Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

I had never thought of this. Any celebrity who purchases a disguise is contemplating murder and escape.

Maby m jackson has commited murder and no one knows who was killed.

Celebrities use glasses wigs and beards all the time for disguises.

[martin II]

This would not be one of the stronger pieces of evidence, but it is evidence. I think in a lot of murder convictions, there is web of evidence, with no two or three pieces of evidence enough to convict. To believe in the innocence of OJS we have to buy into a whole lot of coincidences. It should certainly arouse suspicion.

In any case evidence that he was planning to run is evidence of guilt, even if it is far from conclusive. If the prosecution had entered the disguise as evidence, it would have helped OJS to show that he had used and bought disguises for innocent purposes.

I am annoyed by the fact that many Orenthal apologists are so quick to made accusations against the police (no room for memory errors, they must by lying!), but so reluctant to see fault in OJS.

What you have ignored is the reason why lab persons are required to make notes is to record facts to prevent memory loss problems.That is why they are allowed to refer to their notes on the witness stand.

[GreenIce]

I guess my main problem with the entire athletic scholarship issue is that back where I come from athletic scouts from universities would take these guys who excelled in sports and give them a scholarship even if they were practically flunking out of high school and didn't have the grades enough to do anything other than attend a local junior college. Once at the university, playing their sport, blind eyes were turned at the actual "education" part as long as the sport was being played. End result? These guys got a full ride and came out with no more education than they had when they arrived. But thumb the nose at those of us who worked fifty hours a week while in high school to help mom put food on the table while still maintaining a 4.0 and excelling in academics ... I sure didn't get a full ride, or even a partial one.

Sorry for the off topic rant:)

Jayme K,

I don't think your post was way off topic. I love the sports in high school and college. I do agree with you about how some kids get to go. My son had done very, very well in his sport. And we have talked about "what if". I think that for each college player who goes on to a professional career, they should be responsible for sponsoring at least one other student in a completely different field. For instance, let the pro football player pay for a 4 year student in math or science.

Sports raise big money for schools and the price of an education is just out of this world but I do believe that athletes should give back to their university other then having their name used as a former student.

I also think that every high school athlete should watch the movie, "Friday Night Lights". Very powerful, IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, we normally don't post links to what is considered common knowledge. It's common knowledge and accepted as fact that the sweats were not collected. You posted as fact that they were collected so the burden is on you to provide the proof.

TV,

This the problem with this case (and probably others as well). What exactly is meant by common knowledge and why is it accepted as fact? With the sweats, it is accepted as common and knowledge and fact, yet none of this made it into the trial. An un-named police source or a DA leaking another "Blame Game" does not mean it is true---it is nothing more then an "explaination" on how such obvious evidence never made it into the trial.

It is accepted as fact that Simpson was wearing sweats that night by Kato, he is the only one who testified about what he was wearing before he left for the airport. Kalin was never positive at what Simpson was wearing. He described the sweat suit like outfit, yet the only person who has said to have handled the sweat suit, never described the sweat suit--why?

Does it make sense to you that Fung would not have collected the "sweats" because he saw no blood on them but collected the socks even though he didn't see any blood on them either?

Also, was it Fung's job to determine which evidence was collected and which evidence was? Was it his job to examine the evidence, with just own eyes and make the determination that there was no blood on them?

Never did the DA's fiber expert say the fibers came from a sweat suit, only that his belief is they all come from the same cloth or material. Never did he say or give any comparisons to a sweat suit. Yet, it is accepted as fact that it was a sweat suit in the washing machine, Fung looked at it, saw no blood and put them back.

If you read Lange and Vanatter's book, they go into many problems of the 3 major state agencies have the ultimate petty power struggles in this case. In reading their book, it seems to me they were more interested in point the finger at everybody else but their own failings.

I did not post that the sweats were collected and tested as fact, only what was reported by a news agency. Just like the news agencies that reported the Simpson kept his hand in a bag ice on the flight to Chicago, he kept going the bathroom. The blood on the socks was Nicole's and OJ's. The bloody ski mask, the murder weapon was a military type entrenching tool.

Both sides know the rules of discovery, both sides turned this into a game and this game has been going for years and years between DA's and Defense teams. Neither side is going to willing hand over major holes in their case. Both sides will risk certain evidence rather then test it. Both sides know what type of "work product" is protected and which type isn't. Both sides will tell some of the their experts witnesses to write any thing down because if they do they have to turn over to the other side.

My point is that the focus and the blame of the sweats has been placed squarely on Dennis Fung's shoulders. What if another detective or someone else took those clothes and did test them and did not find blood on them. Since the agency who was responsible for running these test, did not in fact test them, do the results of these tests have to be handed over to the defense?

I have read many books on this case and all the books have their "sources" and I have to say in watching the trial, I do believe that both sides know how to play this game. Joe Bosco's book, "Problem of Evidence" had a source who said that the keys Ron was carrying were tested for to find out who's blood was on them---yet Ron's friend said she was given the keys back, still caked with blood and told they were tested. Well, it was believed that the killer was bleeding as he left the seen. Why weren't the keys tested? They had no way of knowing what cause the killer to bleed. Ron's hand was very, very swollen, he knife cuts on his boots, he had torture marks on his face, why weren't they tested?

In his book, his source also says that the socks found in Simpson's bedroom were measured in relation to the wall in Simpson's room, there were two completely different measurements. His book also names on of his sources, which was Peter Bonzich (sp?). While he believed Simpson was the killer, he says that Garcetti was told that the glove would lose the case, that Fuhrman was a minefield and that the Grand Jury were not going to indict because of the glove. No one could figure out how it got there. Remember, when the grand jury was dismissed---it was after the detectives testified.

While I believe it was only fair that the Grand Jury was dismissed, I do not believe it was done for the main reason given. The released 911 tape had nothing to do with the glove and IMO, I think if the grand jury did believe it was Simpson who dropped the glove back there and was concrete proof beyond "3 thumps", they never would have stopped the grand jury.

And TV, one last thing, don't you truly find it odd how a bloody finger print was missed when it was in the most logical place? Don't you find it odd that Fung knew enough to check the washing machine, knew enough to pick up the sweats to look at them but missed the blood on the light switch in the same laundry room? Don't you find odd that Fung did look for the blood on the back gate but never saw any and it wasn't until Hank Goldberg found a picture of it many months later---which is his book--Hank Goldbergs?

Don't you find odd that the blood in the Bronco was very small, yet even in such a small sample he managed to miss Ron's? Don't you find odd that Michele Kestler just happened to mention, again weeks later, that she wished Fung took more of the sample in the Bronco and then decided to go out there her self?

Don't you find odd that two cops, actually two detectives testified they did not see certain evidence but then again, they weren't looking for it?

I will be honest with you, I do not have confidence in the evidence because I just think that there are just too many patterns in the DA's case that can't all be concidences. IMO.

[GreenIce]

You are ignoring my point that people engaged in illegal activities try to avoid doing things that might cause people to notice them. Obviously slashing tires or people would get attention, but the criminal wants to avoid any extra attention (especially just before the illegal act). Also if OJS was more like Tarzans grandfather(on the inside) than like Tarzan, he would want to avoid the extra exertion.

fgump2,

You make an excellent point about people engaging in criminal activites not trying to attract attention to themselves. Which was another down fall in the DA's case. In Clark's closing statements, she explains why Simpson did not dump the gloves in a dumpster, he was too famous, he would have been recognized. But her statements make no sense because a hat would not have concealed his identity. I know, even the jurors had negative comments about JC putting on the hat in his closing statements--but he made Clark's point---OJ Simpson in a dark knit cap is still OJ Simpson in a dark knit cap.

Your comments also go toward Simpson "stalking" Nicole. We know that Nicole was being stalked by someone other then Simpson. However, the police never fully explained this nor do we know if Nicole was ever told that she was being watched. I know many people say that Nicole thought it was Simpson but that makes no sense, IMO because the person who was stalking her, was doing it Paula's white bronco. And what person, who is being paid to do this, leaves his work behind when he crashes it?

Is it possible that Simpson had something to do with this, as in hiring someone, sure. I know the person who did it said it was Robert Kardashian, but again, how could the LAPD and the DA's ignore this? They tried and tried to get Kardashian to testify in the trial regarding the bag he was carrying. Does it make sense they would focus on a bag that were convinced did not have evidence that would help them and ignore his possible involvement in having Nicole followed?

[GreenIce]

*********************************************
Two points. First of all I have sometimes become angry when people made accusations against me, even when I didn't know the reasons why they were making the accusations. I have become angry even when I knew the reasons were partly logical. I would certainly angry if I was arrested for a murder I didn't commit. A frame up isn't the only reason to become angry. A person can become angry about incompetence.

If Simpson was innocent, there are two people he should have been angry at: the killer, and the police for making false accusations.

I think the prosecutors made a mistake in not entering both Simpson's original police interview, and also what he said in the low speed bronco chase. If there was something in any way exculpating about either situation, someone would have pointed it out by now. Darden and Clark were afraid of the predominately black jury. They seemed to think that hearing any recording in which OJS claimed innocence would doom the case. I think that was way off the mark. If the jury was that biased, the case was doomed anyway. I think the jury was racially biased, but not by that much

fgump2,

Isn't it fair to say that many, many people who lose someone close to them, get mad that person for dying or getting killed? I am not saying they are blaming them for what happend to them but are just plain pissed off that they are dead? Isn't it common for friends and family members to me made at their loved one if they commit sucide? What about the family members who are mad at their loved who died of cancer because they smoke or smoked for years and quit when it was too late? What about the person who is just driving home at 2:00 a.m. and get killed by a drunk driver--why were they driving that late, everyond knows that is when the drunk drivers come out.

I do not feel Mr. Simpson is guilty of the crimes so his comments about being mad at Nicole, IMO are normal. Anger is part of the grieving process. What man would not be angry at their wife, regardless of how it happened, because they are now responsible for raising their kids? What about the mothers who get angry at the father of their children who dies, not only do they have to raise the kids themselves but what about the money?

I am still angry with myself and my ex because my child is a child of divorce, this will haunt me for the rest of my life. I am still angry, will always be angry but I have not let that interfere with my parenting.

I am sure Simpson or anyone in his position would be angry at the police and the actual killer but the reality of the situation, there is a huge difference between being a single parent and a sole parent.

Dominick Dunne was convinced of OJ's guilt when the police handcuffed him. He felt Simpson should have been outraged and should have ranted and raved to the police about being handcuffed and why aren't they weren't looking for the real killers?

IMO, had Mr. Simpson done that, then I would have believed that he was guilty. Why would he rant and rave when he knew that he was the prime suspect but once the evidence played out, he would be released?

[GreenIce]

No i am talking about the bag that Vanhatter took from oj on the day when oj returned from chicago on 6/13 just before Vanhatter took oj to Parker center to be interviewed. Vanhatter is seen at Rockingham talking to oj and another le person. Oj hands vanhatter the bag and they both get into vanhatters car. vanhatter has the bag when he get in his car. I have this video some place in my external memory if you insist on seeing it.But it may take me some time to find it.It was posted here and on other internet sites.

Martin,

Did you find it odd that Lange and Vanatter asked Simpson about what he wore that night and did take at least his sneakers but nothing else? Like the docker pants he always wore? Didn't he say that he is given these pants all the time by the company?

What I also find odd is that never asked him about bags, never asked him to produce all the bags so they can be tested?

I often wondered the DA's stuck their timeline and then reading the book, "The Killing Time", it never occured to me that they with that time because they were allowing time for Simpson to get rid of the evidence. IMO, I think they believed the evidence never even made it back to Rockingham let alone make it into Simpson's luggage.

[GreenIce]

This would not be one of the stronger pieces of evidence, but it is evidence. I think in a lot of murder convictions, there is web of evidence, with no two or three pieces of evidence enough to convict. To believe in the innocence of OJS we have to buy into a whole lot of coincidences. It should certainly arouse suspicion.

In any case evidence that he was planning to run is evidence of guilt, even if it is far from conclusive. If the prosecution had entered the disguise as evidence, it would have helped OJS to show that he had used and bought disguises for innocent purposes.

I am annoyed by the fact that many Orenthal apologists are so quick to made accusations against the police (no room for memory errors, they must by lying!), but so reluctant to see fault in OJS.

fgump 2,

I have to disagree with you, I do believe even one piece of evidence can convict a person. However, it can't be forgotten that Simpson did have the money to mount a defense.

Also, there is a huge difference between making a mistake and lying. It is up to the indiviual to call it as they see it.

Your comments about the accusations made against the police and the crime lab is not true. First, notes are essential in their career fields. There is a reason why they all have been trained in taking notes and how important these notes are not only in regards to the actual evidence but also when they testify in court. If the state witnesses had "memory" problems, then perhaps the term "selective memory" should also be discussed.

That being said, what did anyone's memory have to do with no one seeing blood on the socks and the lab deciding not use the equipment that was made for this very reason--until months later?

I don't think it is fair to assume that Fung and Mozzola were lying, however, I do take into consideration that telling the truth would have an a major impact on their careers. I also believe it does not take much to convince a person they screwed up when they might not have.

Remember, if Mozzola did stand by her original testimony about the bindles, she was then basically calling at least one other person in her office a liar. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Tv
thanks for that little titbit about Furhman not agreeing with Vanhatter carrying ojs blood around.I guess Vanhatter was not pleased with some of what Furhman did.


I had always felt in my gut that Vanhatter and lang were not pleased with something Furhman did that gave the case problems or made it harder to prove.Maby both did wrong. but i was shocked at the live tv at how they went at each other. Vanhatter in his voice showed major disdain for Furhman and Lang showed the same or more. Treated Furhman as if he was nothing and Furhman was about to come through the tv at them.
imo
I was also shocked then Vanhatter shot major holes in Clarks claim that oj jumped the south fence where the glove was found. I think Vanhatter and Furhman should have been angry at Clarke.

Martin,

Fuhrman's book is very interesting. He does not believe that this was domestic violence murder--he thinks it was a crime of passion. That killing Nicole when his children were sleeping upstairs was the worst place he could have planned to kill Nicole.

He thought Vanatter risked the glove he found when he was ordered to go back to Bundy to compare the gloves. He said it was cross contamination issue.

Believe it or not, he also said that the defense did raise and ask questions that were fair. For the best of my recollection, Fuhrman did not really bash and trash the defense.

In one of his book tour interviews, he said that he was not the only one of the state's witnesses who should have faced perjury charges.

However, in all fairness to Lange and Vanatter, there was nothing they could say or do about Fuhrman's comments about them. When MF lambasted them for not reading his notes---what they were suppose to say, they did read them? That opens a whole can of worms for VA and L. MF not only controlled the criminal trial but he even controlled the battle of the books, IMO.

[GreenIce]

More on the keys.....

There are at least three witnesses who could have testified if Simpson did have a set of keys to Nicole's house long before the murders.

However, has anyone thought that Nicole did ask OJ if he took the keys? Wouldn't you think she would have asked him about them?

There is no way to prove the keys were stolen by Simpson, however, on the surface, there is no logical reason why the DA's would not have introduced this into evidence. They point is Simpson may have had keys to Nicole's home on the night murders.

Here is another thought, what if the keys were taken by Simpson or someone in his family after the murders? I would think Sydney and Justin would have wanted certain things from the condo. To the best of my knowledge, the kids never returned to Bundy after that night but we do know Simpson's sister did go to Bundy. Was it just morbid curosity or was there more to it?

When did Nicole look for these missing keys, was it after she was sick but before the murders. The date is very cruical.

[martin II]

Martin,

Fuhrman's book is very interesting. He does not believe that this was domestic violence murder--he thinks it was a crime of passion. That killing Nicole when his children were sleeping upstairs was the worst place he could have planned to kill Nicole.

He thought Vanatter risked the glove he found when he was ordered to go back to Bundy to compare the gloves. He said it was cross contamination issue.

Believe it or not, he also said that the defense did raise and ask questions that were fair. For the best of my recollection, Fuhrman did not really bash and trash the defense.

In one of his book tour interviews, he said that he was not the only one of the state's witnesses who should have faced perjury charges.

However, in all fairness to Lange and Vanatter, there was nothing they could say or do about Fuhrman's comments about them. When MF lambasted them for not reading his notes---what they were suppose to say, they did read them? That opens a whole can of worms for VA and L. MF not only controlled the criminal trial but he even controlled the battle of the books, IMO.


Vanhatter broke many rules of evidence collecting that day.
First he ordered furhman who had just 'FOUND' the right glove to come to Bundy and compare with the Bundy glove, Then he ordered Fung to bring the Right glove To Bundy to 'COMPARE' Fung did not like this for obvious cross contamination issued. Fung brought the glove but refused to take it out of the plastic bag. Then the next day he took ojs blood samples from the nurse.
Note he did not give them to SID the collection section for all evidence which was in the same building that he was in at Parker Center. He Put the viles in a envelope and drove around until he arrived at the Rockingham crime scene where Fung was collecting blood and gave the viles to him. Fung was very surprised that Vanhatter had brought fresh blood to that crime scene. He stated no one had ever brought blood to him at a crime scene before.

There was no reason for any comparison to be done at either crime scene. The field staff collects all evidence. The lapd lab is suppose to evaluate all evidence collected not Vanhatter at the scene. imo

This had nothing to do with memory loss or small mistakes these were deliberate actions taken by him. imo

[Parker]

More on the keys.....

There are at least three witnesses who could have testified if Simpson did have a set of keys to Nicole's house long before the murders.

However, has anyone thought that Nicole did ask OJ if he took the keys? Wouldn't you think she would have asked him about them? There is no way to prove the keys were stolen by Simpson, however, on the surface, there is no logical reason why the DA's would not have introduced this into evidence. They point is Simpson may have had keys to Nicole's home on the night murders.

Here is another thought, what if the keys were taken by Simpson or someone in his family after the murders? I would think Sydney and Justin would have wanted certain things from the condo. To the best of my knowledge, the kids never returned to Bundy after that night but we do know Simpson's sister did go to Bundy. Was it just morbid curosity or was there more to it?

When did Nicole look for these missing keys, was it after she was sick but before the murders. The date is very cruical.
Well, it's going to be a bit difficult to ask Nicole about the keys. That's a very fair post you've written but I've got to ask the obvious question: who else but OJ wanted to get into Nicole's house?

No William, I can hear you charging in with drug deals etc but there's no proof of that, is there? And that's the point you keep pushing. No proof.

Just so, there's no proof that anyone else besides OJ was fixated on Nicole and had done her physical harm. And she was the primary target. Not Goldman. That dude was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Dayle Hinman says that most murders are committed by people known to the victims. She has profiled OJ and these murders and I will keep looking and hopefully find her profile.

[tv]

More on the keys.....

There are at least three witnesses who could have testified if Simpson did have a set of keys to Nicole's house long before the murders.

However, has anyone thought that Nicole did ask OJ if he took the keys? Wouldn't you think she would have asked him about them?

There is no way to prove the keys were stolen by Simpson, however, on the surface, there is no logical reason why the DA's would not have introduced this into evidence. They point is Simpson may have had keys to Nicole's home on the night murders.

Here is another thought, what if the keys were taken by Simpson or someone in his family after the murders? I would think Sydney and Justin would have wanted certain things from the condo. To the best of my knowledge, the kids never returned to Bundy after that night but we do know Simpson's sister did go to Bundy. Was it just morbid curosity or was there more to it?

When did Nicole look for these missing keys, was it after she was sick but before the murders. The date is very cruical.

Why would anyone from Nicole's family put keys in OJ Simpson's bag? Now you're suspecting that Nicole's sister visited the condo out of morbid curiosity? If one of my sister's was murdered I can't imagine visiting the scene out of morbid curiosity or to steal something if that's where you are going with this.

As far as when Nicole looked for the keys I'm sure it was before the murders because it would be difficult for her to look for keys after being murdered.

[tv]

Well i think it would take a professional about 3-4 seconds to muscle up and over a gate the size of Nicoles back gate. AT 10 ;30 in that alley. No problem.Or a strong, muscular former professional football player who still was known to participate in sports and stay in shape.

[Parker]

Or a strong, muscular former professional football player who still was known to participate in sports and stay in shape.

I agree. Point well put. And taken.

[William Anthony]

Well, it's going to be a bit difficult to ask Nicole about the keys. That's a very fair post you've written but I've got to ask the obvious question: who else but OJ wanted to get into Nicole's house?

No William, I can hear you charging in with drug deals etc but there's no proof of that, is there? And that's the point you keep pushing. No proof.

Just so, there's no proof that anyone else besides OJ was fixated on Nicole and had done her physical harm. And she was the primary target. Not Goldman. That dude was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Dayle Hinman says that most murders are committed by people known to the victims. She has profiled OJ and these murders and I will keep looking and hopefully find her profile.

I don't know how you can hear me charging but I have said very little about drugs use. I tend to believe it was a crime of jealousy but people can be jealous of others for a myriad of reasons. I had friends admit they were jealous of me and I couldn't understand why? People can also dislike others for unknown reasons. One of my closest friends told me after we became friends that he disliked me before he knew me because of the way I walked. There is a world of possible murderers out there and the prosecution failed to prove its case against Simpson or, in other words, the evidence was insufficient.

[William Anthony]

I agree. Point well put. And taken.

I guess golfing is a sport. :)

[William Anthony]

Or a strong, muscular former professional football player who still was known to participate in sports and stay in shape.

Wasn't the evidence by the physical trainer that of Simpson being out of shape?

[Parker]

Wasn't the evidence by the physical trainer that of Simpson being out of shape?

Wiliam Anthony, I'm going to go completely off topic here and talk about you. From what I read a few days ago, you're not a well man. I think it's to do with smoking cigaretes and I'm thinking it's a C word.

If giving up will help you, then do it. If it won't make any difference, then why stop?

I gave up cold turkey 5 years ago. I just stopped. It wasn't easy and yes I ran around after people who smoked trying to get sniffs of tobacco. But if it can make a difference for your life then forget cigs.

It's a habit. A stupid habit and you can break it. I did. You can.

[martin II]

Or a strong, muscular former professional football player who still was known to participate in sports and stay in shape.

not with the knees or hands that belonged to oj simpson

[William Anthony]

Wiliam Anthony, I'm going to go completely off topic here and talk about you. From what I read a few days ago, you're not a well man. I think it's to do with smoking cigaretes and I'm thinking it's a C word.

If giving up will help you, then do it. If it won't make any difference, then why stop?

I gave up cold turkey 5 years ago. I just stopped. It wasn't easy and yes I ran around after people who smoked trying to get sniffs of tobacco. But if it can make a difference for your life then forget cigs.

It's a habit. A stupid habit and you can break it. I did. You can.

Thank you and I believe your advice is sound. I was diagnosed 8 years ago and continued to smoke. I don't know if my condition is reversible but I do know that surgery can't help. I became alarmed due to something else that was happening to me but signaled there could be something related to my condition. I let the doctors perform a procedure they wanted to do 8 years ago, which confirmed that my condition had gotten no worse. I cut down as a precaution and I am sure the doctors will tell me to quit but, in the meantime, I need to get some specifics on my condition. Believe me I am in no hurry to leave the face of this earth. :)

[martin II]

Well, it's going to be a bit difficult to ask Nicole about the keys. That's a very fair post you've written but I've got to ask the obvious question: who else but OJ wanted to get into Nicole's house?

No William, I can hear you charging in with drug deals etc but there's no proof of that, is there? And that's the point you keep pushing. No proof.

Just so, there's no proof that anyone else besides OJ was fixated on Nicole and had done her physical harm. And she was the primary target. Not Goldman. That dude was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Dayle Hinman says that most murders are committed by people known to the victims. She has profiled OJ and these murders and I will keep looking and hopefully find her profile.


Before Nicoles death she had a problem with obscene phone caller that lasted for some time. she reported it and le caught the caller.It was reported that Furhman was the detective that investigated the calls but not sure it was him.
The called called after he was caught.

There was also a report and much discussion here previously about that serial killer that is jail in Florida that had worked for a company that painted Nicoles Condo and he was in her houce to do this.

The report included info that some pictures were taken of him and Nicole dancing on a local bar not long before she was killed and that at one time Furhman had seen the pictures or had them.

When the telephone stalker was calling Nicole SHE told oj about it and asked his help by looking out for her.

[martin II]

Wasn't the evidence by the physical trainer that of Simpson being out of shape?
I think the trainer said he had to make a lot of video cuts because oj could not make it through a complete exercise.

[martin II]

Well, it's going to be a bit difficult to ask Nicole about the keys. That's a very fair post you've written but I've got to ask the obvious question: who else but OJ wanted to get into Nicole's house?

No William, I can hear you charging in with drug deals etc but there's no proof of that, is there? And that's the point you keep pushing. No proof.

Just so, there's no proof that anyone else besides OJ was fixated on Nicole and had done her physical harm. And she was the primary target. Not Goldman. That dude was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Dayle Hinman says that most murders are committed by people known to the victims. She has profiled OJ and these murders and I will keep looking and hopefully find her profile.


It was not william that made a drug charge. It was Shaperios sp private investigator that did the investigation of drug selling at Mazallouna SP resturant and reported that Ron and Nicole were 'OVER THEIR HEADS' in drug debt.This was dione before the trial started.
It was also known that there was a ongoing DEA investigation of drug dealing
at that resturant and other establishments in Brentwood. Mainly because of a major drug dealer that was involved in ownership of the resturant.
Then there was Rons friend that had had his head cut off that was involved in drug dealings at another Bar. I think it was called the Monkey bar and Nicole and Faye were regular customers there.

