View Full Version : Random Discussions On The Case
IIRC, the poster used the name Jswickard@law but signed his post, Jack Neal and posted that he represented Beardsley. There has been no finding but there are opinions not based on what the juries' verdicts determined the evidence proved that say Simpson is guilty of murder, which is like saying I believe it not because the evidence allows me to but because I want to believe it, IMHO.
I had the feeling that Swickard was involved in your claim. IIRC, Beardsley, Deutsch and Simpson were thick as thieves (pardon the expression) during the Vegas trial. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Linda Deutsch.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 01:51 PM
Besides, we know Gallanter is sometimes wrong. Remember his denial that there was no book in the works?
I think we may be talking about two different times. I was referring to the time when the attorney posted after seeing many post, implying that Ms. Linda was somehow involved in trying to arrange payment in the form of the ring for Beardsley's testimony and acting as a go between. I don't think Gallanter had any involvement in that alleged unsupported criminal activity and I think that we need to first determine what we are talking about before we take jabs at yet another who may not have been involved.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 01:54 PM
I had the feeling that Swickard was involved in your claim. IIRC, Beardsley, Deutsch and Simpson were thick as thieves (pardon the expression) during the Vegas trial. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Linda Deutsch.
Do you have any reason or should I say any information in the form of a link to post that attorney Neal is in someway as thick as thieves with Ms. Deutsch or that his endorsement is in someway biased?
I think we may be talking about two different times. I was referring to the time when the attorney posted after seeing many post, implying that Ms. Linda was somehow involved in trying to arrange payment in the form of the ring for Beardsley's testimony and acting as a go between. I don't think Gallanter had any involvement in that alleged unsupported criminal activity and I think that we need to first determine what we are talking about before we take jabs at yet another who may not have been involved.
What jab? Gallanter was wrong about the book. That's a fact.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 02:01 PM
What jab? Gallanter was wrong about the book. That's a fact.
This is what I meant,
"gallanter vouching for her isn't at all impressive. that's like saying, "Pot, meet kettle." By fbgweezer.
which is what your statement about Gallanter being wrong about the book was in response to. I just wanted to clarify whether or not this was an impulse or whether we were talking about two different attorneys that stood up for Ms. Deutsch.
This is what I meant,
"gallanter vouching for her isn't at all impressive. that's like saying, "Pot, meet kettle." By fbgweezer.
which is what your statement about Gallanter being wrong about the book was in response to. I just wanted to clarify whether or not this was an impulse or whether we were talking about two different attorneys that stood up for Ms. Deutsch.
If you're talking about Swickard and we're talking about Gallanter we're obviously not talking about the same person.
martin II
10-27-2009, 02:10 PM
I guess he's just a victim of the American Way. It's not bad enough that we're blamed for everything that's wrong in the world -- now Americans are to blame for OJ Simpson's sociopathic tendencies. I swear, weezer, you couldn't make this stuff up!! :D
tv
If you believe oj has no responsibility to support his adult children do you also believe he has no right to expect support from them as adults if needed?
Do you have any reason or should I say any information in the form of a link to post that attorney Neal is in someway as thick as thieves with Ms. Deutsch or that his endorsement is in someway biased?
No, do you?
tv
If you believe oj has no responsibility to support his adult children do you also believe he has no right to expect support from them as adults if needed?
They won't need to support him. The Nevada justice system has that covered.
martin II
10-27-2009, 02:21 PM
What jab? Gallanter was wrong about the book. That's a fact.
Gallanter did not know about the book because oj did not tell him. The book was a secrete between HC, Regan books, LBA and their lawyer.
Gallanter did not know about the book because oj did not tell him. The book was a secrete between HC, Regan books, LBA and their lawyer.
Exactly my point.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 02:30 PM
If you're talking about Swickard and we're talking about Gallanter we're obviously not talking about the same person.
Then, Neal stood up for her and so did Gallanter. When did Gallantar stand up for her and could you provide the link?
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 02:32 PM
No, do you?
I was not the person who made the statement and I am sure you realize that an attorney has speaking authority for his client, which is why I asked for the link supporting the statement that Beardsley and Ms. Deutsch were as thick as thieves. I am aware that she called both men and there is nothing indicating, IMHO, that she did so for any other purpose than getting a news story.
"Originally Posted by tv View Post
I had the feeling that Swickard was involved in your claim. IIRC, Beardsley, Deutsch and Simpson were thick as thieves (pardon the expression) during the Vegas trial. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Linda Deutsch." By tvdinner
"Do you have any reason or should I say any information in the form of a link to post that attorney Neal is in someway as thick as thieves with Ms. Deutsch or that his endorsement is in someway biased?" By William Anthony
"No, do you?" By tvdinner
Kayleighjo
10-27-2009, 02:48 PM
tv
If you believe oj has no responsibility to support his adult children do you also believe he has no right to expect support from them as adults if needed?
Of course. Once you reach adulthood no one has the right to "expect" support.
I was not the person who made the statement and I am sure you realize that an attorney has speaking authority for his client, which is why I asked for the link supporting the statement that Beardsley and Ms. Deutsch were as thick as thieves. I am aware that she called both men and there is nothing indicating, IMHO, that she did so for any other purpose than getting a news story.
"Originally Posted by tv View Post
I had the feeling that Swickard was involved in your claim. IIRC, Beardsley, Deutsch and Simpson were thick as thieves (pardon the expression) during the Vegas trial. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Linda Deutsch." By tvdinner
"Do you have any reason or should I say any information in the form of a link to post that attorney Neal is in someway as thick as thieves with Ms. Deutsch or that his endorsement is in someway biased?" By William Anthony
"No, do you?" By tvdinner
I didn't say that Neal/Swickard was involved. Take your spin somewhere else.
