the laundry basket and underclothes were Arnelle's. Why didn't she just say she was in the house sometime after the maid left and washed her clothes? Why lie about such a simple matter? She had to, of course.

TV,

You make an excellent point. If Arnelle was involved in this, why wouldn't she just say that she did laundry and yes, that was her sweat suit? If she was willing to sneak into the main house and wash the clothes, why would she lie and say she didn't? If Arnelle claimed those clothes, then it is over.

However, there is still no proof what the dark items were. I don't think either she or the maid were asked if they could identify them. I don't think Arnelle was ever asked this question in either trial. I maybe wrong but I don't think she was.

[rovaan]

Mr. August,

I think I have just found flaws in your Arnelle theory and the sweat suit theory.

Darden asked GiGi about the laundry, he asks her if she would ever leave wet clothes in the dryer. Don't these questions prove that Petrocelli was wrong in claiming he was the only one to put to this together?

Also, GiGi and Arnelle were never asked to identify the dark items in the washing machine. Why didn't he ask?

I have never read Arnelle's depo, I can't find it, but did Petrocelli ask her about this?

If Petrocelli honestly thought Arnelle was involved, he never would have asked her about her state of mind or how much sleep she got when the detectives knocked on her door. He never would have said that she may have been mistaken regarding which door she entered. iMO.

ANOTHER HUGE FLAW,

Mr. August,

IMO, this issue about the door is another example of just how far you have dug yourself into the sand.

If Arnelle and the detectives all told the same story about which door they entered, would it change your mind about her involvement? It appears to me that even if they told the same story, you would say of course she locked the house and set the alarm. She didn't want any body to know she was in the house.

Or, you claim that it was Simpson who did it or some one else. The door they enterd means nothing, it is just another red herring, IMO.

Here us some more information about Petrocelli's theory:

"Petrocelli also speculated that Simpson's friend Al Cowlings, Simpson's adult daughter, Arnelle, or secretary Cathy Randa washed two loads of laundry -- one "maybe to wash some sweatsuit outfit that had blood on it" and a second to clean out the washing machine.

"I have no evidence that says it's any of those people," Petrocelli said. "I only know it had to be someone extremely loyal to O.J. Simpson.""

http://cjonline.com/stories/043098/new_marcusoj.shtml

Even Petrocelli knows he has no evidence Arnelle washed two loads of laundry.

[GreenIce]

Why they waited two weeks to go to ojs looking for some sweats i don't know.To say they did not know what they were doing is to say they didn't know what they were doing on other things.
false story to try to blame oj.imo

Martin,

I could not agree with you more. IMO, when the LAPD and the DA's knew their case was in big, big trouble, I believe they knew they had to go with the "Dumb and Dumber" defense.

While Lange and Vanatter wrote about how offended they were by this, IMO, they knew it was their only option.

There is no way a case could have gotten so screwed up and so much evidence lost or not collect, etc. There is just too many of them. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Here us some more information about Petrocelli's theory:

"Petrocelli also speculated that Simpson's friend Al Cowlings, Simpson's adult daughter, Arnelle, or secretary Cathy Randa washed two loads of laundry -- one "maybe to wash some sweatsuit outfit that had blood on it" and a second to clean out the washing machine.

"I have no evidence that says it's any of those people," Petrocelli said. "I only know it had to be someone extremely loyal to O.J. Simpson.""

http://cjonline.com/stories/043098/new_marcusoj.shtml

Even Petrocelli knows he has no evidence Arnelle washed two loads of laundry.

Rovaan,

Petrocelli's theory has either been roundly laughed at or scorned in the media. Petrocelli wanted to claim that he and only he, could have answered all the unanswered questions in this case.

IMO, I think Petrocelli may have been motived to spin these fantasies because several criminal DA's felt that Simpson was going on trial for murder in a civil court where the burden was not as great. The rules of evidence were much different and that the media was going to make him into the avenging angel. I don't think he ever counted on them to turn on him regarding his theories. IMO.

Also, if Petrocelli truly believed this about Cathy and AC, then why didn't he go after their phone records?

[tv]

Here us some more information about Petrocelli's theory:

"Petrocelli also speculated that Simpson's friend Al Cowlings, Simpson's adult daughter, Arnelle, or secretary Cathy Randa washed two loads of laundry -- one "maybe to wash some sweatsuit outfit that had blood on it" and a second to clean out the washing machine.

"I have no evidence that says it's any of those people," Petrocelli said. "I only know it had to be someone extremely loyal to O.J. Simpson.""

http://cjonline.com/stories/043098/new_marcusoj.shtml

Even Petrocelli knows he has no evidence Arnelle washed two loads of laundry.

I agree with Petrocelli's theory for the most part. It's my opinion that the accomplice after the fact was Arnelle. Arnelle's lies about the door and the wash points to her having something to cover up.