[martin II]

Or a strong, muscular former professional football player who still was known to participate in sports and stay in shape.

I don't know of any info about oj staying shape. There was two different ojs, one that was in great shape when he played his last game and the one that had gained pounds that we saw at the opening of the trial.

[martin II]

The Keys
all we know is oj had a SINGULAR KEY that was found after the bronco ride.
The house keeper who may have known best said Nicoile kept two king on a peg in the kitchen.Car al one fits all house/gate keys.


Nicole first missed the keys on the 5th. Ojs last trip to Nicoles was also on the 5th but he never entered the house as he picked the kids up at the curb.
Prior to this date it had been some time before that oj had been in Nicole shouse as agreed by them.
Faye moved into Nicoles on the 3rd and was there until she went to rehab.
From this It does not appear that oj had a opportunity to steal her key at any recent day before the 4th the day she discovered they were missing.

There are some possibilities
Oj had stolen a duplicate key long before.
When Nicole and oj were still sleeping togeather trying to resolve differances she had given him a key and just didn't remember.
That Faye stole the keys and convienced Nicole that oj took them.

That there was something fishy about the work the locksmith did with ojs key.

Since le, petrocilli, the house keeper and faye gave different stories about what and how many keys were missing it is dificult to know which is correct.
But i believe oj was found to have one key not two.

[martin II]

It was not william that made a drug charge. It was Shaperios sp private investigator that did the investigation of drug selling at Mazallouna SP resturant and reported that Ron and Nicole were 'OVER THEIR HEADS' in drug debt.This was dione before the trial started.
It was also known that there was a ongoing DEA investigation of drug dealing
at that resturant and other establishments in Brentwood. Mainly because of a major drug dealer that was involved in ownership of the resturant.
Then there was Rons friend that had had his head cut off that was involved in drug dealings at another Bar. I think it was called the Monkey bar and Nicole and Faye were regular customers there.

Correction

Done.

[martin II]

Why would anyone from Nicole's family put keys in OJ Simpson's bag? Now you're suspecting that Nicole's sister visited the condo out of morbid curiosity? If one of my sister's was murdered I can't imagine visiting the scene out of morbid curiosity or to steal something if that's where you are going with this.

As far as when Nicole looked for the keys I'm sure it was before the murders because it would be difficult for her to look for keys after being murdered.

She realized the keys were missing on the 5th.but oj had not been in her house.

[tv]

I think the trainer said he had to make a lot of video cuts because oj could not make it through a complete exercise.
I decided to check out the exercise video. He's singing, dancing, doing situps, swinging a tennis racket and playing basketball. He never looks fatigued and I recall reading that he was able to continue filming for 12 hours and was willing to do more.

[tv]

She realized the keys were missing on the 5th.but oj had not been in her house.
How do you know that he hadn't been in her house?

[tv]

The Keys
all we know is oj had a SINGULAR KEY that was found after the bronco ride.
The house keeper who may have known best said Nicoile kept two king on a peg in the kitchen.Car al one fits all house/gate keys.


Nicole first missed the keys on the 5th. Ojs last trip to Nicoles was also on the 5th but he never entered the house as he picked the kids up at the curb.
Prior to this date it had been some time before that oj had been in Nicole shouse as agreed by them.
Faye moved into Nicoles on the 3rd and was there until she went to rehab.
From this It does not appear that oj had a opportunity to steal her key at any recent day before the 4th the day she discovered they were missing.

There are some possibilities
Oj had stolen a duplicate key long before.
When Nicole and oj were still sleeping togeather trying to resolve differances she had given him a key and just didn't remember.
That Faye stole the keys and convienced Nicole that oj took them.

That there was something fishy about the work the locksmith did with ojs key.

Since le, petrocilli, the house keeper and faye gave different stories about what and how many keys were missing it is dificult to know which is correct.
But i believe oj was found to have one key not two.
Thank you for saying that OJ Simpson was capable of stealing keys from Nicole.

[tv]

Before Nicoles death she had a problem with obscene phone caller that lasted for some time. she reported it and le caught the caller.It was reported that Furhman was the detective that investigated the calls but not sure it was him.
The called called after he was caught.

There was also a report and much discussion here previously about that serial killer that is jail in Florida that had worked for a company that painted Nicoles Condo and he was in her houce to do this.

The report included info that some pictures were taken of him and Nicole dancing on a local bar not long before she was killed and that at one time Furhman had seen the pictures or had them.

When the telephone stalker was calling Nicole SHE told oj about it and asked his help by looking out for her.

Why would a homicide detective be assigned to an obscene phone call case?

[weezer]

tv
I said a key was not required to enter Nicoles YARD.Meaning the area where she was murdered. That back gate was not so high that one could not just climb over it.The other issue is it appears that Nicole knew the date that her keys were missing according to Faye.Yet for some time Oj had always picked up the kids from outside her property and had not been in her house for some time. Nicole knew she had her keys on a certain date and the next day she could not find them.But oj had not been in her house prior to the date she knew she had her keys or on the date she thought her keys were missing.So
when did he have the opportunity to steal her keys.I think oj had those keys long before she was murdered for emergencies or whatever or Nicole just did not remember giving them to him. But again keys were not required to get to her yard.

of course keys were required to enter her yard -- do you not remember all of the testimony about the buzzer to open the front gate not working?

Nicole stated that she was afraid orenthal had taken the keys since he had been in the house at the time she realized the keys were missing -- after she had been ill and orenthal had been in the house. I guess the fact that she was 'afraid' orenthal had stolen the keys negates your post that she 'gave' them to him. and the fact that he had the keys on him when he was arrested pretty well justifies her fear that he had taken them.

again, you could not enter Nicole's yard without a key or being buzzed in or someone opening the gate from the inside.

[GreenIce]

Well, it's going to be a bit difficult to ask Nicole about the keys. That's a very fair post you've written but I've got to ask the obvious question: who else but OJ wanted to get into Nicole's house?

No William, I can hear you charging in with drug deals etc but there's no proof of that, is there? And that's the point you keep pushing. No proof.

Just so, there's no proof that anyone else besides OJ was fixated on Nicole and had done her physical harm. And she was the primary target. Not Goldman. That dude was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Dayle Hinman says that most murders are committed by people known to the victims. She has profiled OJ and these murders and I will keep looking and hopefully find her profile.

Parker,

Maybe you asking the wrong question, "Who else but OJ wanted to get into Nicole's house". Shouldn't the question be why did Nicole feel it was necessary to give her house keys to other people? Apparently, Nicole, like many, many other people, feel that is necessary for other's to have access to their house.

Both Nicole and Simpson (again, not unlike many other people) do keep spare keys in their home and they tell other people about them---why?

In that book, "Killing Time", it says that Simpson came home one night and his door was wide open and some message was left on his answering machine. If this is true, then that raises some very valid questions.

The problem is the DA's really had too many options on this or ways to present this in court. They opted not to and there has to be a reason why.

Also, remember the light bulb that was said to have been dislodged by Simpson, according to VA and Lange? Wasn't Nicole's jeep found with the door open, was the light in side of it? Wasn't her garage door open and what about those lights? Shouldn't at least one witness noticed the lights if he is in fact correct about the time?

William is correct in considering the role drugs may have played in this case. While Faye has maintained that her drug problem was under control, it clearly wasn't. She wanted Nicole to leave the kids and leave the country with her. Nicole did not pay attention to her, perhaps thinking she was in a drug induced paranoina. One thing Faye's ex did mention is that he gave Faye's cell phone records to the DA's and the defense, he said that neither side showed any interest in following up on this.

As you know, I believe that it is very possible that Nicole was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[GreenIce]

Why would anyone from Nicole's family put keys in OJ Simpson's bag? Now you're suspecting that Nicole's sister visited the condo out of morbid curiosity? If one of my sister's was murdered I can't imagine visiting the scene out of morbid curiosity or to steal something if that's where you are going with this.

As far as when Nicole looked for the keys I'm sure it was before the murders because it would be difficult for her to look for keys after being murdered.

Parker,

OJ's sister and husband went to Bundy. I believe their daughter, Terri was with them. When I first heard of this, I thought it to be a tad goulish and why would anyone who knew Nicole want to go to Bundy?

However, the scene was "washdown" and it is very possible they went to the condo to receive some of Sydney's and Justin's belongings. When I look at that way, I can see why Simpson's sister went over to Bundy. Again, IMO.

And we really don't know how many people went to Bundy after the murders because the police released the crime scene within 24 hours.

[GreenIce]

Vanhatter broke many rules of evidence collecting that day.
First he ordered furhman who had just 'FOUND' the right glove to come to Bundy and compare with the Bundy glove, Then he ordered Fung to bring the Right glove To Bundy to 'COMPARE' Fung did not like this for obvious cross contamination issued. Fung brought the glove but refused to take it out of the plastic bag. Then the next day he took ojs blood samples from the nurse.
Note he did not give them to SID the collection section for all evidence which was in the same building that he was in at Parker Center. He Put the viles in a envelope and drove around until he arrived at the Rockingham crime scene where Fung was collecting blood and gave the viles to him. Fung was very surprised that Vanhatter had brought fresh blood to that crime scene. He stated no one had ever brought blood to him at a crime scene before.

There was no reason for any comparison to be done at either crime scene. The field staff collects all evidence. The lapd lab is suppose to evaluate all evidence collected not Vanhatter at the scene. imo

This had nothing to do with memory loss or small mistakes these were deliberate actions taken by him. imo

Martin,

Now you know why I think Fung was livid with the LAPD when he was on the stand. He knew he was going to take the heat for alot of their actions at both crime scenses and was not a happy camper about it.

Also, didn't Fung and Mozzola also testify that they only collected evidence that they were told to collect by the detectives? So if Fung did not collect the contents of the washing machine, it would have been a detective's call, right?

[GreenIce]

Why would a homicide detective be assigned to an obscene phone call case?

The other detective involved was Ron Philips. Which makes sense why Phillips called MF that night even though he was not on call.

[GreenIce]

She realized the keys were missing on the 5th.but oj had not been in her house.

Martin,

The reason why I asked about when she notice the keys missing is because of what Simpson said in his interview, that he had last been at Nicole's about two weeks before the murders but never went inside it.

So the DA's refused to use his statement to the police and refused to enter the house key into evidence---how odd is that?

[weezer]

Martin,

Fuhrman's book is very interesting. He does not believe that this was domestic violence murder--he thinks it was a crime of passion. crimes of passion are domestic violence and domestic violence results in crimes of passionThat killing Nicole when his children were sleeping upstairs was the worst place he could have planned to kill Nicole. if we take his abuse of Nicole from the past and the 911 call from Bundy just months before the murders, it is a reasonable assumption that when orenthal was out of control, his children and their welfare was not at the top of his concerns list.

He thought Vanatter risked the glove he found when he was ordered to go back to Bundy to compare the gloves. He said it was cross contamination issue.

Believe it or not, he also said that the defense did raise and ask questions that were fair. For the best of my recollection, Fuhrman did not really bash and trash the defense. is that how you read it? you seem to believe that he was vouching for the defense team and I certainly got the opposite impression when I read his book.

In one of his book tour interviews, he said that he was not the only one of the state's witnesses who should have faced perjury charges. really? and which tour would that have been? I would tend to believe that something said like that would make big news and I certainly don't remember ever reading anything like that.

However, in all fairness to Lange and Vanatter, there was nothing they could say or do about Fuhrman's comments about them. When MF lambasted them for not reading his notes---what they were suppose to say, they did read them? That opens a whole can of worms for VA and L. MF not only controlled the criminal trial but he even controlled the battle of the books, IMO.

I respected the way the detectives handled themselves while the defense set out to destroy careers and performed character assassinations.

[GreenIce]

I respected the way the detectives handled themselves while the defense set out to destroy careers and performed character assassinations.


FBG,

Everybody needs a hobby! Rock on with your respect for the LAPD.

[martin II]

I respected the way the detectives handled themselves while the defense set out to destroy careers and performed character assassinations.

Although there were claims of domestic abuse the prosecution could have charged oj with it but didn't. Darden made a half AZZ attempt bring it up but
they obviously felt they had no real proof as he was not charged with abuse. The jury concerned themselves with testimony and evidence as they related directly to what he was charged with not every side issue that was tossed in.

martinii

[martin II]

FBG,

Everybody needs a hobby! Rock on with your respect for the LAPD.

Right for some even when they are caught they can do no wrong.

Remember one jury member said Vanhatter was untruthful in some of his testimony.

[martin II]

Martin,

The reason why I asked about when she notice the keys missing is because of what Simpson said in his interview, that he had last been at Nicole's about two weeks before the murders but never went inside it.

So the DA's refused to use his statement to the police and refused to enter the house key into evidence---how odd is that?

Correct

At one point oj told cora and nicole that Paula and himself were togeather.
At this time at Paulas request oj agreed not to go inside Nicoles house again.
There is no proof that he ever went inside which is why he picked up the kids for visits from his car at the curb.

imo

[martin II]

Martin,

Now you know why I think Fung was livid with the LAPD when he was on the stand. He knew he was going to take the heat for alot of their actions at both crime scenses and was not a happy camper about it.

Also, didn't Fung and Mozzola also testify that they only collected evidence that they were told to collect by the detectives? So if Fung did not collect the contents of the washing machine, it would have been a detective's call, right?

Vanhatter was the lead detective in charge and i believe he told fung what to collect but not sure he was the only one.

vanhatter must have been the one that instructed fung to look at that sweat suite and he had already looked at the bundy glove and hat and saw those fibers.

[martin II]

Why would a homicide detective be assigned to an obscene phone call case?

Maby because many of these type calls lead to the victim being harmed. I think they have better knowledge of the local criminals than regular cops.

[William Anthony]

Parker,

Maybe you asking the wrong question, "Who else but OJ wanted to get into Nicole's house". Shouldn't the question be why did Nicole feel it was necessary to give her house keys to other people? Apparently, Nicole, like many, many other people, feel that is necessary for other's to have access to their house.

Both Nicole and Simpson (again, not unlike many other people) do keep spare keys in their home and they tell other people about them---why?

In that book, "Killing Time", it says that Simpson came home one night and his door was wide open and some message was left on his answering machine. If this is true, then that raises some very valid questions.

The problem is the DA's really had too many options on this or ways to present this in court. They opted not to and there has to be a reason why.

Also, remember the light bulb that was said to have been dislodged by Simpson, according to VA and Lange? Wasn't Nicole's jeep found with the door open, was the light in side of it? Wasn't her garage door open and what about those lights? Shouldn't at least one witness noticed the lights if he is in fact correct about the time?

William is correct in considering the role drugs may have played in this case. While Faye has maintained that her drug problem was under control, it clearly wasn't. She wanted Nicole to leave the kids and leave the country with her. Nicole did not pay attention to her, perhaps thinking she was in a drug induced paranoina. One thing Faye's ex did mention is that he gave Faye's cell phone records to the DA's and the defense, he said that neither side showed any interest in following up on this.

As you know, I believe that it is very possible that Nicole was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have considered it but spoken very little about it, other than the manner of death, IIRC. I do not choose to speak ill of the dead.

[GreenIce]

Although there were claims of domestic abuse the prosecution could have charged oj with it but didn't. Darden made a half AZZ attempt bring it up but
they obviously felt they had no real proof as he was not charged with abuse. The jury concerned themselves with testimony and evidence as they related directly to what he was charged with not every side issue that was tossed in.

martinii

Martin,

I don't believe Clark or Darden believed in the motive they selected. They went out of their way to make it seem like Ron and Nicole were nothing more then passing aquaintences. I am not say that they were lovers, but it seems like they were a lot closer then we have been led to believe.

The DV motive was shot down by the LAPD anyway. I remember the one cop's statement repeating what he said Simpson said, about the other times they have reported to a DV call--I like everyone else, including the jury was waiting to hear about those other calls.

The officer who testified about the recording of Nicole's statement after the 1993 incident, where Nicole says that it only happened once.

I have often wondered why they didn't use a crime of passion motive. Simpson went to her house, saw the candles, heard the music put 2 and 2 together and got 10 and he snapped.

[William Anthony]

Why would a homicide detective be assigned to an obscene phone call case?

Maybe, he requested the assignment, due to who was involved and his hatred, as supported by the evidence of interracial couples, meaning his investigation was cursory (pun intended)?:)

[GreenIce]

I have considered it but spoken very little about it, other than the manner of death, IIRC. I do not choose to speak ill of the dead.

William,

I am not sure that I understand your post about not speaking ill of the dead. Do you think I did?

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I don't believe Clark or Darden believed in the motive they selected. They went out of their way to make it seem like Ron and Nicole were nothing more then passing aquaintences. I am not say that they were lovers, but it seems like they were a lot closer then we have been led to believe.

The DV motive was shot down by the LAPD anyway. I remember the one cop's statement repeating what he said Simpson said, about the other times they have reported to a DV call--I like everyone else, including the jury was waiting to hear about those other calls.

The officer who testified about the recording of Nicole's statement after the 1993 incident, where Nicole says that it only happened once.

I have often wondered why they didn't use a crime of passion motive. Simpson went to her house, saw the candles, heard the music put 2 and 2 together and got 10 and he snapped.

That was included in a soft tone as Mr. RG was a younger man and Simpson wanted to control her but that was refuted by the story about KS.

[William Anthony]

William,

I am not sure that I understand your post about not speaking ill of the dead. Do you think I did?

No and I apologize if you took it that way. What I am saying was in response to Parker's remark about me charging in. I have never rushed to enter the drug issue and have stayed away from it and I was only explaining why I don't. You are right that I have considered it but only because of the way I was raised have chosen not to mention it. I don't recall you ever speaking ill of Mr. RG. or Ms. NBS and, again, I apologize if you think I was saying or intimating you did.

[martin II]

Martin,

The reason why I asked about when she notice the keys missing is because of what Simpson said in his interview, that he had last been at Nicole's about two weeks before the murders but never went inside it.

So the DA's refused to use his statement to the police and refused to enter the house key into evidence---how odd is that?

At Vanhatters interview of oj at Parker center ojs lawyer was there and wanted to be in the interview to protect oj.Oj told him he did not have to be involved as he intended to answer all of their questions truthfully.The lawyer went for a sandwich and oj did the interview alone rather than with the protection of his lawyer telling him 'DON'T ANSWER THAT" DON'T GIVE BLOOD" ETC.

[GreenIce]

Vanhatter was the lead detective in charge and i believe he told fung what to collect but not sure he was the only one.

vanhatter must have been the one that instructed fung to look at that sweat suite and he had already looked at the bundy glove and hat and saw those fibers.

Martin,

If you think about it, at least one detective had to direct the videographer to the washing machine as well. If this detective told the video what to film, then how was the blood fingerprint on the light switch missed?

And you know, I don't recall the videographer ever filming the Bundy crime scene. I understand that it the common belief that the videographers are used to help protect the LAPD against lawsuits, but can't the same be said about the Bundy crime scene?

[GreenIce]

No and I apologize if you took it that way. What I am saying was in response to Parker's remark about me charging in. I have never rushed to enter the drug issue and have stayed away from it and I was only explaining why I don't. You are right that I have considered it but only because of the way I was raised have chosen not to mention it. I don't recall you ever speaking ill of Mr. RG. or Ms. NBS and, again, I apologize if you think I was saying or intimating you did.

William,

Thanks for clearing that up---I was waiting for the wrath of N-J's to decend down to me---using you as their source. Feel much better now!

[GreenIce]

At Vanhatters interview of oj at Parker center ojs lawyer was there and wanted to be in the interview to protect oj.Oj told him he did not have to be involved as he intended to answer all of their questions truthfully.The lawyer went for a sandwich and oj did the interview alone rather than with the protection of his lawyer telling him 'DON'T ANSWER THAT" DON'T GIVE BLOOD" ETC.

Martin,

IMO, Simpson gave his blood sample for two reasons, one, he had nothing to hide and two, he knew the court could order it and it would not have looked good if said his lawyer told him not to give a sample without a court order. While I truly believe any person would be an absolute fool to talk the cops with out a lawyer present, I do understand how this action of "lawyering up" looks.

What I found interesting in Simpson's statement is he did not direct the investigation to any of Nicole's friends. He mentioned a couple having problems in their marriage and Faye's drug problem but said he didn't think any of that had to do with Nicole's murder.

[William Anthony]

William,

Thanks for clearing that up---I was waiting for the wrath of N-J's to decend down to me---using you as their source. Feel much better now!

I don't mind clearing up my mistakes but I am not sure you are protected from the wrath. :)

[GreenIce]

I don't mind clearing up my mistakes but I am not sure you are protected from the wrath. :)

William,

But at least you removed the arrow with your name on it out of their quiver!

[William Anthony]

Martin,

If you think about it, at least one detective had to direct the videographer to the washing machine as well. If this detective told the video what to film, then how was the blood fingerprint on the light switch missed?

And you know, I don't recall the videographer ever filming the Bundy crime scene. I understand that it the common belief that the videographers are used to help protect the LAPD against lawsuits, but can't the same be said about the Bundy crime scene?

If there ever was a bloody fingerprint. I would think the same would have been done at Bundy.

[William Anthony]

William,

But at least you removed the arrow with your name on it out of their quiver!

Ah yes, I may have prevented a trial in which I was falsely accused.

[martin II]

Ah yes, I may have prevented a trial in which I was falsely accused.

Then why do i believe you may still be a target simply because you believe strongly in proof beyond a resopnabble doubt.?

[William Anthony]

Then why do i believe you may still be a target simply because you believe strongly in proof beyond a resopnabble doubt.?

You might be right and, it those are the charges, then I would have to plead guilty as charged.:)

[martin II]

William
Initially Clarke told the jury that the murders took place at 10:20pm.I think this was based on claims from Stein and PF the ghost writer for ojs book both close neighbors of Nicole as to when they heard the dog bark. I think she was allowing for time for oj to stop someplace to get rid of the shoes and knife since she did not have either.
So the jury heard her claims of 10:20 pm

Then JS claimed she saw oj speeding from Bundy at a later time and then the defense put Heidstra on and he testified to a much later time that the dog was barking and his time of the dog barking was supported by other neighbors. one across from nicole and another from the corner of Nicoles block. Since Heidstra knew what time he left home and how long it took him to arrive at Bundy and Gorham where all of a sudden he heard the dog bark
and how long it too him to get to the spot in the alley where he heard the hey hey hey and what time he got home, his story was believed over Clarks time of 10;20 pm.
After that Clarke kinda backed away or soft pelled her 10:20 time line but the jury had already hear her claim and now they heard a more believable time claim.
Then Clarke guessed and claimed that Oj had jumped the Salingers fence to enter his property and that is where he dropped the glove. But she could not present any proof that oj was actually on the salangers property or jumped the fence.Then Vanhatter and two le detectives testified that in their investigation of the fence area they did not see any evidence that anyone came through the bushes and jumped that fence.

The jury also heard all of this and saw her claims go dowm in flames.

I guess this is what the jury member meant when she said they had sat through 9 months of testimony and had plenty of time to think about what they had heard.

[martin II]

You might be right and, it those are the charges, then I would have to plead guilty as charged.:)

William
I do appreciate how you have attempted, as a student of the law,to explain reasonable doubt in plain english even though some may be of the opinion that a lower level of proof was required in the oj case because of side issues and or rummors.imo

I also noted the comment of the white juror in the criminal trial that the DNA testimony was not believable. Which means that she paid attention to what was presented but just did not believe the presenter or what was presented.

[fgump2]

fgump 2,

I have to disagree with you, I do believe even one piece of evidence can convict a person. However, it can't be forgotten that Simpson did have the money to mount a defense.

Also, there is a huge difference between making a mistake and lying. It is up to the indiviual to call it as they see it.

Your comments about the accusations made against the police and the crime lab is not true. First, notes are essential in their career fields. There is a reason why they all have been trained in taking notes and how important these notes are not only in regards to the actual evidence but also when they testify in court. If the state witnesses had "memory" problems, then perhaps the term "selective memory" should also be discussed.

That being said, what did anyone's memory have to do with no one seeing blood on the socks and the lab deciding not use the equipment that was made for this very reason--until months later?

I don't think it is fair to assume that Fung and Mozzola were lying, however, I do take into consideration that telling the truth would have an a major impact on their careers. I also believe it does not take much to convince a person they screwed up when they might not have.

Remember, if Mozzola did stand by her original testimony about the bindles, she was then basically calling at least one other person in her office a liar. IMO.


************************************
I don't know enough about police work to evaluate the various people in the Simpson murder trial of 95. But I feel distrust when I hear people roast the prosecution people such as Fung and Mazzola, and then make heroes of Henry Lee and J. Cochran. V Bugliosi said that there is usually a certain amount of carelessness and inconsistency in the evidence of most cases. He also wrote that the police criminology work OJS was about average before the trial, and below average on the witness stand. I think in every profession there is a lot of carelessness. Bugliosi also wrote that detectives are notoriously poor note takers.

Take this mistakes that Johnnie Cochran made. He had at least 15 failures to follow the mutual discovery law. He also implied that the socks planted in OJS's bedroom and then he put two witnesses on who contradicted him on this. He also put another witness on (about an exercise video) who mentioned that OJS made a joke about hitting his wife. I have to assume that if Johnnie Cochran was a prosecutor, he wouldn't have run a tight ship.

Good note taking is tedious, and most people don't like doing it. I think most people are going to do a bad job at it unless they are getting near constant feedback from their bosses about it.

As I have written before about Henry Lee. He had a memory problem about remembering what he wrote in a book about collecting hair from an accused person. He also thought that marks in the cement (trowel marks and one foot print) that were years old, were more recent foot prints in blood. It is ridiculous to roast Fung and Mazzola, and then praise Henry Lee. I realize that Henry Lee being bad doesn't make the LAPD competent. My target here is partly Henry Lee, but mainly the people who criticize the LAPD so much, and also praise Henry Lee. I think such people are more interested in getting OJS acquitted than they are in obtaining justice, and also in making a hero out of Johnnie Cochran. If there main concern was competent criminology, then some of them should have said something like this: Both side on the OJS trial had a lot of bad work by the criminologists; we should take a look at this profession, and see what can be done to improve it.

Of course the Orenthal apologists have sloppy thinking about a lot of things, as did the press in general. I was also irritated by the fact that Mr. Gerdes got so much publicity about catchy phrases: "garbage in garbage out", and "cesspool of contamination", and yet the Orenthal apologists almost never stop to think 'If the lab work was so bad, why didn't he point to a cases that were blown down the drain because of sloppy lab work?. I realize it is partly logical to respond that he was just evaluating the lab, not examining specific cases. I believe if he could have found such cases, he would have. It would have strengthened his case and put the defense (not just OJS) in a much better light. I have to assume that either Gerdes was either deliberately trying to deceive (perjury) or he didn't case about justice. Maybe both.

I realize I am writing things here that I have written before. I think the LAPD criminology work, even if imperfect, was good enough to rather strongly indicate that OJS was guilty. I don't think that carelessness alone would have created the blood results that point to the guilt of OJS.

[martin II]

************************************
I don't know enough about police work to evaluate the various people in the Simpson murder trial of 95. But I feel distrust when I hear people roast the prosecution people such as Fung and Mazzola, and then make heroes of Henry Lee and J. Cochran. V Bugliosi said that there is usually a certain amount of carelessness and inconsistency in the evidence of most cases. He also wrote that the police criminology work OJS was about average before the trial, and below average on the witness stand. I think in every profession there is a lot of carelessness. Bugliosi also wrote that detectives are notoriously poor note takers.

Take this mistakes that Johnnie Cochran made. He had at least 15 failures to follow the mutual discovery law. He also implied that the socks planted in OJS's bedroom and then he put two witnesses on who contradicted him on this. He also put another witness on (about an exercise video) who mentioned that OJS made a joke about hitting his wife. I have to assume that if Johnnie Cochran was a prosecutor, he wouldn't have run a tight ship.

Good note taking is tedious, and most people don't like doing it. I think most people are going to do a bad job at it unless they are getting near constant feedback from their bosses about it.

As I have written before about Henry Lee. He had a memory problem about remembering what he wrote in a book about collecting hair from an accused person. He also thought that marks in the cement (trowel marks and one foot print) that were years old, were more recent foot prints in blood. It is ridiculous to roast Fung and Mazzola, and then praise Henry Lee. I realize that Henry Lee being bad doesn't make the LAPD competent. My target here is partly Henry Lee, but mainly the people who criticize the LAPD so much, and also praise Henry Lee. I think such people are more interested in getting OJS acquitted than they are in obtaining justice, and also in making a hero out of Johnnie Cochran. If there main concern was competent criminology, then some of them should have said something like this: Both side on the OJS trial had a lot of bad work by the criminologists; we should take a look at this profession, and see what can be done to improve it.

Of course the Orenthal apologists have sloppy thinking about a lot of things, as did the press in general. I was also irritated by the fact that Mr. Gerdes got so much publicity about catchy phrases: "garbage in garbage out", and "cesspool of contamination", and yet the Orenthal apologists almost never stop to think 'If the lab work was so bad, why didn't he point to a cases that were blown down the drain because of sloppy lab work?. I realize it is partly logical to respond that he was just evaluating the lab, not examining specific cases. I believe if he could have found such cases, he would have. It would have strengthened his case and put the defense (not just OJS) in a much better light. I have to assume that either Gerdes was either deliberately trying to deceive (perjury) or he didn't case about justice. Maybe both.

I realize I am writing things here that I have written before. I think the LAPD criminology work, even if imperfect, was good enough to rather strongly indicate that OJS was guilty. I don't think that carelessness alone would have created the blood results that point to the guilt of OJS.

what i have noticed is that serious problems with prosecution witnesses and evidence is called only small mistakes or accepted memory losses from professional traimed lab people but Cochran and lee, well respected by their peers, are callaed liars and deceitful defence people.

I think some rethinking is required on your part about your stated positions
on these issues if fairness is what you are looking for. that is only my opinion.

Carelessness would influnce the jury but when the jury heard Mazzola absolutly change her testimony to them without valid acceptable excuse they were open to believe that she absolutely lied in her cross examination.
The jury was not dumb to her changed testimony and you must remember that the judges instructions to the jury was that if they found a witness lied in one material aspect of their testimony then they could by law assume that
all of the witness testimony could be not believed. Or tossed.

This was true with vanhatter and others like Martz and we know he lied.; imo

[William Anthony]

William
I do appreciate how you have attempted, as a student of the law,to explain reasonable doubt in plain english even though some may be of the opinion that a lower level of proof was required in the oj case because of side issues and or rummors.imo

I also noted the comment of the white juror in the criminal trial that the DNA testimony was not believable. Which means that she paid attention to what was presented but just did not believe the presenter or what was presented.

The concept of reasonable doubt has been the subject of many debates. However, in my mind, it means that, since the prosecution must prove each and every element of a charge, if a person after considering the evidence has a doubt based on logic and reason that the prosecution failed to prove one or more elements, then there is reasonable doubt. Of course, I would have to hone that definition to work in the prosecution's theory of the case in closing, which some might call a defense trick.:)

[William Anthony]

************************************
I don't know enough about police work to evaluate the various people in the Simpson murder trial of 95. But I feel distrust when I hear people roast the prosecution people such as Fung and Mazzola, and then make heroes of Henry Lee and J. Cochran. V Bugliosi said that there is usually a certain amount of carelessness and inconsistency in the evidence of most cases. He also wrote that the police criminology work OJS was about average before the trial, and below average on the witness stand. I think in every profession there is a lot of carelessness. Bugliosi also wrote that detectives are notoriously poor note takers.

Take this mistakes that Johnnie Cochran made. He had at least 15 failures to follow the mutual discovery law. He also implied that the socks planted in OJS's bedroom and then he put two witnesses on who contradicted him on this. He also put another witness on (about an exercise video) who mentioned that OJS made a joke about hitting his wife. I have to assume that if Johnnie Cochran was a prosecutor, he wouldn't have run a tight ship.

Good note taking is tedious, and most people don't like doing it. I think most people are going to do a bad job at it unless they are getting near constant feedback from their bosses about it.

As I have written before about Henry Lee. He had a memory problem about remembering what he wrote in a book about collecting hair from an accused person. He also thought that marks in the cement (trowel marks and one foot print) that were years old, were more recent foot prints in blood. It is ridiculous to roast Fung and Mazzola, and then praise Henry Lee. I realize that Henry Lee being bad doesn't make the LAPD competent. My target here is partly Henry Lee, but mainly the people who criticize the LAPD so much, and also praise Henry Lee. I think such people are more interested in getting OJS acquitted than they are in obtaining justice, and also in making a hero out of Johnnie Cochran. If there main concern was competent criminology, then some of them should have said something like this: Both side on the OJS trial had a lot of bad work by the criminologists; we should take a look at this profession, and see what can be done to improve it.

Of course the Orenthal apologists have sloppy thinking about a lot of things, as did the press in general. I was also irritated by the fact that Mr. Gerdes got so much publicity about catchy phrases: "garbage in garbage out", and "cesspool of contamination", and yet the Orenthal apologists almost never stop to think 'If the lab work was so bad, why didn't he point to a cases that were blown down the drain because of sloppy lab work?. I realize it is partly logical to respond that he was just evaluating the lab, not examining specific cases. I believe if he could have found such cases, he would have. It would have strengthened his case and put the defense (not just OJS) in a much better light. I have to assume that either Gerdes was either deliberately trying to deceive (perjury) or he didn't case about justice. Maybe both.

I realize I am writing things here that I have written before. I think the LAPD criminology work, even if imperfect, was good enough to rather strongly indicate that OJS was guilty. I don't think that carelessness alone would have created the blood results that point to the guilt of OJS.

The defense was not obligated to be as perfect as the prosecution. It was the prosecution that said we can prove Simpson is the murderer based on the evidence and the defense which said no you can't. I have had several jobs, which there were certain parts of them I did not like. However, I did them to the best of my ability so that I could keep the job and get a pay check. The prosecution made discovery mistakes also and I did not see the witnesses contradicting the magnificent one about the socks. I saw DF trying to explain away the obvious. The magical socks weren't there when he said they were. You can believe what you want about Dr. Gerdes but his testimony was what it was. While I have a strong work ethic, I do not do the job of others or look to do so, unless I am getting paid to so do. I might decide to help someone out but I do not normally do my work and theirs. I don't believe a person should be convicted, because of carelessness.

[martin II]

The defense was not obligated to be as perfect as the prosecution. It was the prosecution that said we can prove Simpson is the murderer based on the evidence and the defense which said no you can't. I have had several jobs, which there were certain parts of them I did not like. However, I did them to the best of my ability so that I could keep the job and get a pay check. The prosecution made discovery mistakes also and I did not see the witnesses contradicting the magnificent one about the socks. I saw DF trying to explain away the obvious. The magical socks weren't there when he said they were. You can believe what you want about Dr. Gerdes but his testimony was what it was. While I have a strong work ethic, I do not do the job of others or look to do so, unless I am getting paid to so do. I might decide to help someone out but I do not normally do my work and theirs. I don't believe a person should be convicted, because of carelessness.


Not when the carlessness is done by the people that are asking a jury to send a defendant to jail.

[William Anthony]

Not when the carlessness is done by the people that are asking a jury to send a defendant to jail.

Especially when the carelessness leads to missing blood, dead witnesses testifying on the stand, a contradictory blood trail, magical socks and envelopes and gloves that do not fit, not to mention unidentified hair and DNA and spreading objects that do not belong in the scene, while taking home evidence, just to name a few.

[tv]

TV,

This the problem with this case (and probably others as well). What exactly is meant by common knowledge and why is it accepted as fact? With the sweats, it is accepted as common and knowledge and fact, yet none of this made it into the trial. An un-named police source or a DA leaking another "Blame Game" does not mean it is true---it is nothing more then an "explaination" on how such obvious evidence never made it into the trial.

It is accepted as fact that Simpson was wearing sweats that night by Kato, he is the only one who testified about what he was wearing before he left for the airport. Kalin was never positive at what Simpson was wearing. He described the sweat suit like outfit, yet the only person who has said to have handled the sweat suit, never described the sweat suit--why?

Does it make sense to you that Fung would not have collected the "sweats" because he saw no blood on them but collected the socks even though he didn't see any blood on them either?

Also, was it Fung's job to determine which evidence was collected and which evidence was? Was it his job to examine the evidence, with just own eyes and make the determination that there was no blood on them?

Never did the DA's fiber expert say the fibers came from a sweat suit, only that his belief is they all come from the same cloth or material. Never did he say or give any comparisons to a sweat suit. Yet, it is accepted as fact that it was a sweat suit in the washing machine, Fung looked at it, saw no blood and put them back.

If you read Lange and Vanatter's book, they go into many problems of the 3 major state agencies have the ultimate petty power struggles in this case. In reading their book, it seems to me they were more interested in point the finger at everybody else but their own failings.

I did not post that the sweats were collected and tested as fact, only what was reported by a news agency. Just like the news agencies that reported the Simpson kept his hand in a bag ice on the flight to Chicago, he kept going the bathroom. The blood on the socks was Nicole's and OJ's. The bloody ski mask, the murder weapon was a military type entrenching tool.

Both sides know the rules of discovery, both sides turned this into a game and this game has been going for years and years between DA's and Defense teams. Neither side is going to willing hand over major holes in their case. Both sides will risk certain evidence rather then test it. Both sides know what type of "work product" is protected and which type isn't. Both sides will tell some of the their experts witnesses to write any thing down because if they do they have to turn over to the other side.

My point is that the focus and the blame of the sweats has been placed squarely on Dennis Fung's shoulders. What if another detective or someone else took those clothes and did test them and did not find blood on them. Since the agency who was responsible for running these test, did not in fact test them, do the results of these tests have to be handed over to the defense?

I have read many books on this case and all the books have their "sources" and I have to say in watching the trial, I do believe that both sides know how to play this game. Joe Bosco's book, "Problem of Evidence" had a source who said that the keys Ron was carrying were tested for to find out who's blood was on them---yet Ron's friend said she was given the keys back, still caked with blood and told they were tested. Well, it was believed that the killer was bleeding as he left the seen. Why weren't the keys tested? They had no way of knowing what cause the killer to bleed. Ron's hand was very, very swollen, he knife cuts on his boots, he had torture marks on his face, why weren't they tested?

In his book, his source also says that the socks found in Simpson's bedroom were measured in relation to the wall in Simpson's room, there were two completely different measurements. His book also names on of his sources, which was Peter Bonzich (sp?). While he believed Simpson was the killer, he says that Garcetti was told that the glove would lose the case, that Fuhrman was a minefield and that the Grand Jury were not going to indict because of the glove. No one could figure out how it got there. Remember, when the grand jury was dismissed---it was after the detectives testified.

While I believe it was only fair that the Grand Jury was dismissed, I do not believe it was done for the main reason given. The released 911 tape had nothing to do with the glove and IMO, I think if the grand jury did believe it was Simpson who dropped the glove back there and was concrete proof beyond "3 thumps", they never would have stopped the grand jury.

And TV, one last thing, don't you truly find it odd how a bloody finger print was missed when it was in the most logical place? Don't you find it odd that Fung knew enough to check the washing machine, knew enough to pick up the sweats to look at them but missed the blood on the light switch in the same laundry room? Don't you find odd that Fung did look for the blood on the back gate but never saw any and it wasn't until Hank Goldberg found a picture of it many months later---which is his book--Hank Goldbergs?

Don't you find odd that the blood in the Bronco was very small, yet even in such a small sample he managed to miss Ron's? Don't you find odd that Michele Kestler just happened to mention, again weeks later, that she wished Fung took more of the sample in the Bronco and then decided to go out there her self?

Don't you find odd that two cops, actually two detectives testified they did not see certain evidence but then again, they weren't looking for it?

I will be honest with you, I do not have confidence in the evidence because I just think that there are just too many patterns in the DA's case that can't all be concidences. IMO.

By common knowledge I mean the facts of the case that are generally accepted to be true by both sides. I know you'd like to believe that the sweats were tested and nothing was found but that's not what happened. If you want to post that they were collected and tested then please add IMO or admit it's wild speculation on your part.

[Parker]

Maybe when William Anthony next uses the phrase 'the magnificent one' he could start tacking IMO on the end of it. Because that's not fact, that's opinion. :)

[GreenIce]

By common knowledge I mean the facts of the case that are generally accepted to be true by both sides. I know you'd like to believe that the sweats were tested and nothing was found but that's not what happened. If you want to post that they were collected and tested then please add IMO or admit it's wild speculation on your part.

TV,

I posted where I read this information, it was from a book. No, common knowledge is not or are not "facts" that are generally accepted to be true by both sides. Never did the DA's introduce any evidence that the fibers found at the scene were compared to any type of clothing, let alone sweats. IMO, it is wild speculation that the "murder" sweats were found in the washing machine but were never collected.

I have posted why I believe it is very possible that the clothes in question were in fact, taken and tested. I also posted how this could be accomplished with out the defense every finding out about it--this is if the clothes were in fact, sweats. IMO, I believe the clothes were taken out of the washing machine and examined, were put back because it was obvious they were not Simpson's.

The DA's were the masters of wild speculation in this case. Look at how many people believe the theories they floated with out any proof. IMO.

[Parker]

Green Ice, you obviously believe then that a 'conspiracy', for want of a better term, was entered into by LAPD and the DA right from the get go.

I don't agree with that idea in this case. The first person police should and do usually check is the spouse or partner. In many cases, not all, he or she is the prime suspect. There was, IMO, more than enough evidence that could have been presented to convict OJ. The fact that the DA couldn't and didn't do a good enough job doesn't mean that the facts weren't there that if, presented correctly, could have brought in a guilty verdict.

Bob Anthony knows way more about this case than I do and if he says there was video of the sweats that belonged to OJ, which were used by OJ on the night of the double murders and were found in OJ's washing machine, then I believe him.

[GreenIce]

************************************
I don't know enough about police work to evaluate the various people in the Simpson murder trial of 95. But I feel distrust when I hear people roast the prosecution people such as Fung and Mazzola, and then make heroes of Henry Lee and J. Cochran. V Bugliosi said that there is usually a certain amount of carelessness and inconsistency in the evidence of most cases. He also wrote that the police criminology work OJS was about average before the trial, and below average on the witness stand. I think in every profession there is a lot of carelessness. Bugliosi also wrote that detectives are notoriously poor note takers.

Take this mistakes that Johnnie Cochran made. He had at least 15 failures to follow the mutual discovery law. He also implied that the socks planted in OJS's bedroom and then he put two witnesses on who contradicted him on this. He also put another witness on (about an exercise video) who mentioned that OJS made a joke about hitting his wife. I have to assume that if Johnnie Cochran was a prosecutor, he wouldn't have run a tight ship.

Good note taking is tedious, and most people don't like doing it. I think most people are going to do a bad job at it unless they are getting near constant feedback from their bosses about it.

As I have written before about Henry Lee. He had a memory problem about remembering what he wrote in a book about collecting hair from an accused person. He also thought that marks in the cement (trowel marks and one foot print) that were years old, were more recent foot prints in blood. It is ridiculous to roast Fung and Mazzola, and then praise Henry Lee. I realize that Henry Lee being bad doesn't make the LAPD competent. My target here is partly Henry Lee, but mainly the people who criticize the LAPD so much, and also praise Henry Lee. I think such people are more interested in getting OJS acquitted than they are in obtaining justice, and also in making a hero out of Johnnie Cochran. If there main concern was competent criminology, then some of them should have said something like this: Both side on the OJS trial had a lot of bad work by the criminologists; we should take a look at this profession, and see what can be done to improve it.

Of course the Orenthal apologists have sloppy thinking about a lot of things, as did the press in general. I was also irritated by the fact that Mr. Gerdes got so much publicity about catchy phrases: "garbage in garbage out", and "cesspool of contamination", and yet the Orenthal apologists almost never stop to think 'If the lab work was so bad, why didn't he point to a cases that were blown down the drain because of sloppy lab work?. I realize it is partly logical to respond that he was just evaluating the lab, not examining specific cases. I believe if he could have found such cases, he would have. It would have strengthened his case and put the defense (not just OJS) in a much better light. I have to assume that either Gerdes was either deliberately trying to deceive (perjury) or he didn't case about justice. Maybe both.

I realize I am writing things here that I have written before. I think the LAPD criminology work, even if imperfect, was good enough to rather strongly indicate that OJS was guilty. I don't think that carelessness alone would have created the blood results that point to the guilt of OJS.

fgump2,

1. What did Dr. Gerdes say about the crime lab that was untrue?
2. What is untrue about the concept "Garbage In-Garbage Out"?
3. What did Mozzola, Fung, Kestler and other lab workers do that would have gave the jury confidence in their work?
4. Isn't there a huge difference between an honest mistake vs careless mistakes? To use the term careless should not be an acceptable explaination when someone's life and freedom is on the line.
5. The term careless should not be acceptable if frees people who are guilty of the crimes they are have been accused off.
6. What cases did V.B. name to prove that there are always careless mistakes in murder investigations?

Both the defense and the DA's did play games with discovery, it was not as one sided as you have posted.

What Simpson said in the video about the wife had nothing to do with the real issue--was he physically able to commit the crimes. While I was upset at what he said, does that mean he was able to commit the crimes?

What V.B. said about detectives being poor note takers makes no sense. Just like for the first time in both Lange and Vanatter's career, they did not take notes. Now, just for the sake argument, lets say that Lange and Vanatter hated taking notes. If this is true, then they should have been thrilled to bits as well being thankful that MF did a job they hated--and they would have read them--a lot sooner then they said they actually did.

What do you think of Clark, Darden and Goldberg who "roasted" Fung in their books?

Dr. Lee gave his opinon about other footprints being at the scene, he explained why he felt the way the did. There were more possible footprints then just on trowels.

I think the hair issue really is a non-issue only because you can't prove who's hair it is unless you are able to find a good enough root for DNA testing. However, was he proven wrong about the blood drops--his belief that they they did not come from a person who was walking away? That they came from something that was only two feet off of the ground?

What about where the blood was found on the socks---that the person would have had to have been wearing flood pants--I think he used Michael Jackson's pants as his example.

I'm not sure which two witnesses that contradicted the socks.

[GreenIce]

Green Ice, you obviously believe then that a 'conspiracy', for want of a better term, was entered into by LAPD and the DA right from the get go.

I don't agree with that idea in this case. The first person police should and do usually check is the spouse or partner. In many cases, not all, he or she is the prime suspect. There was, IMO, more than enough evidence that could have been presented to convict OJ. The fact that the DA couldn't and didn't do a good enough job doesn't mean that the facts weren't there that if, presented correctly, could have brought in a guilty verdict.

Bob Anthony knows way more about this case than I do and if he says there was video of the sweats that belonged to OJ, which were used by OJ on the night of the double murders and were found in OJ's washing machine, then I believe him.


Parker,

I totally agree with you that the ex or the spouse is the prime suspect, so why did the four detectives lie about this?

I think it is unfair to blame the DA's for doing a bad job because there was no way they could have saved the key evidence in this case. How were the DA's going to explain why key blood evidence was not for weeks and months? The only thing the DA's could do is give the impression that many of their witnesses sucked and are in the wrong career field.

The DA's are responsible for taking the evidence and the results of the crime lab and presenting them to the jury. They are not responsible for collecting it, deciding when and where this evidence should be tested. They are not responsible for the actions of the police.

I do not think you can tell from a video tape what type of clothes are in the washing machine. However, what I do know is that a washing machine is a logcial place for the detectives to check. However, what is not logical is that while they thought it was important enough to video tape it, they say that it was never collected for evidence.

I understand about police insurance videos, to protect themselves from being accused of damaging property---but how could the police damage a washing machine?

[GreenIce]

Green Ice, you obviously believe then that a 'conspiracy', for want of a better term, was entered into by LAPD and the DA right from the get go.

I don't agree with that idea in this case. The first person police should and do usually check is the spouse or partner. In many cases, not all, he or she is the prime suspect. There was, IMO, more than enough evidence that could have been presented to convict OJ. The fact that the DA couldn't and didn't do a good enough job doesn't mean that the facts weren't there that if, presented correctly, could have brought in a guilty verdict.

Bob Anthony knows way more about this case than I do and if he says there was video of the sweats that belonged to OJ, which were used by OJ on the night of the double murders and were found in OJ's washing machine, then I believe him.

Parker,

I do not believe that the DA's and the Police entered into a conspiracy from the get go. In fact, I don't think those two agencies could agree on the color or the words written on a stop sign.

[Parker]

fgump2,

1. What did Dr. Gerdes say about the crime lab that was untrue?
2. What is untrue about the concept "Garbage In-Garbage Out"?
3. What did Mozzola, Fung, Kestler and other lab workers do that would have gave the jury confidence in their work?
4. Isn't there a huge difference between an honest mistake vs careless mistakes? To use the term careless should not be an acceptable explaination when someone's life and freedom is on the line.
5. The term careless should not be acceptable if frees people who are guilty of the crimes they are have been accused off.
6. What cases did V.B. name to prove that there are always careless mistakes in murder investigations?

Both the defense and the DA's did play games with discovery, it was not as one sided as you have posted.

What Simpson said in the video about the wife had nothing to do with the real issue--was he physically able to commit the crimes. While I was upset at what he said, does that mean he was able to commit the crimes?

What V.B. said about detectives being poor note takers makes no sense. Just like for the first time in both Lange and Vanatter's career, they did not take notes. Now, just for the sake argument, lets say that Lange and Vanatter hated taking notes. If this is true, then they should have been thrilled to bits as well being thankful that MF did a job they hated--and they would have read them--a lot sooner then they said they actually did.

What do you think of Clark, Darden and Goldberg who "roasted" Fung in their books?

Dr. Lee gave his opinon about other footprints being at the scene, he explained why he felt the way the did. There were more possible footprints then just on trowels.

I think the hair issue really is a non-issue only because you can't prove who's hair it is unless you are able to find a good enough root for DNA testing. However, was he proven wrong about the blood drops--his belief that they they did not come from a person who was walking away? That they came from something that was only two feet off of the ground?

What about where the blood was found on the socks---that the person would have had to have been wearing flood pants--I think he used Michael Jackson's pants as his example.

I'm not sure which two witnesses that contradicted the socks.

IMO that was what these murders were about. OJ couldn't let Nicole go. He wanted to possess her, to control her. He was the one who walked away, not her. And, in the end, he did.

[William Anthony]

Maybe when William Anthony next uses the phrase 'the magnificent one' he could start tacking IMO on the end of it. Because that's not fact, that's opinion. :)

Ah to the contrary, his accomplishments makes that a fact and as far as Simpson, wearing a sweat suit that was found in the washing machine, regardless of by whom the claim is made, it remains just an opinion.:)

[William Anthony]

IMO that was what these murders were about. OJ couldn't let Nicole go. He wanted to possess her, to control her. He was the one who walked away, not her. And, in the end, he did.

All that may be true and none of it makes him a murderer.

[William Anthony]

fgump2,

1. What did Dr. Gerdes say about the crime lab that was untrue?
2. What is untrue about the concept "Garbage In-Garbage Out"?
3. What did Mozzola, Fung, Kestler and other lab workers do that would have gave the jury confidence in their work?
4. Isn't there a huge difference between an honest mistake vs careless mistakes? To use the term careless should not be an acceptable explaination when someone's life and freedom is on the line.
5. The term careless should not be acceptable if frees people who are guilty of the crimes they are have been accused off.
6. What cases did V.B. name to prove that there are always careless mistakes in murder investigations?

Both the defense and the DA's did play games with discovery, it was not as one sided as you have posted.

What Simpson said in the video about the wife had nothing to do with the real issue--was he physically able to commit the crimes. While I was upset at what he said, does that mean he was able to commit the crimes?

What V.B. said about detectives being poor note takers makes no sense. Just like for the first time in both Lange and Vanatter's career, they did not take notes. Now, just for the sake argument, lets say that Lange and Vanatter hated taking notes. If this is true, then they should have been thrilled to bits as well being thankful that MF did a job they hated--and they would have read them--a lot sooner then they said they actually did.

What do you think of Clark, Darden and Goldberg who "roasted" Fung in their books?

Dr. Lee gave his opinon about other footprints being at the scene, he explained why he felt the way the did. There were more possible footprints then just on trowels.

I think the hair issue really is a non-issue only because you can't prove who's hair it is unless you are able to find a good enough root for DNA testing. However, was he proven wrong about the blood drops--his belief that they they did not come from a person who was walking away? That they came from something that was only two feet off of the ground?

What about where the blood was found on the socks---that the person would have had to have been wearing flood pants--I think he used Michael Jackson's pants as his example.

I'm not sure which two witnesses that contradicted the socks.

The hair issues belongs to the junk crafts.

[Parker]

Ah to the contrary, his accomplishments makes that a fact and as far as Simpson, wearing a sweat suit that was found in the washing machine, regardless of by whom the claim is made, it remains just an opinion.:)


Again William Anthony, this is your opinion. As is your opinion about OJ's lawyer. Opinion. Your opinion. Not fact. If you expect posters to believe that you really want to discuss the facts of this case, then you need to present your opinions in an open manner. Most of what you post is your opinion. It is not fact.

[William Anthony]

Again William Anthony, this is your opinion. As is your opinion about OJ's lawyer. Opinion. Your opinion. Not fact. If you expect posters to believe that you really want to discuss the facts of this case, then you need to present your opinions in an open manner. Most of what you post is your opinion. It is not fact.

That is because most of what I discuss are facts based on the testimonies or the law and the magnificent one's credentials speak for themselves, unlike "Bob Anthony", whom I believe you meant to say bobaugust, claim that Simpson wore the sweat suit found in the washing machine. I do not ask for posters, who refer to the magnificent one as cockroach to state that as their opinion, because some things go without saying. Additionally, I state, " I think or I believe", which is not stated as fact. However, bobaugust has repeatedly claimed to know the facts of the case. Therefore, I would ask him to place a link that shows conclusively that the sweat suit found in the washing machine was worn by Simpson or state that is his opinion, belief or thought.

[martin II]

Maybe when William Anthony next uses the phrase 'the magnificent one' he could start tacking IMO on the end of it. Because that's not fact, that's opinion. :)

There were many in his profession that evaluated Cochrans work and used
that or very simular words to describe him. I am sure that the clients of the many cases he won would call him that. imo

[martin II]

Again William Anthony, this is your opinion. As is your opinion about OJ's lawyer. Opinion. Your opinion. Not fact. If you expect posters to believe that you really want to discuss the facts of this case, then you need to present your opinions in an open manner. Most of what you post is your opinion. It is not fact.

Many here have stated that oj wore some sweats on 6/12.This is based on the fact that sweats were found in his washer. Some want to use Katos description of some clothing he said oj was wearing earlier even though Katos description does not fit the description of the sweats oj used in the exercise video.But they want to say well eventhough we cannot prove it HE MUST HAVE HAD ON THESE SWEATS. The fiber expert could not say the fibers came from the sweats found because no sweats were available for comparison.
I doubt the prosecution would ask the jury to assume blood found at Rockingham was oj without ojs blood sample to compare but that is exactly what they asked the jury to believe about the sweats without a comparison.
martin II

[Parker]

William Anthony, you are quite correct. It is Bob August. My aplogies to him.
But you continue to use the term 'the mag one' and that is your opinion. That's all it is. Your opinion and maybe one other poster's.

There are so many Simpson forums locked here. You've made what, 12000 odd posts? So, you must have had something to do with these forums being locked. You keep posting opinions. I think you need to understand the difference between fact and opinion and be prepared to let people who don't agree with you have their say.

I'm sorry but not everyone agrees with you that because OJ was found innocent in the criminal trial that everyone agrees with that verdict. And yes, I know that's what the jury found then.

I'd really be interested to have any DNA evidence from OJ's case (and it still must surely exist) analysed. I think it would raise a lot of questions that OJ and his dream team would prefer to ignore. IMO.
See, it's not that hard to use. And you should start to. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, you are quite correct. It is Bob August. My aplogies to him.
But you continue to use the term 'the mag one' and that is your opinion. That's all it is. Your opinion and maybe one other poster's.

There are so many Simpson forums locked here. You've made what, 12000 odd posts? So, you must have had something to do with these forums being locked. You keep posting opinions. I think you need to understand the difference between fact and opinion and be prepared to let people who don't agree with you have their say.

I'm sorry but not everyone agrees with you that because OJ was found innocent in the criminal trial that everyone agrees with that verdict. And yes, I know that's what the jury found then.

I'd really be interested to have any DNA evidence from OJ's case (and it still must surely exist) analysed. I think it would raise a lot of questions that OJ and his dream team would prefer to ignore. IMO.
See, it's not that hard to use. And you should start to. IMO.

I have not disallowed any poster from having their say as I do not have that authority. The art of discussing different views is what this board is about. The title of this thread calls for a discussion, not a list of opinions. We all have opinions and it is not unreasonable to ask and discuss differences in opinions and on what criteria those opinions are formed.

I have never stated that Simpson was innocent or found innocent. The verdict in that trial means that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That should be the basis of any disagreement and the source of any discussion of those who do not accept the verdict, imho. However, the posts have included additional information that was not included in the trial to argue that Simpson is or is not the killer. To me, that is an entirely different point and, unless I can offer an alternative way of looking at the information, I tend not to engage in those discussions, unless they are related to evidence heard in the trial.

We can assume that the DNA was correctly analyzed, except for the degradation of an AB type to a B. With that said that does not account for improper mixtures due to cross contamination, contamination and missing blood. I guess what I am saying is that there was ample evidence of reasonable doubt in regard to the DNA, imho. "Garbage in, garbage out."

[martin II]

Green Ice, you obviously believe then that a 'conspiracy', for want of a better term, was entered into by LAPD and the DA right from the get go.

I don't agree with that idea in this case. The first person police should and do usually check is the spouse or partner. In many cases, not all, he or she is the prime suspect. There was, IMO, more than enough evidence that could have been presented to convict OJ. The fact that the DA couldn't and didn't do a good enough job doesn't mean that the facts weren't there that if, presented correctly, could have brought in a guilty verdict.

Bob Anthony knows way more about this case than I do and if he says there was video of the sweats that belonged to OJ, which were used by OJ on the night of the double murders and were found in OJ's washing machine, then I believe him.

What i think is that the case was unprovalbe from day one.I believe the prosecution, was guided by public opinion and they rushed to judgement without careful evaluation of their claims in order to know that all the pieces
were in place to get a conviction.

One example is Clarkes claim up front about what time the murders took place which turned out to be wrong.Another was the messy collection of evidence and the conflicting stories of some detectives.

What happened is the defense uncovered many problems in the case and when the prosecution felt the heat they did things like bringing up the sock which now magically had blood on them without fully being able to prove how the blood got on the socks. I think that Clarke felt that some of these tricks would slip by the jury in her favor but they didn't. obviously the jury was paying more attention to the witnesses than Clarke though.

According to the jury comments after the verdict, Park and Vanhatter basically sunk the case.Parks testinmony was important because it puts oj or some AA entering the house and all of his observation from at rockingham
did not meet the truth test. From the Ashford gate park was not able to se all that he testified to seeing and i believe the jury discovered this during their field trip to Rockingham.

I think that it is possible that Park may have been influenced by the prosecution prompting and media reports and that he allowed some of this to seek into his testimony.

Vanhatter just flat out lied about some of what he did but there was no way the prosecution could explain away many of the other problems/holes in the case.imo

[martin II]

William Anthony, you are quite correct. It is Bob August. My aplogies to him.
But you continue to use the term 'the mag one' and that is your opinion. That's all it is. Your opinion and maybe one other poster's.

There are so many Simpson forums locked here. You've made what, 12000 odd posts? So, you must have had something to do with these forums being locked. You keep posting opinions. I think you need to understand the difference between fact and opinion and be prepared to let people who don't agree with you have their say.

I'm sorry but not everyone agrees with you that because OJ was found innocent in the criminal trial that everyone agrees with that verdict. And yes, I know that's what the jury found then.

I'd really be interested to have any DNA evidence from OJ's case (and it still must surely exist) analysed. I think it would raise a lot of questions that OJ and his dream team would prefer to ignore. IMO.
See, it's not that hard to use. And you should start to. IMO.

What is it about williams choice of words to describe Cocharan that irritates some.Is it because he won the case by excellant lawyering. People have come to furhman defense by using all kinds of positive descriptions. What is the problem with Cochran or william description.These comments sound childish to me.

[tv]

fgump2,

1. What did Dr. Gerdes say about the crime lab that was untrue?
2. What is untrue about the concept "Garbage In-Garbage Out"?
3. What did Mozzola, Fung, Kestler and other lab workers do that would have gave the jury confidence in their work?
4. Isn't there a huge difference between an honest mistake vs careless mistakes? To use the term careless should not be an acceptable explaination when someone's life and freedom is on the line.
5. The term careless should not be acceptable if frees people who are guilty of the crimes they are have been accused off.
6. What cases did V.B. name to prove that there are always careless mistakes in murder investigations?

Both the defense and the DA's did play games with discovery, it was not as one sided as you have posted.

What Simpson said in the video about the wife had nothing to do with the real issue--was he physically able to commit the crimes. While I was upset at what he said, does that mean he was able to commit the crimes?

What V.B. said about detectives being poor note takers makes no sense. Just like for the first time in both Lange and Vanatter's career, they did not take notes. Now, just for the sake argument, lets say that Lange and Vanatter hated taking notes. If this is true, then they should have been thrilled to bits as well being thankful that MF did a job they hated--and they would have read them--a lot sooner then they said they actually did.

What do you think of Clark, Darden and Goldberg who "roasted" Fung in their books?

Dr. Lee gave his opinon about other footprints being at the scene, he explained why he felt the way the did. There were more possible footprints then just on trowels.

I think the hair issue really is a non-issue only because you can't prove who's hair it is unless you are able to find a good enough root for DNA testing. However, was he proven wrong about the blood drops--his belief that they they did not come from a person who was walking away? That they came from something that was only two feet off of the ground?

What about where the blood was found on the socks---that the person would have had to have been wearing flood pants--I think he used Michael Jackson's pants as his example.

I'm not sure which two witnesses that contradicted the socks.

1. Dr. Gerdes never did anything to prove his hypothesis of contamination. Gerdes failure to consider information relevant to the issue he is investigating is simply bad scientific method. His approach is purposely limited which makes reaching the truth unlikely. Scientific procedure requires painstaking observation of all the pertinent data available.

2. There was no 'garbage in' in this case because if there had been there would have been 'garbage out' i.e., there would not have been a Simpson blood match - the test would have yielded no results.

3. I'm surprised the jury was able to make heads or tails of Mr. Fung. The defense portrayed him as (a) inefficient, perhaps incompetent (b) A man good at his job, so that if he failed to notice something - like blood on the gate - it must not have been there. Perhaps if the jury had known of Dr. Lee not wearing a hairnet or changing gloves after handling evidence at the LAPD crime lab they wouldn't have had so much confidence in his work.

6. One case Mr. Bugliosi cites is the Manson case which he prosecuted but he does talk about others.

[William Anthony]

1. Dr. Gerdes never did anything to prove his hypothesis of contamination. Gerdes failure to consider information relevant to the issue he is investigating is simply bad scientific method. His approach is purposely limited which makes reaching the truth unlikely. Scientific procedure requires painstaking observation of all the pertinent data available.

2. There was no 'garbage in' in this case because if there had been there would have been 'garbage out' i.e., there would not have been a Simpson blood match - the test would have yielded no results.

3. I'm surprised the jury was able to make heads or tails of Mr. Fung. The defense portrayed him as (a) inefficient, perhaps incompetent (b) A man good at his job, so that if he failed to notice something - like blood on the gate - it must not have been there. Perhaps if the jury had known of Dr. Lee not wearing a hairnet or changing gloves after handling evidence at the LAPD crime lab they wouldn't have had so much confidence in his work.

6. One case Mr. Bugliosi cites is the Manson case which he prosecuted but he does talk about others.

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner

I see that garbage in garbage out comment as related to the cesspool of contamination, meaning that if there was an improper mixture through contamination, that it would still result in an improper mixture. I did not see the defense portraying DF as incompetent, just prosecution biased and willing to come up with the incredible.

[martin II]

1. Dr. Gerdes never did anything to prove his hypothesis of contamination. Gerdes failure to consider information relevant to the issue he is investigating is simply bad scientific method. His approach is purposely limited which makes reaching the truth unlikely. Scientific procedure requires painstaking observation of all the pertinent data available.

2. There was no 'garbage in' in this case because if there had been there would have been 'garbage out' i.e., there would not have been a Simpson blood match - the test would have yielded no results.

3. I'm surprised the jury was able to make heads or tails of Mr. Fung. The defense portrayed him as (a) inefficient, perhaps incompetent (b) A man good at his job, so that if he failed to notice something - like blood on the gate - it must not have been there. Perhaps if the jury had known of Dr. Lee not wearing a hairnet or changing gloves after handling evidence at the LAPD crime lab they wouldn't have had so much confidence in his work.

6. One case Mr. Bugliosi cites is the Manson case which he prosecuted but he does talk about others.

1.Dr Gerdis was chosen to evaluate the lapd lab just as he was chosen to evaluate many other labs because of his exopertise in this area. He reported on the lapd lab just as he did on others and he did find problems in other labs.
So without his expertise to understand his work and methods your complaints/attacks against him are a non starter.

It was because of his work and others like him that national standards for all labs were adopted which greatly improved the collection and handling of all evidence after the oj case.

2. Fung was told to collect the blood on the gate.He didn't. You suggest that he didn't because there 'IT MUST NOT HAVE BEEN THERE' So how is it that that blood spot was found there a month or so later.If it was not there when fung was at Bundy on 6/13 and after the wash down of the property By Mr Brown would this lead you to believe someone put it there when Fung returned months later and found a blood spot there??

3. VB wanted to be a consultant for the prosecution based on his past in the Manson case. He still thought he was the best prosecutor in town based on past fame.He was not given this position so what did he do.sat in court steaming and attacked the defense ,as a former prosecutor, and then wrote a verty critical book on the prosecution.He was not inside the prosecution case and not a part of their decision making.Every thing he said about the case was just his old opinions by a former prosecutor seeking attention to sell his book.

4. If the lab collects tainted evidence and then mishandles the packaging of this evidence it is Garbage in Garbage out when they send it for DNA testing.

[tv]

1.Dr Gerdis was chosen to evaluate the lapd lab just as he was chosen to evaluate many other labs because of his exopertise in this area. He reported on the lapd lab just as he did on others and he did find problems in other labs.
So without his expertise to understand his work and methods your complaints/attacks against him are a non starter.

It was because of his work and others like him that national standards for all labs were adopted which greatly improved the collection and handling of all evidence after the oj case.

2. Fung was told to collect the blood on the gate.He didn't. You suggest that he didn't because there 'IT MUST NOT HAVE BEEN THERE' So how is it that that blood spot was found there a month or so later.If it was not there when fung was at Bundy on 6/13 and after the wash down of the property By Mr Brown would this lead you to believe someone put it there when Fung returned months later and found a blood spot there??

3. VB wanted to be a consultant for the prosecution based on his past in the Manson case. He still thought he was the best prosecutor in town based on past fame.He was not given this position so what did he do.sat in court steaming and attacked the defense ,as a former prosecutor, and then wrote a verty critical book on the prosecution.He was not inside the prosecution case and not a part of their decision making.Every thing he said about the case was just his old opinions by a former prosecutor seeking attention to sell his book.

4. If the lab collects tainted evidence and then mishandles the packaging of this evidence it is Garbage in Garbage out when they send it for DNA testing.

1. martin, I could go into detail on what was wrong with Dr. Gerdes and his theories but it would take many pages. If you would read OJ UNMASKED by M.L. Rantala you could read the pages and pages she's devoted to this issue.

2. You misunderstood me. I said the defense portrayed Fung as incompetent on one hand but on the other hand said the blood must not have been there if he didn't see it. I absolutely believe the blood was there. It was seen by many people that night.

3. Mr. Bugliosi did not want to be a special consultant. I don't know where you got this information. You should try reading his book -- you might find it interesting. I think from now on I'll call him THE BRILLIANT ONE. :D

4. The only thing 'garbage in, garbage out' describes is the defense's wild and unfounded theories. :)

[tv]

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner

I see that garbage in garbage out comment as related to the cesspool of contamination, meaning that if there was an improper mixture through contamination, that it would still result in an improper mixture. I did not see the defense portraying DF as incompetent, just prosecution biased and willing to come up with the incredible.

Good morning, William. :) Of course, I would never be argumentative but are you really saying that the defense didn't portray Dennie Fung as a hopeless incompetent? Are you trying to play games with a poor, tired woman who's been up working all night?

Are you also saying that because the "mixture" was improper (in your opinion) that the blood turned into OJ Simpsons? Why not turn into Jane Doe's blood in Kalamazoo? Quite a coincidence. :rolleyes:

[martin II]

1. martin, I could go into detail on what was wrong with Dr. Gerdes and his theories but it would take many pages. If you would read OJ UNMASKED by M.L. Rantala you could read the pages and pages she's devoted to this issue.

2. You misunderstood me. I said the defense portrayed Fung as incompetent on one hand but on the other hand said the blood must not have been there if he didn't see it. I absolutely believe the blood was there. It was seen by many people that night.

3. Mr. Bugliosi did not want to be a special consultant. I don't know where you got this information. You should try reading his book -- you might find it interesting. I think from now on I'll call him THE BRILLIANT ONE. :D

4. The only thing 'garbage in, garbage out' describes is the defense's wild and unfounded theories. :)


Sorry about that.

What about a spot was there and fung missed it.Then Brown washed that one away as he did everything else and then someone put another spot there for fung to find on his second trip.

I havs seen many interviews by VB and come to the conclusion that his time has passed him by and he tries to keep it alive by tv rants on cases that hje was not involved in.

[William Anthony]

Good morning, William. :) Of course, I would never be argumentative but are you really saying that the defense didn't portray Dennie Fung as a hopeless incompetent? Are you trying to play games with a poor, tired woman who's been up working all night?

Are you also saying that because the "mixture" was improper (in your opinion) that the blood turned into OJ Simpsons? Why not turn into Jane Doe's blood in Kalamazoo? Quite a coincidence. :rolleyes:

Yes, my view is that they did not set out to portray him as incompetent or ineffective, but that may have been the result as he tried to slant his testimony. I would never play games with you. :)

I am saying that, if a Sample of Simpson's blood was placed on an object that had the blood of someone else and those samples mixed, there would be an improper mixture. I think that is what Dr. Gerdes was referring to when he said a cesspool of contamination, meaning the handling, storage and collection of the evidence, focusing mainly on the handling of samples in the lab. It was not my opinion but the opinion of Dr. Gerdes, as I understood it.:)

[William Anthony]

Sorry about that.

What about a spot was there and fung missed it.Then Brown washed that one away as he did everything else and then someone put another spot there for fung to find on his second trip.

I havs seen many interviews by VB and come to the conclusion that his time has passed him by and he tries to keep it alive by tv rants on cases that hje was not involved in.

Sounds similar to MF to me. :)

[tv]

Sorry about that.

What about a spot was there and fung missed it.Then Brown washed that one away as he did everything else and then someone put another spot there for fung to find on his second trip.

I havs seen many interviews by VB and come to the conclusion that his time has passed him by and he tries to keep it alive by tv rants on cases that hje was not involved in.
That's okay. Maybe it wasn't worded very well by me.

I understand what you're saying, martin, but I don't believe that happened. Did Lou Brown just wash the walkways or did he say he also washed the gate? I remember that OJ Simpson's neice said she and her father (I think) went by there and saw the blood on the gate.

The Brilliant One's time has not passed by. He's very much in demand for his services. He's no longer a prosecutor; he's now a defense attorney and author. I'm sure when he comments on tv it's because he's been invited. That's no different than everyone else that comments on cases they aren't involved in. There were a lot of people that made their living commenting on the Simpson case as I'm sure you recall.

[tv]

Yes, my view is that they did not set out to portray him as incompetent or ineffective, but that may have been the result as he tried to slant his testimony. I would never play games with you. :)

I am saying that, if a Sample of Simpson's blood was placed on an object that had the blood of someone else and those samples mixed, there would be an improper mixture. I think that is what Dr. Gerdes was referring to when he said a cesspool of contamination, meaning the handling, storage and collection of the evidence, focusing mainly on the handling of samples in the lab. It was not my opinion but the opinion of Dr. Gerdes, as I understood it.:)

Dr. Gerdes also said that all the test results were valid. Just a reminder. :)

[William Anthony]

Dr. Gerdes also said that all the test results were valid. Just a reminder. :)

Valid for a cesspool of contamination?:)

[martin II]

tv
What i am saying is that at the time of the oj and other cases most labs in the u.s were operating on their own standards as there were no national agreed standard for all. So these labs were operating under stardards that did not meet recognized standards. You can see the lack of protocol use by some lab staff in the oj case.
Gerdis and others had developed standards for good work but there had not been any national pressure for them to be adopted until the oj trial and the problem was examined by the larger professional community. now there are national standards accepted by most le labs.

[tv]

Valid for a cesspool of contamination?:)
Valid as in valid.

val⋅id   /ˈvælɪd/

–adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

[tv]

tv
What i am saying is that at the time of the oj and other cases most labs in the u.s were operating on their own standards as there weere no national agreed standard for all. So these labs were operating under stardards that did not meet recognized standards. You can see the lack of protocol use by some lab staff in the oj case.
Gerdis and others had developed standards for good work but there had not been any national pressure for them to be adopted until the oj trial and the problem was examined by the larger professional community. now there are national standards accepted by most le labs.

What do you think about Dr. Henry Lee not changing gloves when handling different pieces of evidence and not wearing a hairnet while in the LAPD crime lab?

[weezer]

TV,

I posted where I read this information, it was from a book. No, common knowledge is not or are not "facts" that are generally accepted to be true by both sides. Never did the DA's introduce any evidence that the fibers found at the scene were compared to any type of clothing, let alone sweats. IMO, it is wild speculation that the "murder" sweats were found in the washing machine but were never collected. Where the fibers came from were 'speculation' and in and of itself not important. What was important was that the same fibers were found at the crime scene on the victims and at Rockingham on orenthal's glove and in the Bronco.

I have posted why I believe it is very possible that the clothes in question were in fact, taken and tested. I also posted how this could be accomplished with out the defense every finding out about it--this is if the clothes were in fact, sweats. IMO, I believe the clothes were taken out of the washing machine and examined, were put back because it was obvious they were not Simpson's. Why the clothes were looked at and put back was explained by LE -- they weren't on the search warrant AND at the time, LE was not aware that orenthal had in fact been wearing a dark sweat suit that night.

The DA's were the masters of wild speculation in this case. Look at how many people believe the theories they floated with out any proof. IMO.

It was the defense that started the trial with wild speculation and telling the jury that they would produce a witness that would prove orenthal was home at the time of the murders. Not only did they not produce that witness, they couldn't produce the witness and they were reprimanded for the lie.

[tv]

It was the defense that started the trial with wild speculation and telling the jury that they would produce a witness that would prove orenthal was home at the time of the murders. Not only did they not produce that witness, they couldn't produce the witness and they were reprimanded for the lie.

So, was it the magnificent one that told that magnificent lie?

[weezer]

What do you think about Dr. Henry Lee not changing gloves when handling different pieces of evidence and not wearing a hairnet while in the LAPD crime lab?

I always shake my head when I hear the NG's applaud lee's work (not) in this case. lee misidentified trowel marks as footprints, did no testing on the evidence, took no precautions not to contaminate the evidence when he was in the lab, and scurried out of town so that he wouldn't have to testify at the civil trial. As far as him 'setting standards,' I think his actions pretty much speak for themselves.

[tv]

I always shake my head when I hear the NG's applaud lee's work (not) in this case. lee misidentified trowel marks as footprints, did no testing on the evidence, took no precautions not to contaminate the evidence when he was in the lab, and scurried out of town so that he wouldn't have to testify at the civil trial. As far as him 'setting standards,' I think his actions pretty much speak for themselves.And yet, the criminal trial jurors were more impressed by Dr. Lee than any other witness. As one put it, it was because he smiled warmly at them. I seem to recall that OJ Simpson smiled warmly at them also...hmm.

[weezer]

So, was it the magnificent one that told that magnificent lie?

I know it's hard to believe but he told more than more than one! ;)

[weezer]

tv
What i am saying is that at the time of the oj and other cases most labs in the u.s were operating on their own standards as there weere no national agreed standard for all. So these labs were operating under stardards that did not meet recognized standards. You can see the lack of protocol use by some lab staff in the oj case.
Gerdis and others had developed standards for good work but there had not been any national pressure for them to be adopted until the oj trial and the problem was examined by the larger professional community. now there are national standards accepted by most le labs.

LOL -- please tell me you don't honestly believe gerdis had anything to do with national standards being implemented by labs. . . .

[tv]

I know it's hard to believe but he told more than more than one! ;)

Speaking of the magnificent one lying I thought this was interesting:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/12/what_johnnie_cochran_really_th.html

"There's something wrong with him," Cochran said, and he talked about other clients he'd had who somehow managed to persuade themselves that they hadn't done what they actually had done.

Simpson was a big star, a hero to some, a talented person. But, said Cochran, "I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sun was coming up again tomorrow morning." And then the lawyer went back to work on a defense so wonderfully constructed that it got off a guy who had done a truly terrible deed.

[weezer]

And yet, the criminal trial jurors were more impressed by Dr. Lee than any other witness. As one put it, it was because he smiled warmly at them. I seem to recall that OJ Simpson smiled warmly at them also...hmm.

I've come to the conclusion that the prosecution was unsuccessful because they failed to come up with the little diddy's that the jury and NG's so much like to quote. . . .;)

[martin II]

That's okay. Maybe it wasn't worded very well by me.

I understand what you're saying, martin, but I don't believe that happened. Did Lou Brown just wash the walkways or did he say he also washed the gate? I remember that OJ Simpson's neice said she and her father (I think) went by there and saw the blood on the gate.

The Brilliant One's time has not passed by. He's very much in demand for his services. He's no longer a prosecutor; he's now a defense attorney and author. I'm sure when he comments on tv it's because he's been invited. That's no different than everyone else that comments on cases they aren't involved in. There were a lot of people that made their living commenting on the Simpson case as I'm sure you recall.

Lou Browns friend connected a water hose and was said to have washed everything at the house away.I am sure he washed the front gate down as it had blood on it so i guess i can assume he did the same for the back Gate.
I think ojs sister was there when Lou and the washer were washing.

Terry seemed to have made more than one trip there based on her comments for some reason until Lou had her tossed from the place.She seem to have gone there as a little private investigator who hired herself for her book.So she has always been a question mark in my mind.

I didn't know he was a defense lawyer.Bet the change was difficult for him hahaha. Some times these tv stations are owned or supported by book houses so many of these interviews are dictated by the publishing house
and not by the on air houst.But his screaming and yelling makes for good tv.

At any rate that blood spot was sitting there on that metal gate for a month or more so in the rain and under the LA sun. so what condition do you believe it was in when Fung finally collectd it and who did the prosecution say it belonged to? I don't know. I dare say that if you or i sat next to that gate for a month or so exposed to that sun we would be baked either red or brown.

[weezer]

Lou Browns friend connected a water hose and was said to have washed everything at the house away.I am sure he washed the front gate down as it had blood on it so i guess i can assume he did the same for the back Gate.
I think ojs sister was there when Lou and the washer were washing.

Terry seemed to have made more than one trip there based on her comments for some reason until Lou had her tossed from the place.She seem to have gone there as a little private investigator who hired herself for her book.So she has always been a question mark in my mind.

I didn't know he was a defense lawyer.Bet the change was difficult for him hahaha. Some times these tv stations are owned or supported by book houses so many of these interviews are dictated by the publishing house
and not by the on air houst.But his screaming and yelling makes for good tv.

it doesn't sound like she is a 'question mark' to you -- it sounds like you've cataloged her like you do anyone and everyone who was/is critical of orenthal -- they must be part of the 'grand conspiracy'!!! imo

[tv]

Lou Browns friend connected a water hose and was said to have washed everything at the house away.I am sure he washed the front gate down as it had blood on it so i guess i can assume he did the same for the back Gate.
I think ojs sister was there when Lou and the washer were washing.

Terry seemed to have made more than one trip there based on her comments for some reason until Lou had her tossed from the place.She seem to have gone there as a little private investigator who hired herself for her book.So she has always been a question mark in my mind.

I didn't know he was a defense lawyer.Bet the change was difficult for him hahaha. Some times these tv stations are owned or supported by book houses so many of these interviews are dictated by the publishing house
and not by the on air houst.But his screaming and yelling makes for good tv.
When did you see the Brilliant One screaming and yelling? I must have missed that. I'm sure it wasn't a difficult change for him to become a defense attorney -- you must remember that he's brilliant so everything is easy for him. :)

[William Anthony]

Valid as in valid.

val⋅id   /ˈvælɪd/

–adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

Can be validly asserted that the construction of contamination with the joint addition of samples led to a cesspool of contamination and improper mixtures.

[martin II]

it doesn't sound like she is a 'question mark' to you -- it sounds like you've cataloged her like you do anyone and everyone who was/is critical of orenthal -- they must be part of the 'grand conspiracy'!!! imo

Terry said she and her father went to or dropped by Bundy. Then again she said she went with her mother to Bundy.At one of these times lous friend was washing down the bundy area.At one of these times she said she saw a blood spot on the back gate.If she was not looking for blood spots or other stuff then i guess she had better eyesight than Fung but there is no proof of that either.

[martin II]

When did you see the Brilliant One screaming and yelling? I must have missed that. I'm sure it wasn't a difficult change for him to become a defense attorney -- you must remember that he's brilliant so everything is easy for him. :)

On a few tv shows at the end of the trial attacking the defense and the prosecution.

[William Anthony]

Speaking of the magnificent one lying I thought this was interesting:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/12/what_johnnie_cochran_really_th.html

"There's something wrong with him," Cochran said, and he talked about other clients he'd had who somehow managed to persuade themselves that they hadn't done what they actually had done.

Simpson was a big star, a hero to some, a talented person. But, said Cochran, "I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sun was coming up again tomorrow morning." And then the lawyer went back to work on a defense so wonderfully constructed that it got off a guy who had done a truly terrible deed.

A true tribute to the magnificent one, he was able to set aside any of his personal feelings and hold the prosecution to its burden of proof. I see nothing in his quote where he said Simpson was a criminal or a murderer.

[weezer]

Terry said she and her father went to or dropped by Bundy. Then again she said she went with her mother to Bundy.At one of these times lous friend was washing down the bundy area.At one of these times she said she saw a blood spot on the back gate.If she was not looking for blood spots or other stuff then i guess she had better eyesight than Fung but there is no proof of that either.

but we know that there was blood on the back gate from pictures taken on the night of the murders and admitted to during the trial. The fact that fung didn't collect a 'spot' of blood on a certain day does not change the fact that it was proven to be there.

[William Anthony]

I've come to the conclusion that the prosecution was unsuccessful because they failed to come up with the little diddy's that the jury and NG's so much like to quote. . . .;)

The art/burden of persuasion is as much a part of the burden of proof as is the burden of production of evidence, which means there is probably some truth to your assertion.

[William Anthony]

but we know that there was blood on the back gate from pictures taken on the night of the murders and admitted to during the trial. The fact that fung didn't collect a 'spot' of blood on a certain day does not change the fact that it was proven to be there.

Link please to the fact that the picture was taken on the night of the murders, because as I recall there was controversy over when the picture was taken showing the spot? DF, as I recall, admitted he did not see the blood in the picture.

[weezer]

Link please to the fact that the picture was taken on the night of the murders, because as I recall there was controversy over when the picture was taken showing the spot? DF, as I recall, admitted he did not see the blood in the picture.

I'm surprised you don't remember lee's testimony and his admission that the blood was there in the original photo.

[weezer]

A true tribute to the magnificent one, he was able to set aside any of his personal feelings and hold the prosecution to its burden of proof. I see nothing in his quote where he said Simpson was a criminal or a murderer.

What Johnnie Cochran Really Thought About O.J.
It was late, nearing midnight, during O.J. Simpson's murder trial in Los Angeles. Simpson's lead attorney, Johnnie Cochran, had promised me an interview but had warned that we'd have to squeeze it in during off-hours. There weren't many off hours during the insanity of the Trial of the Century.

"Meet me at the office late," Cochran said.

How late, I asked.

"Doesn't matter," Cochran replied. "No matter how late you come, I'll be there."

Forty midnights in a row at the office had left the lawyer in a contemplative mood. The spectacle of the Simpson matter had long since ceased to impress or appall. Every bit of legal strategy and media manipulation had been combed over so incessantly that there really weren't many questions left to ask. So I asked the only question I was really curious about.

"Do you think he did it?" Defense lawyers usually recoil from that question. They either go off the record and say, "Of course he did it, but that doesn't matter, that's not my concern," or they issue some vague ritual denial all fluffed up with incantations about the sanctity of our legal system and every man's right to a vigorous defense.

Cochran by this point was well past ritual. So he dished, off the record, of course. Cochran died in 2005, so, by tradition of the craft, those comments are now fair game.

"There's something wrong with him," Cochran said, and he talked about other clients he'd had who somehow managed to persuade themselves that they hadn't done what they actually had done.

Simpson was a big star, a hero to some, a talented person. But, said Cochran, "I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sun was coming up again tomorrow morning."

And then the lawyer went back to work on a defense so wonderfully constructed that it got off a guy who had done a truly terrible deed.

[martin II]

When did you see the Brilliant One screaming and yelling? I must have missed that. I'm sure it wasn't a difficult change for him to become a defense attorney -- you must remember that he's brilliant so everything is easy for him. :)

Many lawyers seek jobs as prosecuters to get experience and build a name attacking defense lawyers then they join those terrible defense office to get a increaser in pay.Most do this.
Cochran did this and most others follow this track.

Darden was fired by GG after the oj case so he did some teaching and then opened his own defense practice with the assistance of guess who, Cochran who gave darden clients to get him started as a defense lawyer.

[martin II]

What Johnnie Cochran Really Thought About O.J.
It was late, nearing midnight, during O.J. Simpson's murder trial in Los Angeles. Simpson's lead attorney, Johnnie Cochran, had promised me an interview but had warned that we'd have to squeeze it in during off-hours. There weren't many off hours during the insanity of the Trial of the Century.

"Meet me at the office late," Cochran said.

How late, I asked.

"Doesn't matter," Cochran replied. "No matter how late you come, I'll be there."

Forty midnights in a row at the office had left the lawyer in a contemplative mood. The spectacle of the Simpson matter had long since ceased to impress or appall. Every bit of legal strategy and media manipulation had been combed over so incessantly that there really weren't many questions left to ask. So I asked the only question I was really curious about.

"Do you think he did it?" Defense lawyers usually recoil from that question. They either go off the record and say, "Of course he did it, but that doesn't matter, that's not my concern," or they issue some vague ritual denial all fluffed up with incantations about the sanctity of our legal system and every man's right to a vigorous defense.

Cochran by this point was well past ritual. So he dished, off the record, of course. Cochran died in 2005, so, by tradition of the craft, those comments are now fair game.

"There's something wrong with him," Cochran said, and he talked about other clients he'd had who somehow managed to persuade themselves that they hadn't done what they actually had done.

Simpson was a big star, a hero to some, a talented person. But, said Cochran, "I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sun was coming up again tomorrow morning."

And then the lawyer went back to work on a defense so wonderfully constructed that it got off a guy who had done a truly terrible deed.

I bet GG though vanhater was a SOB and Furhman a idiot.

[William Anthony]

I'm surprised you don't remember lee's testimony and his admission that the blood was there in the original photo.

I don't think Lee was a photography expert and the fact remains as to when the photo was taken. I will review Lee's testimony.

[William Anthony]

So, was it the magnificent one that told that magnificent lie?

IIRC, the magnificent one was prevented from producing the witnesses due to a discovery violation and not that he lied about their testimonies.

[martin II]

I had the pleasure of hearing Cochran speak twice. Both times he stated that it was the time line that did not fit for a conviction to take place.
Cochran just like others has been quoted by many some correct some just outright lies.

[William Anthony]

What Johnnie Cochran Really Thought About O.J.
It was late, nearing midnight, during O.J. Simpson's murder trial in Los Angeles. Simpson's lead attorney, Johnnie Cochran, had promised me an interview but had warned that we'd have to squeeze it in during off-hours. There weren't many off hours during the insanity of the Trial of the Century.

"Meet me at the office late," Cochran said.

How late, I asked.

"Doesn't matter," Cochran replied. "No matter how late you come, I'll be there."

Forty midnights in a row at the office had left the lawyer in a contemplative mood. The spectacle of the Simpson matter had long since ceased to impress or appall. Every bit of legal strategy and media manipulation had been combed over so incessantly that there really weren't many questions left to ask. So I asked the only question I was really curious about.

"Do you think he did it?" Defense lawyers usually recoil from that question. They either go off the record and say, "Of course he did it, but that doesn't matter, that's not my concern," or they issue some vague ritual denial all fluffed up with incantations about the sanctity of our legal system and every man's right to a vigorous defense.

Cochran by this point was well past ritual. So he dished, off the record, of course. Cochran died in 2005, so, by tradition of the craft, those comments are now fair game.

"There's something wrong with him," Cochran said, and he talked about other clients he'd had who somehow managed to persuade themselves that they hadn't done what they actually had done.

Simpson was a big star, a hero to some, a talented person. But, said Cochran, "I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sun was coming up again tomorrow morning."

And then the lawyer went back to work on a defense so wonderfully constructed that it got off a guy who had done a truly terrible deed.


What we have is an alleged off the record comment made by the magnificent one. What is the date of this article and was it after the magnificent one's death? Please provide a link to Dr. Lee's statement that the picture, which was taken on June 13th, showed blood on the gate?

[martin II]

What we have is an alleged off the record comment made by the magnificent one. What is the date of this article and was it after the magnificent one's death? Please provide a link to Dr. Lee's statement that the picture, which was taken on June 13th, showed blood on the gate?

What we have is a allegded comment by some reporter posted by a furhman appoligist seeking to discredit the magnificent one.

[weezer]

What we have is a allegded comment by some reporter posted by a furhman appoligist seeking to discredit the magnificent one.

LOL -- more 'grand conspiracy' -- LOL

[weezer]

we've had some posts on polls taken of the verdict -- I found these and thought they were interesting:

Oct. 5-7, 1995 Gallup Poll
Simpson: Criminal Trial Verdict

Verdict Verdict No
Right Wrong Opinion
Total 47% 44% 9%
Whites 42% 49% 9%
Blacks 78% 10% 12%

and

1999 Gallup Poll
Did Simpson commit murder?

Definitely 36%
Probably 38%
Probably Not 15%
Definitely Not 6%
No Opinion 6%

[weezer]

1995 Gallup-CNN/USA Today Poll
Interviews with 639 adult Americans conducted October 3, 1995

Verdict
Agree 33%
Disagree 56%

Did jury reach verdict too quickly?
Yes 57%
No 37%

Did a good job during trial
Defense 84%
Prosecutors 72%
Judge Ito 63%

Racial issues Determined Verdict
Before verdict 29%
After verdict 34%

Guilty verdict is simpson were white?
Yes 41%
No 45%

Guilty verdict if simpson were not rich?
Yes 73%
No 19%

Did prosecution do a good job?
Yes 72%
No 22%

Effect of racial issues on jury:
No Effect 22%
Considered by jury 38%
Determined the verdict 34%

Did you watch the verdict?
Yes 80%
No 19%

[weezer]

SNIPPED ". . .Dr. Lee gave his opinon about other footprints being at the scene, he explained why he felt the way the did. There were more possible footprints then just on trowels. . ."

there has never been an accusation/observation taht there were footprints on trowels. . .

JANUARY 10, 1996 - Civil trial
Henry Lee deposition

". . .Q. And as you're sitting here, you don't know if that particular
imprint that you've identified was put on the scene after the
murders or not?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now, so that I'm clear, in terms of the other imprint testimony
which dealt with the piece of paper, the envelope and the jeans, am
I correct in understanding your testimony that you're not able to
state with any scientific certainty that any imprint you might see
on any of those objects are shoe prints other than a Bruno Magli
shoe print?
A. My conclusion with all those evidence I observed, those are
consistent with bloody imprint evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Q. Have you no idea what caused them?
A. No.
Q. All right. Thank you. When you say no, you mean yes, you have no
idea what caused it?
A. No. I mean no, not say yes. I have no idea.
Q. I see.
A. What's the cause. . ."

[weezer]

SNIPPED ". . .What about where the blood was found on the socks---that the person would have had to have been wearing flood pants--I think he used Michael Jackson's pants as his example. . ."

Q. Now, you don't—is it—Have you seen—let me show you what we'll
mark as next in order. I don't know if you've ever seen this before,
it's Exhibit 21, which is a blow-up of the sock?
A. Yes.
Q. This purports to be a picture of the socks as they were found by
an LAPD officer in Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
A. Correct.
Q. Do the socks in your looking at 21 with a microscope appear to be
inside out?
A. One of the socks definite inside out. The second one consistent
with inside out. Of course, if they have a proper documentation that
day of notes and description and a better photograph... Again, this
issue, inside out, outside in, it's not an issue if you do crime
scene procedure correctly.
Q. Now, if the socks were inside out, as a possible explanation for
whatever was on side 3, that it was a transference from an
individual's finger who might have been bleeding, who took the sock
off, and when he was pulling the sock off, and the bottom portion
... as shown?
A. Anything is possible, I did not study—I didn't study the
mechanism. All I report is scientific fact. I observe a half dozen
or more red little tiny ball anchor on the fabric.
Q. But you're not expressing any scientific opinion on whether those
balls appeared there as a result of someone who had the socks on,
taking them off, or whether they appeared there because of some
other reason?
A. No. I'm not offering any opinion. Only opinion I can offer is
somehow the wet blood has to get transfer, that, and also very
limited amount.
Q. Now, how big is the spot you were talking about seeing on side 3?
Let me step back for a minute. Whatever you saw, you don't know
whether or not it was even blood because it was never tested to see
if it was blood; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so it's also correct that—Strike that. On side 1 of the sock
at the ankle there was a test of certain of the blood that was
there, and that was found by Mr. Sims to be Nicole Brown's blood?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that on side 3 we not only don't know if
it was blood, but even if it was, who's it is?
A. Definite we don't know. Of course, you can always go back and
test it and see whether or not that's blood, whose blood it is.
Q. What I was asking, maybe not too well, on that particular sock
you looked at, was there what a criminalist would call a transfer of
blood on the upper portion of the sock?
A. Yes. Apparently reports found some O.J. Simpson DNA? Right.
Q. Right. Okay. Was there also—was there not in addition through a
transfer—what appeared to be a transfer smear on the top portion of
the sock with Mr. Simpson's blood, also some of Mr. Simpson's blood
found around the toe area of the sock?
A. Again, said DN
A. You cannot mistake blood.
Q. Okay, DN
A.
A. DN
A. Because all those areas been cut, I cannot independently verify.
I have no reason to doubt DOJ—Simpson— Mr. Sims' result they found
DNA match O.J. Simpson. So the DNA was found on socks.

[martin II]

LOL -- more 'grand conspiracy' -- LOL

Naw just a regular old reporter with no one to interview trying to get noticed by telling a lie on Cochran. Then repeated by Furhman apologist hoping it will be believed.:cool:

[weezer]

Naw just a regular old reporter with no one to interview trying to get noticed by telling a lie on Cochran. Then repeated by Furhman apologist hoping it will be believed.:cool:

lol -- thanks martin -- I needed the giggle.

[martin II]

Q. Now, you don't—is it—Have you seen—let me show you what we'll
mark as next in order. I don't know if you've ever seen this before,
it's Exhibit 21, which is a blow-up of the sock?
A. Yes.
Q. This purports to be a picture of the socks as they were found by
an LAPD officer in Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
A. Correct.
Q. Do the socks in your looking at 21 with a microscope appear to be
inside out?
A. One of the socks definite inside out. The second one consistent
with inside out. Of course, if they have a proper documentation that
day of notes and description and a better photograph... Again, this
issue, inside out, outside in, it's not an issue if you do crime
scene procedure correctly.
Q. Now, if the socks were inside out, as a possible explanation for
whatever was on side 3, that it was a transference from an
individual's finger who might have been bleeding, who took the sock
off, and when he was pulling the sock off, and the bottom portion
... as shown?
A. Anything is possible, I did not study—I didn't study the
mechanism. All I report is scientific fact. I observe a half dozen
or more red little tiny ball anchor on the fabric.
Q. But you're not expressing any scientific opinion on whether those
balls appeared there as a result of someone who had the socks on,
taking them off, or whether they appeared there because of some
other reason?
A. No. I'm not offering any opinion. Only opinion I can offer is
somehow the wet blood has to get transfer, that, and also very
limited amount.
Q. Now, how big is the spot you were talking about seeing on side 3?
Let me step back for a minute. Whatever you saw, you don't know
whether or not it was even blood because it was never tested to see
if it was blood; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so it's also correct that—Strike that. On side 1 of the sock
at the ankle there was a test of certain of the blood that was
there, and that was found by Mr. Sims to be Nicole Brown's blood?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that on side 3 we not only don't know if
it was blood, but even if it was, who's it is?
A. Definite we don't know. Of course, you can always go back and
test it and see whether or not that's blood, whose blood it is.
Q. What I was asking, maybe not too well, on that particular sock
you looked at, was there what a criminalist would call a transfer of
blood on the upper portion of the sock?
A. Yes. Apparently reports found some O.J. Simpson DNA? Right.
Q. Right. Okay. Was there also—was there not in addition through a
transfer—what appeared to be a transfer smear on the top portion of
the sock with Mr. Simpson's blood, also some of Mr. Simpson's blood
found around the toe area of the sock?
A. Again, said DN
A. You cannot mistake blood.
Q. Okay, DN
A.
A. DN
A. Because all those areas been cut, I cannot independently verify.
I have no reason to doubt DOJ—Simpson— Mr. Sims' result they found
DNA match O.J. Simpson. So the DNA was found on socks.

Using what some call common sense one would notice that IF oj was wearing long legged sweat pants they would cover the socks and the top of the shoes.So it woul be highly unlikely that blood would have penetrated through the sweat pants get to where the blood was eventually found on the socks as it would have had to soak THROUGH the sweat leg.
Either the sweat pants were short legged or oj would have had to have a hole in his ankle. imo

[weezer]

Using what some call common sense one would notice that IF oj was wearing long legged sweat pants they would cover the socks and the top of the shoes.So it woul be highly unlikely that blood would have penetrated through the sweat pants get to where the blood was eventually found on the socks as it would have had to soak THROUGH the sweat leg.
Either the sweat pants were short legged or oj would have had to have a hole in his ankle. imo

or the pant leg pulled up when orenthal was bent over cutting Nicole's throat and her blood got on his socks.

[martin II]

1995 Gallup-CNN/USA Today Poll
Interviews with 639 adult Americans conducted October 3, 1995

Verdict
Agree 33%
Disagree 56%

Did jury reach verdict too quickly?
Yes 57%
No 37%

Did a good job during trial
Defense 84%
Prosecutors 72%
Judge Ito 63%

Racial issues Determined Verdict
Before verdict 29%
After verdict 34%

Guilty verdict is simpson were white?
Yes 41%
No 45%

Guilty verdict if simpson were not rich?
Yes 73%
No 19%

Did prosecution do a good job?
Yes 72%
No 22%

Effect of racial issues on jury:
No Effect 22%
Considered by jury 38%
Determined the verdict 34%

Did you watch the verdict?
Yes 80%
No 19%


This means nothing when the correctness of the verdict is the subject by those that followed the trial daily. most of these peoples opinions were shaped by media sound bites.

[martin II]

or the pant leg pulled up when orenthal was bent over cutting Nicole's throat and her blood got on his socks.

Not likely unless you just want to make up something.

[martin II]

1995 Gallup-CNN/USA Today Poll
Interviews with 639 adult Americans conducted October 3, 1995

Verdict
Agree 33%
Disagree 56%

Did jury reach verdict too quickly?
Yes 57%
No 37%

Did a good job during trial
Defense 84%
Prosecutors 72%
Judge Ito 63%

Racial issues Determined Verdict
Before verdict 29%
After verdict 34%

Guilty verdict is simpson were white?
Yes 41%
No 45%

Guilty verdict if simpson were not rich?
Yes 73%
No 19%

Did prosecution do a good job?
Yes 72%
No 22%

Effect of racial issues on jury:
No Effect 22%
Considered by jury 38%
Determined the verdict 34%

Did you watch the verdict?
Yes 80%
No 19%

What race were the people that were interviewed?

[martin II]

or the pant leg pulled up when orenthal was bent over cutting Nicole's throat and her blood got on his socks.

He would still have to have a hole in his ankle for the blood to get to where it was found on the sock.

[weezer]

Not likely unless you just want to make up something.

I'm not the one making something up -- you are. you need to re-read lee's testimony before you misstate testimony.

[weezer]

He would still have to have a hole in his ankle for the blood to get to where it was found on the sock.

why would he need a hole in his ankle? the incriminating blood found belonged to Nicole. His DNA and his blood on his socks prove nothing except his DNA and his blood were on his socks.

[weezer]

What race were the people that were interviewed?

race isn't delineated but what difference does that make?

[martin II]

race isn't delineated but what difference does that make?

Because different people saw the evidence differently.

Example a CNN poll taken BEFORE the trial started indicated that 85% of whites thought oj was guilty. So the obvious question was what were these opinions based on with NO evidence or terstimony as a guide. I say they were guided by bias media reports or something else.imo

[weezer]

Because different people saw the evidence differently.

Example a CNN poll taken BEFORE the trial started indicated that 85% of whites thought oj was guilty. So the obvious question was what were these opinions based on with NO evidence or terstimony as a guide. I say they were guided by bias media reports or something else.imo

you've posted over and over what the poll taken reflected teh 'whites' thought of orenthal's guilt. how come you don't post what the 'blacks' thought of his guilt?

[martin II]

why would he need a hole in his ankle? the incriminating blood found belonged to Nicole. His DNA and his blood on his socks prove nothing except his DNA and his blood were on his socks.

everyones blood was being held by the lapd lab so it may have been a matter of whose blood needed to be on what to support a case that was falling apart.imo:cool:

[martin II]

you've posted over and over what the poll taken reflected teh 'whites' thought of orenthal's guilt. how come you don't post what the 'blacks' thought of his guilt?

Weezer
in many of your post you have posted that the Majority of citizens opinions is what is important. so i have never felt that you felt that minority opinion should be considered or that they mattered to you. The 85% of whites represents the Majority you speak of so often.:cool:

[martin II]

race isn't delineated but what difference does that make?

Based on cnn and other polls of whites your polls seem to me made up of all or most non minorities.

[fgump2]

Because different people saw the evidence differently.

Example a CNN poll taken BEFORE the trial started indicated that 85% of whites thought oj was guilty. So the obvious question was what were these opinions based on with NO evidence or terstimony as a guide. I say they were guided by bias media reports or something else.imo

I responded at least once befoe that there was some evidence, even though some of it was kept out of the trial.
First of all some people reported that Nicole was afraid of OJS, and predicted that he would kill her. I am sure that it was in the newspaper that Susan Forward, her psychotherapist reported this, and I think some friends or relatives said this also.
Secondly OJS made statements about Nicole which to me and others seemed more consistent with guilt than with innocence.
One of the reasons I gave before, the lack of support for OJS from former team mates and coaches doesn't impress many people, but I give it some weight, and still wonder what former team mates and coaches thought of him.
Lastly, I think that any police dept would be reluctant to arrest a rich man or a celebrity because it could back fire. A rich celebrity can retaliate, sue the dept, and or bring about bad publicity.

I regard the reporters comment about J Cochran thinking OJS was guilty as unproven, although I think Cochran did think he was guilty; but the comment about the reporter being a Fuhrman apologist was pulled out of thin air. I think such unsubstantiated statements discredits the people who make it. One could have a low opoinion of both MF and OJS.

[fgump2]

Gloves, shoes, and hat.
In this posting I will try to show two things. The gloves and shoes indicate that it was probably a rich man who killed Nicole and Ron. I will also try to show that the hat, while not ideal for committing a crime, was not much worse a pick than the gloves or shoes.
When I write rich, I mean well above average in either wealth or income. By deciding to use the shoes and gloves, he showed he was less thrifty than most, and therefore probably had more money than most people.
First of all the g loves where fairly expensive, I think over $50.00 when they were bought, at least 2 years before the murders. These gloves were made for cold weather. In a city where it gets real cold many middle income men, and even some low income men might own expensive dress gloves, but LA is a warm city, and the when it gets cold, it is usually rainy.. It is not a city in which many people would own expensive leather dress gloves. This type of glove wasn’t sold on the west coast, which would indicate that the owner probably had lived east and north of LA.
The shoes indicate even more clearly that the owner was rich. These shoes had no sign of wear on the soles. I think they weren’t sold past 1991 or 1992. The shoes cost about $160.00 (worth more then). Even then, a lot of middle income and even below income men bought shoes of that price, but the point is that they would be expensive for a middle class person. They were also sued shoes. , and most expensive shoes are polishable leather not suede. Suede shoes are usually less expensive than polishable leather shoes. The person bought them, and almost never used then for 1 or 2 years. Then they decided to wear them while committing a crime. To buy expensive shoes, and then not use them much for a year or two is more consistent with rich men than with middle class men.
I think the fact that .the killer used expensive shoes and gloves indicates that the killer was rich. A middle class killer wouldn’t want to throw expensive shoes or gloves away. I think we can assume that the killer had already decided that if he killed or injured anyone, he would throw the shoes and gloves away.
Johnnie Cochran made fun of the hat saying it wasn’t a good disguise. Maybe so, but a careful criminal wouldn’t wear shoes with unusual soles, or unusual gloves to commit a crime. Johnnie Cochran also said he thought the killer left two gloves at the scene of the crime. If the killer was that careless committing the crime, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if they were also careless planning the crime. I think OJS may have meant to grab a ski mask, and grabbed the other hat by accident.

[martin II]

why would he need a hole in his ankle? the incriminating blood found belonged to Nicole. His DNA and his blood on his socks prove nothing except his DNA and his blood were on his socks.

If a blood drop had been splattered on one side of the sock when a ankle was in the sock It would have dried on that side at least by the time the sock was collected several hours after the murders.

If the sock was put on a flat surface in its mormal position and blood drops were put on one side the blood would have soaked all through the opposite side and we know that the blood was soaked through to both sides of the sock.

Also there was no evidence that the blood was attatched to the sock by any splatter method .imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

LOL -- more 'grand conspiracy' -- LOL

What is the date of the article and was the magnificent one dead?

[martin II]

Gloves, shoes, and hat.
In this posting I will try to show two things. The gloves and shoes indicate that it was probably a rich man who killed Nicole and Ron. I will also try to show that the hat, while not ideal for committing a crime, was not much worse a pick than the gloves or shoes.
When I write rich, I mean well above average in either wealth or income. By deciding to use the shoes and gloves, he showed he was less thrifty than most, and therefore probably had more money than most people.
First of all the g loves where fairly expensive, I think over $50.00 when they were bought, at least 2 years before the murders. These gloves were made for cold weather. In a city where it gets real cold many middle income men, and even some low income men might own expensive dress gloves, but LA is a warm city, and the when it gets cold, it is usually rainy.. It is not a city in which many people would own expensive leather dress gloves. This type of glove wasn’t sold on the west coast, which would indicate that the owner probably had lived east and north of LA.
The shoes indicate even more clearly that the owner was rich. These shoes had no sign of wear on the soles. I think they weren’t sold past 1991 or 1992. The shoes cost about $160.00 (worth more then). Even then, a lot of middle income and even below income men bought shoes of that price, but the point is that they would be expensive for a middle class person. They were also sued shoes. , and most expensive shoes are polishable leather not suede. Suede shoes are usually less expensive than polishable leather shoes. The person bought them, and almost never used then for 1 or 2 years. Then they decided to wear them while committing a crime. To buy expensive shoes, and then not use them much for a year or two is more consistent with rich men than with middle class men.
I think the fact that .the killer used expensive shoes and gloves indicates that the killer was rich. A middle class killer wouldn’t want to throw expensive shoes or gloves away. I think we can assume that the killer had already decided that if he killed or injured anyone, he would throw the shoes and gloves away.
Johnnie Cochran made fun of the hat saying it wasn’t a good disguise. Maybe so, but a careful criminal wouldn’t wear shoes with unusual soles, or unusual gloves to commit a crime. Johnnie Cochran also said he thought the killer left two gloves at the scene of the crime. If the killer was that careless committing the crime, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if they were also careless planning the crime. I think OJS may have meant to grab a ski mask, and grabbed the other hat by accident.

Most mofia or drug dealers have cash to buy anything they want. Remember J Gotti prancing around in$2,000,00 suits and $500.00 shoes.

Celebrities in la travel all over the country jusy like those in ny.You cannot
tell what a person may buy based on where their their main residence is.
Ski shops in LA sell skis too.

Now le thought that a tript to Bloomingdales would prove shoe ownership by oj.
Guess what the shoe manager that always sold oj his shoes and tended to celebrities like him on his last trip when the BM was in stock testified that he did not sell oj those BM shoes and that he would not have sold oj those shoes for what he was going to do at a football game in Buffalo NY because of the weather/snow etc.
So the prosecution left empty handed.

[William Anthony]

1995 Gallup-CNN/USA Today Poll
Interviews with 639 adult Americans conducted October 3, 1995



Did a good job during trial
Defense 84%
Prosecutors 72%
Judge Ito 63%



This seems to indicate reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

I regard the reporters comment about J Cochran thinking OJS was guilty as unproven, although I think Cochran did think he was guilty; but the comment about the reporter being a Fuhrman apologist was pulled out of thin air. I think such unsubstantiated statements discredits the people who make it. One could have a low opoinion of both MF and OJS.

Thank you for this but unfortunately history has born out the fact that the poster seems to be a MF apologist.

[William Anthony]

Those magical socks probably made their way to Bundy and back to Rockingham.:)

[weezer]

everyones blood was being held by the lapd lab so it may have been a matter of whose blood needed to be on what to support a case that was falling apart.imo:cool:

ahh -- more 'grand conspiracy' -- my, my, my -- even the defense's own witnesses. go figure.

[weezer]

Weezer
in many of your post you have posted that the Majority of citizens opinions is what is important. so i have never felt that you felt that minority opinion should be considered or that they mattered to you. The 85% of whites represents the Majority you speak of so often.:cool:

my posts were all inclusive -- I've never drawn a line in the sand -- as you do -- based on color. In my posts, 'majority' is a consensus of number.

[weezer]

Based on cnn and other polls of whites your polls seem to me made up of all or most non minorities.

you're obviously the resident expert on this so why don't you go ahead and post the poll info on 'minorities opinion of orenthal's guilt' before the trial.

[martin II]

Gloves, shoes, and hat.
In this posting I will try to show two things. The gloves and shoes indicate that it was probably a rich man who killed Nicole and Ron. I will also try to show that the hat, while not ideal for committing a crime, was not much worse a pick than the gloves or shoes.
When I write rich, I mean well above average in either wealth or income. By deciding to use the shoes and gloves, he showed he was less thrifty than most, and therefore probably had more money than most people.
First of all the g loves where fairly expensive, I think over $50.00 when they were bought, at least 2 years before the murders. These gloves were made for cold weather. In a city where it gets real cold many middle income men, and even some low income men might own expensive dress gloves, but LA is a warm city, and the when it gets cold, it is usually rainy.. It is not a city in which many people would own expensive leather dress gloves. This type of glove wasn’t sold on the west coast, which would indicate that the owner probably had lived east and north of LA.
The shoes indicate even more clearly that the owner was rich. These shoes had no sign of wear on the soles. I think they weren’t sold past 1991 or 1992. The shoes cost about $160.00 (worth more then). Even then, a lot of middle income and even below income men bought shoes of that price, but the point is that they would be expensive for a middle class person. They were also sued shoes. , and most expensive shoes are polishable leather not suede. Suede shoes are usually less expensive than polishable leather shoes. The person bought them, and almost never used then for 1 or 2 years. Then they decided to wear them while committing a crime. To buy expensive shoes, and then not use them much for a year or two is more consistent with rich men than with middle class men.
I think the fact that .the killer used expensive shoes and gloves indicates that the killer was rich. A middle class killer wouldn’t want to throw expensive shoes or gloves away. I think we can assume that the killer had already decided that if he killed or injured anyone, he would throw the shoes and gloves away.
Johnnie Cochran made fun of the hat saying it wasn’t a good disguise. Maybe so, but a careful criminal wouldn’t wear shoes with unusual soles, or unusual gloves to commit a crime. Johnnie Cochran also said he thought the killer left two gloves at the scene of the crime. If the killer was that careless committing the crime, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if they were also careless planning the crime. I think OJS may have meant to grab a ski mask, and grabbed the other hat by accident.


What i think is oj being a jock with several dozen sneakers in his large clothing closet would have put on a pair of sneakers if he was going to kill
instead of expensive Dress shoes. i cannot see him wearing sweats with expensive shoes.

However le went to Italy in an attempt to bring the size 12BN shoes into court for actual comparison of the size 12 bloody prints to Bundy but try as they did they were not able to show the jury the size 12 shoe that made the actual prints.So they asked the jury to trust them.

PS A fine thin pair of italian gloves that sold at $50.00 is not expensive at all.

The gloves were made for what Rubin said they were made for Dress wear.There was no testimony
that they were cold weather gloves as they would have been made of sherling or some other warmer leather. They were paper thin nappa leather gloves.

[weezer]

Most mofia or drug dealers have cash to buy anything they want. Remember J Gotti prancing around in$2,000,00 suits and $500.00 shoes.

Celebrities in la travel all over the country jusy like those in ny.You cannot
tell what a person may buy based on where their their main residence is.
Ski shops in LA sell skis too.

Now le thought that a tript to Bloomingdales would prove shoe ownership by oj.
Guess what the shoe manager that always sold oj his shoes and tended to celebrities like him on his last trip when the BM was in stock testified that he did not sell oj those BM shoes and that he would not have sold oj those shoes for what he was going to do at a football game in Buffalo NY because of the weather/snow etc.
So the prosecution left empty handed.


we do know that Nicole purchased the same brand and model in two colors -- in orenthal's size. we do know that orenthal has been shown to have worn the same brand and model of those gloves during the time period between when Nicole purchased them and they were found the night of the murders.

although he denied it, we do know that orenthal did wear that brand and model of shoes in the time period before the murders, as has been proven by independent pictures printed years before the murders.

[weezer]

Those magical socks probably made their way to Bundy and back to Rockingham.:)

you do understand that the experts agreed that Nicole's blood on the socks was put there when the blood was fresh -- right? I mean, you do understand that once someone dies, their blood changes -- right?

[weezer]

If a blood drop had been splattered on one side of the sock when a ankle was in the sock It would have dried on that side at least by the time the sock was collected several hours after the murders.

If the sock was put on a flat surface in its mormal position and blood drops were put on one side the blood would have soaked all through the opposite side and we know that the blood was soaked through to both sides of the sock.

Also there was no evidence that the blood was attatched to the sock by any splatter method .imo:cool:

and if something like say, a bloody finger, was pressed against the sock, the blood would have been deposited then. and then say when orenthal the killer removed his socks inside out -- as they were found on the bedroom floor and pictured -- and what was on the outside of the sock is now on the inside of the sock and touching the other side, I can see how that blood was on the socks.

[martin II]

we do know that Nicole purchased the same brand and model in two colors -- in orenthal's size. we do know that orenthal has been shown to have worn the same brand and model of those gloves during the time period between when Nicole purchased them and they were found the night of the murders.

although he denied it, we do know that orenthal did wear that brand and model of shoes in the time period before the murders, as has been proven by independent pictures printed years before the murders.

There was no color identification on Nicoles sales receipt. obviously they were not ojs size because they did not fit him.

[martin II]

and if something like say, a bloody finger, was pressed against the sock, the blood would have been deposited then. and then say when orenthal the killer removed his socks inside out -- as they were found on the bedroom floor and pictured -- and what was on the outside of the sock is now on the inside of the sock and touching the other side, I can see how that blood was on the socks.

NO the socks did not show what you suggest.
how long do you believe a blood drop would stay wet on a person moving around and if the blood drop was put on the sock while person was standing with the sock on it would have to be by splater and no evidence of blood splater was seen on the sock.imo

[martin II]

and if something like say, a bloody finger, was pressed against the sock, the blood would have been deposited then. and then say when orenthal the killer removed his socks inside out -- as they were found on the bedroom floor and pictured -- and what was on the outside of the sock is now on the inside of the sock and touching the other side, I can see how that blood was on the socks.

there was no blood on the white rug in his bedroom or on the white rug on the stairs as i remember imo

[William Anthony]

you do understand that the experts agreed that Nicole's blood on the socks was put there when the blood was fresh -- right? I mean, you do understand that once someone dies, their blood changes -- right?

You do understand that Dr. Cotton testify that Ms. NBS's autopsy blood sample showed less degradation than was normal and that the blood outside the body showed more, or something to that effect, right?:)

[weezer]

NO the socks did not show what you suggest.
how long do you believe a blood drop would stay wet on a person moving around and if the blood drop was put on the sock while person was standing with the sock on it would have to be by splater and no evidence of blood splater was seen on the sock.imo

really? so you denounce lee's testimony?

Q. Now, you don't—is it—Have you seen—let me show you what we'll
mark as next in order. I don't know if you've ever seen this before,
it's Exhibit 21, which is a blow-up of the sock?
A. Yes.
Q. This purports to be a picture of the socks as they were found by
an LAPD officer in Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
A. Correct.
Q. Do the socks in your looking at 21 with a microscope appear to be
inside out?
A. One of the socks definite inside out. The second one consistent
with inside out. Of course, if they have a proper documentation that
day of notes and description and a better photograph... Again, this
issue, inside out, outside in, it's not an issue if you do crime
scene procedure correctly.
Q. Now, if the socks were inside out, as a possible explanation for
whatever was on side 3, that it was a transference from an
individual's finger who might have been bleeding, who took the sock
off, and when he was pulling the sock off, and the bottom portion
... as shown?
A. Anything is possible, I did not study—I didn't study the
mechanism. All I report is scientific fact. I observe a half dozen
or more red little tiny ball anchor on the fabric.
Q. But you're not expressing any scientific opinion on whether those
balls appeared there as a result of someone who had the socks on,
taking them off, or whether they appeared there because of some
other reason?
A. No. I'm not offering any opinion. Only opinion I can offer is
somehow the wet blood has to get transfer, that, and also very
limited amount.
Q. Now, how big is the spot you were talking about seeing on side 3?
Let me step back for a minute. Whatever you saw, you don't know
whether or not it was even blood because it was never tested to see
if it was blood; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so it's also correct that—Strike that. On side 1 of the sock
at the ankle there was a test of certain of the blood that was
there, and that was found by Mr. Sims to be Nicole Brown's blood?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that on side 3 we not only don't know if
it was blood, but even if it was, who's it is?
A. Definite we don't know. Of course, you can always go back and
test it and see whether or not that's blood, whose blood it is.
Q. What I was asking, maybe not too well, on that particular sock
you looked at, was there what a criminalist would call a transfer of
blood on the upper portion of the sock?
A. Yes. Apparently reports found some O.J. Simpson DNA? Right.
Q. Right. Okay. Was there also—was there not in addition through a
transfer—what appeared to be a transfer smear on the top portion of
the sock with Mr. Simpson's blood, also some of Mr. Simpson's blood
found around the toe area of the sock?
A. Again, said DN
A. You cannot mistake blood.
Q. Okay, DN
A.
A. DN
A. Because all those areas been cut, I cannot independently verify.
I have no reason to doubt DOJ—Simpson— Mr. Sims' result they found
DNA match O.J. Simpson. So the DNA was found on socks.
Q. Now, do you know Gary Sims?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know him to be a competent, reputable scientist?
A. Oh, yes. Excellent scientist.

[weezer]

Q. And would you also agree, Dr. Lee, that there are a lot of
variables in determining how long it would take something to dry?
A. Yes.
Q. And that the amount of time it would require for a blood stain to
dry is dependent upon various factors such as weather conditions,
temperature, air movement, humidity, size, depth of stain or blood
pool, and the nature of the surface upon which the blood is shed?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. And lastly, Doctor, is it true the reason material such as this
was put in a treatise that you were involved with was to get across
to the forensic science students to be careful because it's hard to
figure out how long something's going to take to dry even in the
laboratory?
A. That's one point. Another point is to let the student know when
they collect the evidence, preserve the evidence, to be very
careful, make sure it's dry. If it's wet, you should document it's
wet.
Q. Well, in terms of what was wrong, what you're saying is that
there were—if they were completely dry, there was a wet transfer?
A. Transfer.

[martin II]

Fung examined the socks at Rockingha, no blood
Dr Lee examined the gloves at the lab no blood
Mathenson examined the glove at the lab no blood
Six weeks later Matherson examined the glove blood.
imo

[weezer]

there was no blood on the white rug in his bedroom or on the white rug on the stairs as i remember imo

I'm not sure what that proves for you but the only thing it proves to me is that he knew he was bleeding and was careful. I imagine when he went to the laundry room and turned on the light, he saw he had blood on his hands and realized he was bleeding. although he wasn't careful enough when he removed his socks. :shrug:

[weezer]

You do understand that Dr. Cotton testify that Ms. NBS's autopsy blood sample showed less degradation than was normal and that the blood outside the body showed more, or something to that effect, right?:)

LOL -- that wasn't her testimony. you should be ashamed. :tongue:

[weezer]

Fung examined the socks at Rockingha, no blood
Dr Lee examined the gloves at the lab no blood
Mathenson examined the glove at the lab no blood
Six weeks later Matherson examined the glove blood.
imo

now you're confusing me! which do you want to discuss? gloves or socks?

[martin II]

Q. And would you also agree, Dr. Lee, that there are a lot of
variables in determining how long it would take something to dry?
A. Yes.
Q. And that the amount of time it would require for a blood stain to
dry is dependent upon various factors such as weather conditions,
temperature, air movement, humidity, size, depth of stain or blood
pool, and the nature of the surface upon which the blood is shed?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. And lastly, Doctor, is it true the reason material such as this
was put in a treatise that you were involved with was to get across
to the forensic science students to be careful because it's hard to
figure out how long something's going to take to dry even in the
laboratory?
A. That's one point. Another point is to let the student know when
they collect the evidence, preserve the evidence, to be very
careful, make sure it's dry. If it's wet, you should document it's
wet.
Q. Well, in terms of what was wrong, what you're saying is that
there were—if they were completely dry, there was a wet transfer?
A. Transfer.

I think you clipped the testimony too soon.

i think you are talking about the blood spots that were put on paper and left over night in a dryer to dry as was the normal procedure for drying samples in the lab. But when these dry samples were put into a envelope the next day and when Lee opened the envelops later he saw wet blood transfer on the inside which should not have been there."Something wrong"mo.

[martin II]

now you're confusing me! which do you want to discuss? gloves or socks?

Sorry Socks is the issue.

[martin II]

I'm not sure what that proves for you but the only thing it proves to me is that he knew he was bleeding and was careful. I imagine when he went to the laundry room and turned on the light, he saw he had blood on his hands and realized he was bleeding. although he wasn't careful enough when he removed his socks. :shrug:

Prove to me that the blood you say was on the light switch was ojs.Why not any blood on the washing machine

Remember no blood splater on the sock right?

[weezer]

I think you clipped the testimony too soon.

i think you are talking about the blood spots that were put on paper and left over night in a dryer to dry as was the normal procedure for drying samples in the lab. But when these dry samples were put into a envelope the next day and when Lee opened the envelops later he saw wet blood transfer on the inside which should not have been there."Something wrong"mo.

actually I was using the example of the drying times to include fabric, etc.

[weezer]

Prove to me that the blood you say was on the light switch was ojs.Why not any blood on the washing machine.

nah -- you prove to me it wasn't orenthal's. why would there be blood on the washing machine? you must be one of those guys that throws their clothes in the general direction of the washer -- obviously orenthal opened the washer and put the sweatsuit in it.

[weezer]

I think you clipped the testimony too soon.

i think you are talking about the blood spots that were put on paper and left over night in a dryer to dry as was the normal procedure for drying samples in the lab. But when these dry samples were put into a envelope the next day and when Lee opened the envelops later he saw wet blood transfer on the inside which should not have been there."Something wrong"mo.

just so no one is misled by your post, here's what lee actually testified to:

Q. You're aware, are you not, that Mr. Sims also found the transfer
and reported it in writing?
A. In his notes. He did not report that in his laboratory report.
Q. He reported it in his notes, did he not?
A. No. He documented in his note. That's one thing. You report it in
your writing, like my report—laboratory report. I noticed wet
transfer, that's in report. Report it in writing.
Q. Where did he report it?
A. He did not report. He document in his notes. I don't—I did not
watch his testimony. If he testifies, say I observe this wet
transfer, then he report in his testimony. I did not read his
laboratory report. In other words—I assume he issued a lab report.
If he said, Item 47, I found wet transfer, that's called report in
writing.
Q. To the best of your knowledge—
A. Somebody can say, well, I observed, but I kept in my mind. You
still say somebody observed. Do you see what I mean?
Q. Isn't it true that, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Sims wrote
down—
A. Document in his note.
Q. -- that he documented in his notes—
A. Yes.
Q. -- the transfer, and those notes were turned over to Mr.
Simpson's counsel?
A. I guess so.
Q. You know that, don't you, Doctor?
A. Yeah, I guess so. Turned to which one...
Q. He has so many. But to one of them?
A. One of them.
Q. Okay.
A. Too many of them.
Q. And you do know that?
A. I know that. Of course I know that. I read the notes. This
morning, you show me the note again. Yesterday, Mr. Baker showed me
the note. Of course I know the note.
Q. All right. Isn't it true also, to your knowledge, that there
were—there was another bindle, I believe, bindle 42 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- where there was a wet transfer?
A. Yeah. 42 also a wet transfer. 42 much easier to explain because
the pattern perfect match.

[weezer]

certainly sounds like there was 'sumting wong' with lee's testimony doesn't it?

[martin II]

actually I was using the example of the drying times to include fabric, etc.

I don't know what the drying time would be for a drop of blood on some thin dress socks but in the hot LA weather even at night it would not be long. But if the blood had been deposited on the sock say by a finger smear as you suggest then it would have appeared on the sock as a smear not a drop. IMO:cool:

[weezer]

I don't know what the drying time would be for a drop of blood on some thin dress socks but in the hot LA weather even at night it would not be long. But if the blood had been deposited on the sock say by a finger smear as you suggest then it would have appeared on the sock as a smear not a drop. IMO:cool:

dang martin -- you've got this blood evidence stuff all messed up. why don't you go back and do some review and then we can discuss?

[martin II]

just so no one is misled by your post, here's what lee actually testified to:

Q. You're aware, are you not, that Mr. Sims also found the transfer
and reported it in writing?
A. In his notes. He did not report that in his laboratory report.
Q. He reported it in his notes, did he not?
A. No. He documented in his note. That's one thing. You report it in
your writing, like my report—laboratory report. I noticed wet
transfer, that's in report. Report it in writing.
Q. Where did he report it?
A. He did not report. He document in his notes. I don't—I did not
watch his testimony. If he testifies, say I observe this wet
transfer, then he report in his testimony. I did not read his
laboratory report. In other words—I assume he issued a lab report.
If he said, Item 47, I found wet transfer, that's called report in
writing.
Q. To the best of your knowledge—
A. Somebody can say, well, I observed, but I kept in my mind. You
still say somebody observed. Do you see what I mean?
Q. Isn't it true that, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Sims wrote
down—
A. Document in his note.
Q. -- that he documented in his notes—
A. Yes.
Q. -- the transfer, and those notes were turned over to Mr.
Simpson's counsel?
A. I guess so.
Q. You know that, don't you, Doctor?
A. Yeah, I guess so. Turned to which one...
Q. He has so many. But to one of them?
A. One of them.
Q. Okay.
A. Too many of them.
Q. And you do know that?
A. I know that. Of course I know that. I read the notes. This
morning, you show me the note again. Yesterday, Mr. Baker showed me
the note. Of course I know the note.
Q. All right. Isn't it true also, to your knowledge, that there
were—there was another bindle, I believe, bindle 42 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- where there was a wet transfer?
A. Yeah. 42 also a wet transfer. 42 much easier to explain because
the pattern perfect match.


There was wet transfer where should have been none."Something wrong"
leads one to wonder if the samples that caused wet transfer were not the samples that were put in the dryer the night before to dry.imo
Fini.:cool:

[martin II]

dang martin -- you've got this blood evidence stuff all messed up. why don't you go back and do some review and then we can discuss?

You are the one that offered the finger as the trasnfer agent not me.

Because you state what you state above does not make it true.:punch:

[weezer]

There was wet transfer where should have been none."Something wrong"
leads one to wonder if the samples that caused wet transfer were not the samples that were put in the dryer the night before to dry.imo
Fini.:cool:

the devil's in the details: lee dried his samples in stand-up tubes -- LA lab dried their samples laying flat. When the samples were taken out for examination, the transfer stains were noted. fini :cool:

[weezer]

You are the one that offered the finger as the trasnfer agent not me.

Because you state what you state above does not make it true.:punch:

LOL -- I didn't 'offer' it, that's what the testimony said.

[GreenIce]

IMO that was what these murders were about. OJ couldn't let Nicole go. He wanted to possess her, to control her. He was the one who walked away, not her. And, in the end, he did.

There is much more evidence of Nicole not wanting to let go. It seemed to me she was rather confident that when ever she wanted Simpson back, she could get him back. Nicole wanted to possess OJ much more then he wanted to possess her, IMO.

[martin II]

the devil's in the details: lee dried his samples in stand-up tubes -- LA lab dried their samples laying flat. When the samples were taken out for examination, the transfer stains were noted. fini :cool:

A lab person dried the sample as they have always dried them on flat paper overnight. The samples had always been dried in this fashion by next day/morning. When Dr.Lee opened the envelope the next day there was wet transfer and there should not have wet transfer because the samples should have been dry before they were put in the envelope. right? 'something wrong"

[William Anthony]

LOL -- that wasn't her testimony. you should be ashamed. :tongue:

I stand corrected. Actually, it was the other way around, which only means that the drop could have been placed on the sock from the her blood before it dried, between the time they saw no blood but decided to collect the magical socks,or anytime thereafter before her autopsy sample dried, imho.

November 14th,

"Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer
when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown
Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half
hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean
area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain
the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?

A. Yes, it could.

Q. Why could it?

A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of
experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in
a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.

If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see
on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as
tested by you?

A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation."

[GreenIce]

1. Dr. Gerdes never did anything to prove his hypothesis of contamination. Gerdes failure to consider information relevant to the issue he is investigating is simply bad scientific method. His approach is purposely limited which makes reaching the truth unlikely. Scientific procedure requires painstaking observation of all the pertinent data available.

2. There was no 'garbage in' in this case because if there had been there would have been 'garbage out' i.e., there would not have been a Simpson blood match - the test would have yielded no results.

3. I'm surprised the jury was able to make heads or tails of Mr. Fung. The defense portrayed him as (a) inefficient, perhaps incompetent (b) A man good at his job, so that if he failed to notice something - like blood on the gate - it must not have been there. Perhaps if the jury had known of Dr. Lee not wearing a hairnet or changing gloves after handling evidence at the LAPD crime lab they wouldn't have had so much confidence in his work.

6. One case Mr. Bugliosi cites is the Manson case which he prosecuted but he does talk about others.

TV,

When did the defense ever claim that someone else's blood was put through the tests and it came out Simpson's? Never did the defense make that claim. Rockne Harmon made a huge mistake because he kept on asking questions to his witness about if blood is spilled, can it change into someone else's. The defense never, never, ever, ever made that claim. It was never a question of who's blood but when and where it got there. There were five blood drops found at the Bundy that was not OJ's, Nicole's or Ron's. As Tom Lange testified, there is no way to ascertain when the blood drops were left.

VB had a DA's dream come true with the Manson case. While he was the first DA to convict a person of murder when in fact he didn't kill anybody, he just got his "family" to do it is indeed a landmark case. But be honest, what do you think the jurors thought when those three young girls shaved their heads an carved a nazi symbol on their foreheads? VB made, IMO, incredible racist remarks, assumed the had the knowledge and education to proclaim Fuhrman as being an ex-racist. Focused more of his comments on using OJ's skin color against him to the jury. VB is nothing more then a braggart who was no different then any other TV legal talking head who slammed the DA's for losing an "unloseable" case.

VB left the DA's office and became a defense a lawyer, IMO, he would have given this two of his favorite limbs to be a member of the defense team and had he been chosen, or wrote his book from a defense lawyer's view, the book would have been nothing but praise for the defense and the jurors.

The defense asked Fung hard questions. He answered them the best he could. You could tell that he was furious with the LAPD but what are the two major problems with Fung and Mozzola's work? They DID NOT inventory every blood swatch they took, they did not number and/or label every swatch they took. In other words, they had no idea which swatches came from which location. The sizes of the swatches were also an issue. That is the problem with Fung and Mozzola. The fact that the samples went out with one set of numbers and came back with a different one was very puzzling indeed.

I found it very interesting how the defense was given such credit for destroying Fung on the stand, however, it was the LAPD and the SID that did the real damage to Fung and Mozzola. He was told to get the blood on the back gate, he did---either he wasn't told about the blood drops that were later found on the back gate, or he was told about them and he looked for them but they were not there. This happened time and time again. Mozzola and Fung were only responsible for taking samples and evidence at the direction of the detectives. Something went horribly wrong with this process and the defense can't be blamed for any of it.

Dr. Lee explained why he didn't wear hairnet and booties. He also was not given any equipment that he could examine some of the evidence. He he asked for a microscope, he was given one that broken, I think that is what he testified to.

Again, no matter how much you rant and rave against Dr. Lee, he was not responsible the wet transfers. He was not responsible for the socks or any other of the key blood evidence that was found much later.

[tv]

there was no blood on the white rug in his bedroom or on the white rug on the stairs as i remember imomartin, I'm going to pretend for a moment that the blood that OJ Simpson dripped all over the place at Rockingham was because of an innocent cut to his finger. Why wasn't there blood found on the white rug in the bedroom or the stairs or other places? He said he was dripping blood everywhere from a cut, so... :shrug:

[William Anthony]

More on what was unusual about Ms. NBS's blood.

November 14th,

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you were talking about Ms. Brown Simpson's blood
before, you said that you wouldn't always necessarily expect to have a
completely clean sample, right?

A. I don't remember if I said that. What do you mean by clean?

Q. Well, the lane that's on there is from her reference sample which is the
same reference sample that we already talked about, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That's the B allele, whatever it's caused by shows-up?

A. Yes.

Q. And the lane that's on there for the sock, that can be -- you have no way of
knowing the source of the blood on -- or how that blood got on that sock, do
you?

A. Of course, not.

Q. Okay.

And blood can be taken from a reference file and put on a piece of cloth and
wiped on a sock and you can get a test result, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence.
Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled. Hypothetical.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Correct?

A. So are you asking me, could someone take some blood and wipe it on a sock
and then you would get a type?

Q. Yes.

A. Sure.

Q. Or you could take some blood and wipe it on a cotton swatch and then wipe it
on a sock, couldn't you?

A. That would be harder, but, yes, you could.

Q. There are all sort of ways you could do that; aren't there?

A. Sure.

Q. You can't tell from the intensity of the lanes on that Autorad where that
blood came from, can you?

Whether it came from a reference tube or a wound, can you?

A. No, I do think you can make some conclusions about whether it came from the
reference tube, from the patterns, from the degradation in the two patterns in
that film.

Q. You said there wasn't much degradation, didn't you?

A. I said there's virtually little to no degradation.

Q. Thank you.

A. That had been made from sock.

Q. It's very clean?

A. It's very clean.

Q. Reference samples are very clean, usually, aren't they?

A. This one is not in terms of degradation.

Q. Now, I want to talk about the formula that you used to get these big numbers
called the product rule, correct?

[martin II]

There is much more evidence of Nicole not wanting to let go. It seemed to me she was rather confident that when ever she wanted Simpson back, she could get him back. Nicole wanted to possess OJ much more then he wanted to possess her, IMO.

Nicole was playing oj. One minute she was begging him to let her come back home. He refused. Then she wanted her freedom, Then she wanted to date him again to see of they could make it and oj wined and dinned her. Took her on trips but would not let her come back to Rockingham.Then she started to date other men again. Then Paula and oj got serious and he informed everyone that he was with paula and he stopped seeing Nicole but she continued to try to interject herself into his life. An example is when she called him in NY and begged him to let her come to NY to the christmas festivies Paula had planned for him and the children. Nicole came to NY anyway and PAULA was pissed.Oj and Paula continued up until 6/11 when they attended a Jewish fundraiser togeather all hooked up like lovers.
Paula wanted oj to take her to the recital on 6/12 he refused for family reasons and she was pissed. Someone Killed Nicole on 6/12.

I think Nicole could not make up her mind what she wanted to do. Be with oj or have her freedom and date others but i am sure they did love each other. imo

[weezer]

More on what was unusual about Ms. NBS's blood.

November 14th,

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you were talking about Ms. Brown Simpson's blood
before, you said that you wouldn't always necessarily expect to have a
completely clean sample, right?

A. I don't remember if I said that. What do you mean by clean?

Q. Well, the lane that's on there is from her reference sample which is the
same reference sample that we already talked about, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That's the B allele, whatever it's caused by shows-up?

A. Yes.

Q. And the lane that's on there for the sock, that can be -- you have no way of
knowing the source of the blood on -- or how that blood got on that sock, do
you?

A. Of course, not.

Q. Okay.

And blood can be taken from a reference file and put on a piece of cloth and
wiped on a sock and you can get a test result, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence.
Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled. Hypothetical.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Correct?

A. So are you asking me, could someone take some blood and wipe it on a sock
and then you would get a type?

Q. Yes.

A. Sure.

Q. Or you could take some blood and wipe it on a cotton swatch and then wipe it
on a sock, couldn't you?

A. That would be harder, but, yes, you could.

Q. There are all sort of ways you could do that; aren't there?

A. Sure.

Q. You can't tell from the intensity of the lanes on that Autorad where that
blood came from, can you?

Whether it came from a reference tube or a wound, can you?

A. No, I do think you can make some conclusions about whether it came from the
reference tube, from the patterns, from the degradation in the two patterns in
that film.

Q. You said there wasn't much degradation, didn't you?

A. I said there's virtually little to no degradation.

Q. Thank you.

A. That had been made from sock.

Q. It's very clean?

A. It's very clean.

Q. Reference samples are very clean, usually, aren't they?

A. This one is not in terms of degradation.

Q. Now, I want to talk about the formula that you used to get these big numbers
called the product rule, correct?

:confused: I'm not sure what you feel this proves. want to give us a clue who is testifying?

[martin II]

martin, I'm going to pretend for a moment that the blood that OJ Simpson dripped all over the place at Rockingham was because of an innocent cut to his finger. Why wasn't there blood found on the white rug in the bedroom or the stairs or other places? He said he was dripping blood everywhere from a cut, so... :shrug:

I think he said he made a small cut on his finger getting stuff out of that bronco which was seen in the driveway about 4-5-6 small drops but he stopped the bleeding when he put a piece of paper on it in his kitchen i think it was. Everywhere meaning where?

[tv]

TV,

When did the defense ever claim that someone else's blood was put through the tests and it came out Simpson's? Never did the defense make that claim. Rockne Harmon made a huge mistake because he kept on asking questions to his witness about if blood is spilled, can it change into someone else's. The defense never, never, ever, ever made that claim. It was never a question of who's blood but when and where it got there. There were five blood drops found at the Bundy that was not OJ's, Nicole's or Ron's. As Tom Lange testified, there is no way to ascertain when the blood drops were left.

VB had a DA's dream come true with the Manson case. While he was the first DA to convict a person of murder when in fact he didn't kill anybody, he just got his "family" to do it is indeed a landmark case. But be honest, what do you think the jurors thought when those three young girls shaved their heads an carved a nazi symbol on their foreheads? VB made, IMO, incredible racist remarks, assumed the had the knowledge and education to proclaim Fuhrman as being an ex-racist. Focused more of his comments on using OJ's skin color against him to the jury. VB is nothing more then a braggart who was no different then any other TV legal talking head who slammed the DA's for losing an "unloseable" case.

VB left the DA's office and became a defense a lawyer, IMO, he would have given this two of his favorite limbs to be a member of the defense team and had he been chosen, or wrote his book from a defense lawyer's view, the book would have been nothing but praise for the defense and the jurors.

The defense asked Fung hard questions. He answered them the best he could. You could tell that he was furious with the LAPD but what are the two major problems with Fung and Mozzola's work? They DID NOT inventory every blood swatch they took, they did not number and/or label every swatch they took. In other words, they had no idea which swatches came from which location. The sizes of the swatches were also an issue. That is the problem with Fung and Mozzola. The fact that the samples went out with one set of numbers and came back with a different one was very puzzling indeed.

I found it very interesting how the defense was given such credit for destroying Fung on the stand, however, it was the LAPD and the SID that did the real damage to Fung and Mozzola. He was told to get the blood on the back gate, he did---either he wasn't told about the blood drops that were later found on the back gate, or he was told about them and he looked for them but they were not there. This happened time and time again. Mozzola and Fung were only responsible for taking samples and evidence at the direction of the detectives. Something went horribly wrong with this process and the defense can't be blamed for any of it.

Dr. Lee explained why he didn't wear hairnet and booties. He also was not given any equipment that he could examine some of the evidence. He he asked for a microscope, he was given one that broken, I think that is what he testified to.

Again, no matter how much you rant and rave against Dr. Lee, he was not responsible the wet transfers. He was not responsible for the socks or any other of the key blood evidence that was found much later.

I'm not going to defend Vincent Bugliosi. If you'd like ammunition against the prosecution you'd enjoy his book. He really has nothing directly to do with the case but he did speak personally with some of the trial participants and I find that interesting. If you want to continue to criticize someone you know little about that's okay with me. I was reading his books before OJ killed Ron and Nicole.

I don't rant and rave against Dr. Lee. I simply think he's over rated and not entirely honest. Charming and personable? Sure. If you consider that a rant or a rave so be it. As far as not being given a hairnet or gloves I would bet almost anything that those items are readily availabe in the lab and most likely in dispensers in plain sight.

[tv]

I think he said he made a small cut on his finger getting stuff out of that bronco which was seen in the driveway about 4-5-6 small drops but he stopped the bleeding when he put a piece of paper on it in his kitchen i think it was. Everywhere meaning where?You know where all the blood at Rockingham was found so I'm not going to go through it. That was not a small cut on his left middle finger. It was very deep and IMO he's lying about cutting himself on his cell phone. Was blood found in the kitchen? As far as I know it wasn't.

[weezer]

I think he said he made a small cut on his finger getting stuff out of that bronco which was seen in the driveway about 4-5-6 small drops but he stopped the bleeding when he put a piece of paper on it in his kitchen i think it was. Everywhere meaning where?

there were 8 drops collected for testing but more than that were visible and identified. the drops not collected were identified as a, b, c......

[tv]

Nicole was playing oj. One minute she was begging him to let her come back home. He refused. Then she wanted her freedom, Then she wanted to date him again to see of they could make it and oj wined and dinned her. Took her on trips but would not let her come back to Rockingham.Then she started to date other men again. Then Paula and oj got serious and he informed everyone that he was with paula and he stopped seeing Nicole but she continued to try to interject herself into his life. An example is when she called him in NY and begged him to let her come to NY to the christmas festivies Paula had planned for him and the children. Nicole came to NY anyway and PAULA was pissed.Oj and Paula continued up until 6/11 when they attended a Jewish fundraiser togeather all hooked up like lovers.
Paula wanted oj to take her to the recital on 6/12 he refused for family reasons and she was pissed. Someone Killed Nicole on 6/12.

I think Nicole could not make up her mind what she wanted to do. Be with oj or have her freedom and date others but i am sure they did love each other. imo

I think there was a lot of back and forth between OJ and Nicole but at the time she was killed she was done with him. She was afraid of him and furious that he had put her in a bad position with the tax situation. IMO, he knew she was finally finished with him and that contributed to his rage.

[weezer]

I'm not going to defend Vincent Bugliosi. If you'd like ammunition against the prosecution you'd enjoy his book. He really has nothing directly to do with the case but he did speak personally with some of the trial participants and I find that interesting. If you want to continue to criticize someone you know little about that's okay with me. I was reading his books before OJ killed Ron and Nicole.

I don't rant and rave against Dr. Lee. I simply think he's over rated and not entirely honest. Charming and personable? Sure. If you consider that a rant or a rave so be it. As far as not being given a hairnet or gloves I would bet almost anything that those items are readily availabe in the lab and most likely in dispensers in plain sight.

IIRC, lee lamented the fact that the microscope he was given to use was not a good one or at least not up to 'his' standards. I'm with you, I think he's way over-rated and after the Spector case, I believe he's definitely for sale to teh highest bidder.

[weezer]

I think there was a lot of back and forth between OJ and Nicole but at the time she was killed she was done with him. She was afraid of him and furious that he had put her in a bad position with the tax situation. IMO, he knew she was finally finished with him and that contributed to his rage.

she was afraid of what he would do when she finally walked away and her fears proved to be right. Can you imagine how p-o'd he was when he got to the recital and she wasn't waiting with his ticket, hadn't saved him a seat, and then dissed him for the family outing afterwards? oh, right. we know how mad he got don't' we?

[tv]

or the pant leg pulled up when orenthal was bent over cutting Nicole's throat and her blood got on his socks.My thoughts exactly!

[tv]

she was afraid of what he would do when she finally walked away and her fears proved to be right. Can you imagine how p-o'd he was when he got to the recital and she wasn't waiting with his ticket, hadn't saved him a seat, and then dissed him for the family outing afterwards? oh, right. we know how mad he got don't' we?

Yes, we sure do. He couldn't take the rejection. It's a well-known fact that the greatest danger to a battered woman is when she severs ties with the abuser. The OJ apologists can say she had left and gone back with him many times but I think he knew this time was for good and he couldn't deal with losing that control.

[weezer]

Yes, we sure do. He couldn't take the rejection. It's a well-known fact that the greatest danger to a battered woman is when she severs ties with the abuser. The OJ apologists can say she had left and gone back with him many times but I think he knew this time was for good and he couldn't deal with losing that control.

:beer::beer:

[weezer]

Nicole was playing oj. One minute she was begging him to let her come back home. He refused. Then she wanted her freedom, Then she wanted to date him again to see of they could make it and oj wined and dinned her. Took her on trips but would not let her come back to Rockingham.Then she started to date other men again. Then Paula and oj got serious and he informed everyone that he was with paula and he stopped seeing Nicole but she continued to try to interject herself into his life. An example is when she called him in NY and begged him to let her come to NY to the christmas festivies Paula had planned for him and the children. Nicole came to NY anyway and PAULA was pissed.Oj and Paula continued up until 6/11 when they attended a Jewish fundraiser togeather all hooked up like lovers.
Paula wanted oj to take her to the recital on 6/12 he refused for family reasons and she was pissed. Someone Killed Nicole on 6/12.

I think Nicole could not make up her mind what she wanted to do. Be with oj or have her freedom and date others but i am sure they did love each other. imo

yep -- orenthal was so 'over' Nicole that he wanted to commit suicide when she was murdered. orenthal was so 'over' Nicole that he let her back into his life whenever she wanted. makes sense to me -- not.

I don't believe Nicole loved orenthal as much as she was afraid of him.

[tv]

yep -- orenthal was so 'over' Nicole that he wanted to commit suicide when she was murdered. orenthal was so 'over' Nicole that he let her back into his life whenever she wanted. makes sense to me -- not.

I don't believe Nicole loved orenthal as much as she was afraid of him.

If he was so over her why did he take her keys without her knowledge...why did he care how she was dressed at the recital? It must have taken nerves of steel for her to finally make the decision to move on. She knew what he might do to her and even predicted it. I'm wondering if in her final seconds of life she realized that her prediction was coming true? Very sad.

[GreenIce]

martin, I'm going to pretend for a moment that the blood that OJ Simpson dripped all over the place at Rockingham was because of an innocent cut to his finger. Why wasn't there blood found on the white rug in the bedroom or the stairs or other places? He said he was dripping blood everywhere from a cut, so... :shrug:

TV,

If Simpson is telling the truth about cutting himself, does that mean that he is innocent of the crimes? His bleeding at Rockingham is much more consistent with his statement to the police then it is the police's theory.

The police have him bleeding right from the Bronco to his front door---yet, there is no blood on the Rockingham gate. There is no interuption of the blood drops that indicate that he stopped to open the Rockingham gate. There is no other blood drops on the estate as in behind the wall, around the pool area, nothing.

It seems to me that the police having him bleeding to the front door, then has him stop bleeding while he jumping and running and getting inside the front door, then he starts bleeding agan in the front hall way. That makes no sense, IMO.

[weezer]

If he was so over her why did he take her keys without her knowledge...why did he care how she was dressed at the recital? It must have taken nerves of steel for her to finally make the decision to move on. She knew what he might do to her and even predicted it. I'm wondering if in her final seconds of life she realized that her prediction was coming true? Very sad.

I do believe she knew -- I think his slow burn started when she rebuked his offer to take Justin and continued right up through the phone call where he made her cry. I'm betting he was threatening her then. . .

[weezer]

TV,

In honestly, if Simpson is telling the truth about cutting himself, does that mean that he is innocent of the crimes? His bleeding at Rockingham is much more consistent with his statement to the police then it is the police's theory.

The police have him bleeding right from the Bronco to his front door---yet, there is no blood on the Rockingham gate. There is no interuption of the blood drops that indicate that he stopped to open the Rockingham gate. There is no other blood drops on the estate as in behind the wall, around the pool area, nothing.

It seems to me that the police having him bleeding to the front door, then has him stop bleeding while he jumping and running and getting inside the front door, then he starts bleeding agan in the front hall way. That makes no sense, IMO.

makes perfect sense to me. orenthal's blood and a mixture of Ron's and Nicole's was inside the Bronco, orenthal's blood was on the door of the Bronco, orenthal's blood dropped straight up the drive at Rockingham and into his home. orenthal's and Nicole's blood was on the socks in his bedroom. lee found blood on the air conditioner. orenthal is the one that said he'd cut himself and was bleeding that night. why would there have been blood by the pool? is that where orenthal said he was chipping balls or napping or taking a shower?

[GreenIce]

Prove to me that the blood you say was on the light switch was ojs.Why not any blood on the washing machine

Remember no blood splater on the sock right?

Martin,

Was there are any pictures or video tape of the spots that they thought could be blood?

Was there a video the the crime scene at Bundy?

[tv]

I do believe she knew -- I think his slow burn started when she rebuked his offer to take Justin and continued right up through the phone call where he made her cry. I'm betting he was threatening her then. . .It makes perfect sense to me that that's why she would have gone to the door with a knife as Mike Gilbert reported Simpson told him. She was expecting trouble from him, imo.

[tv]

TV,

If Simpson is telling the truth about cutting himself, does that mean that he is innocent of the crimes? His bleeding at Rockingham is much more consistent with his statement to the police then it is the police's theory.

The police have him bleeding right from the Bronco to his front door---yet, there is no blood on the Rockingham gate. There is no interuption of the blood drops that indicate that he stopped to open the Rockingham gate. There is no other blood drops on the estate as in behind the wall, around the pool area, nothing.

It seems to me that the police having him bleeding to the front door, then has him stop bleeding while he jumping and running and getting inside the front door, then he starts bleeding agan in the front hall way. That makes no sense, IMO.
Why does it make any more sense for the blood to be where it was found if he innocently cut himself? When did he jump and run? This is new to me. Are you sure you're not remembering the jumping and running from the Hertz commercials?

[GreenIce]

I responded at least once befoe that there was some evidence, even though some of it was kept out of the trial.
First of all some people reported that Nicole was afraid of OJS, and predicted that he would kill her. I am sure that it was in the newspaper that Susan Forward, her psychotherapist reported this, and I think some friends or relatives said this also.
Secondly OJS made statements about Nicole which to me and others seemed more consistent with guilt than with innocence.
One of the reasons I gave before, the lack of support for OJS from former team mates and coaches doesn't impress many people, but I give it some weight, and still wonder what former team mates and coaches thought of him.
Lastly, I think that any police dept would be reluctant to arrest a rich man or a celebrity because it could back fire. A rich celebrity can retaliate, sue the dept, and or bring about bad publicity.

I regard the reporters comment about J Cochran thinking OJS was guilty as unproven, although I think Cochran did think he was guilty; but the comment about the reporter being a Fuhrman apologist was pulled out of thin air. I think such unsubstantiated statements discredits the people who make it. One could have a low opoinion of both MF and OJS.

Fgump2,

Have you read any of the books on the case by Simpson's defense team? IMO, Simpson has a "core" of friends, friends that did come to his defense who have stood by him. Did you know that what friend offered to pay an extra $30,000.00 for Simpson to have better "accomdations" in jail but Simpson would not let him do that? Did you know that one of his friends from the Buffalo Bills, who spent a huge amount of time visiting Simpson, died of cancer before the actual trial started?

Have your forgotten that Simpson knew that what ever said to any visitor was fair game to any correction officer who happend to "over hear it"?

Also, have you ever considered that Simpson did not want his "close friends" to go to the jail to see him? If you were in prison, would you want your friends to see you chained to the floor and wearing prison clothes?

How long would it have taken Simpson to figure out that anyone who even gave slightest hint of support to him were turned upon by the media? To the best of my recollection, Simpson knew that the only people he could talk to were his lawyers or members of their team where he expect privacy?

[GreenIce]

It makes perfect sense to me that that's why she would have gone to the door with a knife as Mike Gilbert reported Simpson told him. She was expecting trouble from him, imo.

TV,

If Nicole answered the door with a knife, then who put it back on the counter?

Does it make sense to you that if Nicole was afraid that OJ was going to killer with scissors, she would use a knife to protect herself? Her best protection that night when opening the door was her telephone--to call 911.

Was the knife ever tested to find out if was recently used? Isn't it possible that Nicole used the knife to trim the stems off of the flowers Sydney got that night?

When did Mike Gilbert reveal this information about Nicole answering the door with a knife? The DA's had a witness who said she talked to Nicole and Nicole was afraid of Simpson and was coming that night. Yet, they never used her in the criminal trial?

[GreenIce]

Why does it make any more sense for the blood to be where it was found if he innocently cut himself? When did he jump and run? This is new to me. Are you sure you're not remembering the jumping and running from the Hertz commercials?

TV,

How did he get behind Kato's wall? Did the police, in their interview ever tell Simpson that they found blood drops leading from his Bronco to his front door and where the blood drops were found in his hosue?

[tv]

TV,

If Nicole answered the door with a knife, then who put it back on the counter?

Does it make sense to you that if Nicole was afraid that OJ was going to killer with scissors, she would use a knife to protect herself? Her best protection that night when opening the door was her telephone--to call 911.

Was the knife ever tested to find out if was recently used? Isn't it possible that Nicole used the knife to trim the stems off of the flowers Sydney got that night?

When did Mike Gilbert reveal this information about Nicole answering the door with a knife? The DA's had a witness who said she talked to Nicole and Nicole was afraid of Simpson and was coming that night. Yet, they never used her in the criminal trial?

Many of your questions could be answered by researching the facts of the case.

As far as the knife, I don't think the one on the counter is the one that she took to the door.

[GreenIce]

It makes perfect sense to me that that's why she would have gone to the door with a knife as Mike Gilbert reported Simpson told him. She was expecting trouble from him, imo.

TV,

It was not Simpson who Nicole was fighting with and crying on the phone. In fact, Faye Resnick said that it was her who Sydney was talking about but that Nicole was not crying, she was giggling. Sydney would know the difference between the two--IMO.

[GreenIce]

Many of your questions could be answered by researching the facts of the case.

As far as the knife, I don't think the one on the counter is the one that she took to the door.

TV,

So the knife was tested and there was nothing on it? So Nicole did bring a knife to the door, it just wasn't the one that was found on the counter?

[tv]

TV,

How did he get behind Kato's wall? Did the police, in their interview ever tell Simpson that they found blood drops leading from his Bronco to his front door and where the blood drops were found in his hosue?

I think they did tell him that blood was found at his home and that it was a problem but if you want to know exactly what was said the transcript can be found online and also in several books written about the case including Lange and Vannatter's.

[tv]

TV,

So the knife was tested and there was nothing on it? So Nicole did bring a knife to the door, it just wasn't the one that was found on the counter?

I don't state my opinions as fact. It's my opinion that Mike Gilbert very well might be telling the truth when he says that OJ Simpson said she came to the door with a knife. It's my opinion that OJ Simpson very well might have been telling Mike Gilbert the truth when he said that.

[tv]

TV,

It was not Simpson who Nicole was fighting with and crying on the phone. In fact, Faye Resnick said that it was her who Sydney was talking about but that Nicole was not crying, she was giggling. Sydney would know the difference between the two--IMO.How do you know that there wasn't more than one phone call? It's funny that you believe Faye when it suits your theory of the case.

[GreenIce]

How do you know that there wasn't more than one phone call? It's funny that you believe Faye when it suits your theory of the case.

I do not believe Faye, I believe Sydney. I believe Sydney would know the difference between her mother's crying and her mother's giggling. I do not believe Faye because she described this phone call as upbeat and all about the future, namely Nicole's future. Faye was only 3 or 4 days into a rehab that she fought against---no one in this stage of withdrawal is "upbeat" and wants to talk to a friend about the friend's bright eye busy tail future. Withdrawel is a horrific experience.

I also believe that if it was Simpson who called and upset Nicole, Sydney would have been on the stand. The DA's never had a trigger that night.

However, I do wonder if perhaps that phone call was from Dr. Ameli. Dr. Ameli also dealt with people who were trying to stay off drugs. Lets, see, a relationship expert and a drug expert, both Ron and Nicole were seeing her and both were in the same group session. I find that interesting.

Dr. Ameli has Nicole shaking in fear of OJ Simpson on the very night that Nicole was murdered but the DA's wanted no part of her and neither did Petrocelli. And that is total hogwash if anyone says that the family didn't want Dr. Ameli to testify because they didn't believe her. Families don't decide which experts DA's use. Families don't decide what witnesses should be used because very often, families do not know every aspect of their loved one's life.

If we are to believe everything we hear, then Nicole could not have gone to her family for help anymore the Ron Goldman could have gone to his. Both the Goldmans and the Browns seemed to have the "you made your bed, now lay in it" attitude.

Before you go insane by replying to this---there is no doubt in my mind that had either of them gone to their parents and laid everything on the line, they would have been helped---even if it was over drugs or something like that. While I am very anti drug, if my child came to me and said that they were in way over their heads and they owed a lot of money, I would give every cent I had to pay them off. IMO, that is not the time to have "tough love" when they are in harms way.

[William Anthony]

:confused: I'm not sure what you feel this proves. want to give us a clue who is testifying?

Sure, the witness' last name is the same as the fabric that the prosecution failed to connect Simpson to wearing when they alleged he did the murders.

[William Anthony]

I think he said he made a small cut on his finger getting stuff out of that bronco which was seen in the driveway about 4-5-6 small drops but he stopped the bleeding when he put a piece of paper on it in his kitchen i think it was. Everywhere meaning where?

No blood found on the white carpet, but blood found on the socks? I guess that this would have meant that all the blood stains would have dried by the time he got home, if he was the murderer. Why not on the magical socks?

[William Anthony]

I'm not going to defend Vincent Bugliosi. If you'd like ammunition against the prosecution you'd enjoy his book. He really has nothing directly to do with the case but he did speak personally with some of the trial participants and I find that interesting. If you want to continue to criticize someone you know little about that's okay with me. I was reading his books before OJ killed Ron and Nicole.

I don't rant and rave against Dr. Lee. I simply think he's over rated and not entirely honest. Charming and personable? Sure. If you consider that a rant or a rave so be it. As far as not being given a hairnet or gloves I would bet almost anything that those items are readily availabe in the lab and most likely in dispensers in plain sight.

Perhaps, in most labs but not necessarily in a cesspool of contamination of a garbage dump-just kidding.:)

[William Anthony]

My thoughts exactly!

And only one drop got on his socks from a severed artery?

[William Anthony]

If he was so over her why did he take her keys without her knowledge...why did he care how she was dressed at the recital? It must have taken nerves of steel for her to finally make the decision to move on. She knew what he might do to her and even predicted it. I'm wondering if in her final seconds of life she realized that her prediction was coming true? Very sad.

Ah, you ladies, have you not seen an ex and found him to be dressed in a fashion that you found inappropriate for whatever reasons, whether it be that it complimented his physique or that it was wrong for the occasion? Does that mean you want to rekindle a relationship or start a new on with the ex or that you are not over them? Does being over someone mean that you lose all feelings for them or does it mean that you realize there can be no future together, despite your feelings?

[weezer]

Fgump2,

Have you read any of the books on the case by Simpson's defense team? IMO, Simpson has a "core" of friends, friends that did come to his defense who have stood by him. Did you know that what friend offered to pay an extra $30,000.00 for Simpson to have better "accomdations" in jail but Simpson would not let him do that? Did you know that one of his friends from the Buffalo Bills, who spent a huge amount of time visiting Simpson, died of cancer before the actual trial started? I have to laugh at the thought that it was up to orenthal to decide whether or not HE wanted to 'upgrade' his accommodations. you think that's something about the friend dying of cancer? heck, his ex-wife died of knife wounds just before he went to jail.

Have your forgotten that Simpson knew that what ever said to any visitor was fair game to any correction officer who happend to "over hear it"? I remember testimony and statements from family and friends that orenthal couldn't keep his mouth shut -- that he would just go on and on and on.. . .

Also, have you ever considered that Simpson did not want his "close friends" to go to the jail to see him? If you were in prison, would you want your friends to see you chained to the floor and wearing prison clothes? are you insinuating that orenthal was chained to the floor?

How long would it have taken Simpson to figure out that anyone who even gave slightest hint of support to him were turned upon by the media? To the best of my recollection, Simpson knew that the only people he could talk to were his lawyers or members of their team where he expect privacy? orenthal didn't care what happened to other people -- hell, he didn't even comfort his own children after he murdered their mother.

[weezer]

TV,

It was not Simpson who Nicole was fighting with and crying on the phone. In fact, Faye Resnick said that it was her who Sydney was talking about but that Nicole was not crying, she was giggling. Sydney would know the difference between the two--IMO.

a little misstatement here -- what was actually said is when the defense floated the theory that the phone call that Nicole was crying in was the call between Faye and Nicole and Faye said Nicole wasn't crying when they talked but was giggling. We do know, however, that orenthal did call Nicole's home that night -- he said to talk to Sydney but then of course you would have to be willing to accept what he said as truth. I don't.

[weezer]

TV,

How did he get behind Kato's wall? Did the police, in their interview ever tell Simpson that they found blood drops leading from his Bronco to his front door and where the blood drops were found in his hosue?

he jumped the fence, got blood on the air conditioner, scared Kato when he hit the wall, dropped his glove --- surely you remember all of this?

yes, the police did in fact tell orenthal about the blood. do you not remember the interview transcript?

[weezer]

TV,

So the knife was tested and there was nothing on it? So Nicole did bring a knife to the door, it just wasn't the one that was found on the counter?

orenthal said Nicole would still be alive if she hadn't brought a knife to the door. do you not believe him?

[William Anthony]

he jumped the fence, got blood on the air conditioner, scared Kato when he hit the wall, dropped his glove --- surely you remember all of this?

yes, the police did in fact tell orenthal about the blood. do you not remember the interview transcript?

There was no blood found on the air conditioner and I believe MF deposited the glove there by the evidence.

[weezer]

I do not believe Faye, I believe Sydney. I believe Sydney would know the difference between her mother's crying and her mother's giggling. I do not believe Faye because she described this phone call as upbeat and all about the future, namely Nicole's future. Faye was only 3 or 4 days into a rehab that she fought against---no one in this stage of withdrawal is "upbeat" and wants to talk to a friend about the friend's bright eye busy tail future. Withdrawel is a horrific experience. I wasn't surprised at all that Sydney said Nicole told her it was a 'friend' on the phone. Nicole was also protecting her children in the Bundy 911 call. Nope, we can pretty well bet that it was orenthal. Probably not unlike he did the Bundy incident where he was going over there and calling and threatening wouldn't you think?

I also believe that if it was Simpson who called and upset Nicole, Sydney would have been on the stand. The DA's never had a trigger that night. why would Sydney be on the stand -- she was a little girl who only knew that her mother was upset talking to someone on the phone. she didn't know who it was.

However, I do wonder if perhaps that phone call was from Dr. Ameli. Dr. Ameli also dealt with people who were trying to stay off drugs. Lets, see, a relationship expert and a drug expert, both Ron and Nicole were seeing her and both were in the same group session. I find that interesting. Nicole was not seeing a therapist to 'stay off drugs' and shame on you for posting that. In fact, on the night orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole, the only person who had drugs in his system was orenthal -- not Nicole, not Ron.

Dr. Ameli has Nicole shaking in fear of OJ Simpson on the very night that Nicole was murdered but the DA's wanted no part of her and neither did Petrocelli. And that is total hogwash if anyone says that the family didn't want Dr. Ameli to testify because they didn't believe her. Families don't decide which experts DA's use. Families don't decide what witnesses should be used because very often, families do not know every aspect of their loved one's life. who said the family didn't want Dr. Ameli to testify or that families decide what witnesses are used?

If we are to believe everything we hear, then Nicole could not have gone to her family for help anymore the Ron Goldman could have gone to his. Both the Goldmans and the Browns seemed to have the "you made your bed, now lay in it" attitude. Nicole made the statement that she thought her family loved orenthal more than they did her. My husband has said the same thing about his family and me. you shouldn't take everything to heart -- I don't.

Before you go insane by replying to this---there is no doubt in my mind that had either of them gone to their parents and laid everything on the line, they would have been helped---even if it was over drugs or something like that. While I am very anti drug, if my child came to me and said that they were in way over their heads and they owed a lot of money, I would give every cent I had to pay them off. IMO, that is not the time to have "tough love" when they are in harms way.

now I realize that for some folks and in some communities, accepting responsibilty for bad behavior is unheard of but I believe Mr. Goldman tried to get Ron to stand on his own two feet and accept responsibility. I'm not surprised that Nicole didn't tell her family about her private life -- most abused people don't.

psst -- there was no drugs, there was no 'they owed a lot of money' , and the only 'harm's way' Ron and Nicole were in was named orenthal james simpson.

[weezer]

No blood found on the white carpet, but blood found on the socks? I guess that this would have meant that all the blood stains would have dried by the time he got home, if he was the murderer. Why not on the magical socks?

the blood wasn't on the bottom of his socks and they were taken off inside out so I'm not sure why you think there would be blood on the carpet.

[William Anthony]

now I realize that for some folks and in some communities, accepting responsibilty for bad behavior is unheard of but I believe Mr. Goldman tried to get Ron to stand on his own two feet and accept responsibility. I'm not surprised that Nicole didn't tell her family about her private life -- most abused people don't.

psst -- there was no drugs, there was no 'they owed a lot of money' , and the only 'harm's way' Ron and Nicole were in was named orenthal james simpson.

I have never gotten an answer to the question but that won't stop me from asking it again. Which folks in which communities do not accept responsibility for bad behavior?

[weezer]

And only one drop got on his socks from a severed artery?

psst -- he was behind her. remember -- footprint on her back?

[weezer]

Ah, you ladies, have you not seen an ex and found him to be dressed in a fashion that you found inappropriate for whatever reasons, whether it be that it complimented his physique or that it was wrong for the occasion? Does that mean you want to rekindle a relationship or start a new on with the ex or that you are not over them? Does being over someone mean that you lose all feelings for them or does it mean that you realize there can be no future together, despite your feelings?

yep -- and I've never had an ex murdered that I was 'over' that I was willing to commit suicide for either.

[William Anthony]

the blood wasn't on the bottom of his socks and they were taken off inside out so I'm not sure why you think there would be blood on the carpet.

This would mean that he wore the blood shoes into his bedroom or the blood on the socks had already dried, not to account for no blood found in the drains. It just defies credulity, imho, to think that one leaving such a brutal crime scene and having a cut finger would not have dripped blood on a white carpet. If we assume that all the other blood had dried, why not the magical socks?

[William Anthony]

yep -- and I've never had an ex murdered that I was 'over' that I was willing to commit suicide for either.

Ah, to know that someone I love is still alive, even if I cannot be with them, especially if I had children with them and they were raising my children, would be a joy to my heart and I don't know how I would react had they been murdered in such a brutal fashion but they say men love differently from women.

[William Anthony]

psst -- he was behind her. remember -- footprint on her back?

So, he felt the drop, jumped away and then left the socks, right?

[weezer]

This would mean that he wore the blood shoes into his bedroom or the blood on the socks had already dried, not to account for no blood found in the drains. It just defies credulity, imho, to think that one leaving such a brutal crime scene and having a cut finger would not have dripped blood on a white carpet. If we assume that all the other blood had dried, why not the magical socks?

why would that mean he wore blood shoes into his bedroom? we know he had the shoes on when he left Bundy and got in the Bronco. we know the sweatsuit was found in the washing machine or maybe you think he took the sweatsuit off without removing his shoes? okay.

wait, maybe this is the part where he said he was naked! ewwwww

blood was found in the bathroom drains -- just not enough to type.

who said the blood wasn't dry on the socks? that certainly wasn't the testimony.

[weezer]

Ah, to know that someone I love is still alive, even if I cannot be with them, especially if I had children with them and they were raising my children, would be a joy to my heart and I don't know how I would react had they been murdered in such a brutal fashion but they say men love differently from women.

well we at least know how orenthal loved -- he beat, stalked, threatened, and then he murdered.

[weezer]

So, he felt the drop, jumped away and then left the socks, right?

what drop? I don't know what you're trying to say.

[William Anthony]

why would that mean he wore blood shoes into his bedroom? we know he had the shoes on when he left Bundy and got in the Bronco. we know the sweatsuit was found in the washing machine or maybe you think he took the sweatsuit off without removing his shoes? okay.

wait, maybe this is the part where he said he was naked! ewwwww

blood was found in the bathroom drains -- just not enough to type.

who said the blood wasn't dry on the socks? that certainly wasn't the testimony.

The testimony was that there was a wet transfer on the socks. How can we believe that other blood had dried and the figure that Allan Park saw, whom most believe to be Simpson, was not barefoot, like your avatar,:), or at least there is no testimony of such. We know that the sweat suit was allegedly found in the washing machine and I still have not gotten an answer to the question as to whether or not there was a picture taken of the sweat suit in the washing machine before it was taken out. As it stands now, all we know for sure is that LE placed it in there and then it was videoed. Link to the testimony that blood was found in the drains but not enough to type?

[martin II]

really? so you denounce lee's testimony?

Q. Now, you don't—is it—Have you seen—let me show you what we'll
mark as next in order. I don't know if you've ever seen this before,
it's Exhibit 21, which is a blow-up of the sock?
A. Yes.
Q. This purports to be a picture of the socks as they were found by
an LAPD officer in Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
A. Correct.
Q. Do the socks in your looking at 21 with a microscope appear to be
inside out?
A. One of the socks definite inside out. The second one consistent
with inside out. Of course, if they have a proper documentation that
day of notes and description and a better photograph... Again, this
issue, inside out, outside in, it's not an issue if you do crime
scene procedure correctly.
Q. Now, if the socks were inside out, as a possible explanation for
whatever was on side 3, that it was a transference from an
individual's finger who might have been bleeding, who took the sock
off, and when he was pulling the sock off, and the bottom portion
... as shown?
A. Anything is possible, I did not study—I didn't study the
mechanism. All I report is scientific fact. I observe a half dozen
or more red little tiny ball anchor on the fabric.
Q. But you're not expressing any scientific opinion on whether those
balls appeared there as a result of someone who had the socks on,
taking them off, or whether they appeared there because of some
other reason?
A. No. I'm not offering any opinion. Only opinion I can offer is
somehow the wet blood has to get transfer, that, and also very
limited amount.
Q. Now, how big is the spot you were talking about seeing on side 3?
Let me step back for a minute. Whatever you saw, you don't know
whether or not it was even blood because it was never tested to see
if it was blood; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so it's also correct that—Strike that. On side 1 of the sock
at the ankle there was a test of certain of the blood that was
there, and that was found by Mr. Sims to be Nicole Brown's blood?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that on side 3 we not only don't know if
it was blood, but even if it was, who's it is?
A. Definite we don't know. Of course, you can always go back and
test it and see whether or not that's blood, whose blood it is.
Q. What I was asking, maybe not too well, on that particular sock
you looked at, was there what a criminalist would call a transfer of
blood on the upper portion of the sock?
A. Yes. Apparently reports found some O.J. Simpson DNA? Right.
Q. Right. Okay. Was there also—was there not in addition through a
transfer—what appeared to be a transfer smear on the top portion of
the sock with Mr. Simpson's blood, also some of Mr. Simpson's blood
found around the toe area of the sock?
A. Again, said DN
A. You cannot mistake blood.
Q. Okay, DN
A.
A. DN
A. Because all those areas been cut, I cannot independently verify.
I have no reason to doubt DOJ—Simpson— Mr. Sims' result they found
DNA match O.J. Simpson. So the DNA was found on socks.
Q. Now, do you know Gary Sims?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know him to be a competent, reputable scientist?
A. Oh, yes. Excellent scientist.

Why did the lab not test the blood on the 3rd side of the sock? Seems like they test the blood that hey wanted to test and left the other without testing.

The socks were collected by le on 6/13. No blood was found. I think it was six weeks later no blood was found by Lee or the lab person. Then later blood was found. All this after OJS blood was drawn on 6/13 that Vanhatter had and i believe Nicoles would have been drawn then also.imo

[William Anthony]

what drop? I don't know what you're trying to say.

The drop on the sock or do you believe it splashed there when they say Simpson stepped on her back.

[martin II]

I'm not going to defend Vincent Bugliosi. If you'd like ammunition against the prosecution you'd enjoy his book. He really has nothing directly to do with the case but he did speak personally with some of the trial participants and I find that interesting. If you want to continue to criticize someone you know little about that's okay with me. I was reading his books before OJ killed Ron and Nicole.

I don't rant and rave against Dr. Lee. I simply think he's over rated and not entirely honest. Charming and personable? Sure. If you consider that a rant or a rave so be it. As far as not being given a hairnet or gloves I would bet almost anything that those items are readily availabe in the lab and most likely in dispensers in plain sight.

If you have time read LEES testimony on how the lab was very uncooperative
on what he asked for. I think he said they even gave him a broke microscope to use.imo

[William Anthony]

If you have time read LEES testimony on how the lab was very uncooperative
on what he asked for. I think he said they even gave him a broke microscope to use.imo

Ah Martin, they probably didn't know it was broken. They probably routinely used it.:)