Then, Neal stood up for her and so did Gallanter. When did Gallantar stand up for her and could you provide the link?
I didn't say that Gallanter stood up for her. :shrug:
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 03:00 PM
I didn't say that Neal/Swickard was involved. Take your spin somewhere else.
You criticized the fact that Neal/Swickard stood up for Ms. Deutsch, saying it was "hardly a ringing endorsement". I am simply asking for a link to shows that Neal/Swickard had any reason to slant his endorsement of Ms. Deutsch, since you have indicated that she was as thick as thieves with Neal's/Swickard's client. However, you have already said that you do not have one. Therefore, the statement that his endorsement is hardly a ringing one is simply your unsupported statement, correct?
You criticized the fact that Neal/Swickard stood up for Ms. Deutsch, saying it was "hardly a ringing endorsement". I am simply asking for a link to shows that Neal/Swickard had any reason to slant his endorsement of Ms. Deutsch, since you have indicated that she was as thick as thieves with Neal's/Swickard's client. However, you have already said that you do not have one. Therefore, the statement that his endorsement is hardly a ringing one is simply your unsupported statement, correct?
Incorrect. I said and meant that Deutsch, Beardsley and Simpson being thick as thieves is hardly a ringing endorsement.
weezer
10-27-2009, 03:09 PM
IIRC, the poster used the name Jswickard@law but signed his post, Jack Neal and posted that he represented Beardsley. There has been no finding but there are opinions not based on what the juries' verdicts determined the evidence proved that say Simpson is guilty of murder, which is like saying I believe it not because the evidence allows me to but because I want to believe it, IMHO.
OH, I get it -- like your belief that Furhman planted evidence. . . .
martin II
10-27-2009, 03:13 PM
They won't need to support him. The Nevada justice system has that covered.
Sorry
forget oj
does any parent have a right to expect a adult child to support him.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 03:14 PM
Incorrect. I said and meant that Deutsch, Beardsley and Simpson being thick as thieves is hardly a ringing endorsement.
WTH? Who made the endorsement other than Neal and, as such, whose endorsement would have hardly been ringing? While I am here, let me address the point about Gallanter and your stance on the issue,
" Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
and Nicole loved orenthal at one time -- so what? he spent 17 years tormenting, threatening, and abusing her until he finally killed her.
gallanter vouching for her isn't at all impressive. that's like saying, "Pot, meet kettle."
Besides, we know Gallanter is sometimes wrong. Remember his denial that there was no book in the works? By tv
Technically, you did not say that Gallanter stood up for her. I guess this may have been one of your unavoidable impulses. :)
weezer
10-27-2009, 03:14 PM
Incorrect. I said and meant that Deutsch, Beardsley and Simpson being thick as thieves is hardly a ringing endorsement.
I'm not so sure that lawyer swikerd wasn't in thick with the rest of the thieves. we know that orenthal was talking to beardley through deutsch and arnelle after the robberies -- sounds to me like thick as thieves pretty much describes it.
I'm not so sure that lawyer swikerd wasn't in thick with the rest of the thieves. we know that orenthal was talking to beardley through deutsch and arnelle after the robberies -- sounds to me like thick as thieves pretty much describes it.
Hmm...I hadn't really thought of that. If Swickard knew Deutsch well enough to vouch for her he must have known her through Beardsley...it's certainly something to consider.
weezer
10-27-2009, 03:18 PM
I didn't say that Gallanter stood up for her. :shrug:
LOL -- some anonymous poster says he's an attorney and posts that deutsch is honest and unbiased . . . .it's accepted because in the exchange, the anonymous maybe?? lawyer compliments another poster -- LOL -- it actually has me laughing outloud that someone on this board has fallen for it. good grief -- deutsch has proven she is not to be trusted when it comes to orenthal and the story she is willing to spin or the lengths she is willing to go to help him. :tongue:
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 03:20 PM
OH, I get it -- like your belief that Furhman planted evidence. . . .
No, you don't get it. There is evidence to support my belief, like not finding blood where the glove was allegedly found, like no investigation showing a disturbance of the leaves were the glove was allegedly found, like MF's slip/non slip of the tongue when he said the word them, like the blood leading from Rockingham into Simpson's front door, like the missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, like the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant the evidence and like MF's admissions, rightly or wrongly, of his proclivities toward corruption on the tapes and the evidence of his racial animus toward interracial couples. Those are all supplied in the link to the trial transcripts.
WTH? Who made the endorsement other than Neal and, as such, whose endorsement would have hardly been ringing? While I am here, let me address the point about Gallanter and your stance on the issue,
" Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
and Nicole loved orenthal at one time -- so what? he spent 17 years tormenting, threatening, and abusing her until he finally killed her.
gallanter vouching for her isn't at all impressive. that's like saying, "Pot, meet kettle."
Besides, we know Gallanter is sometimes wrong. Remember his denial that there was no book in the works? By tv
Technically, you did not say that Gallanter stood up for her. I guess this may have been one of your unavoidable impulses. :)
You're free to not respond to anything you feel I can't back up. I suggest you take that option. I don't want to explain the meaning and sentence structure of everything I post and take each post apart word by word. Once in a while clarification is need. When you have to do it all the time it's tiresome and unnecessary.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 03:25 PM
I'm not so sure that lawyer swikerd wasn't in thick with the rest of the thieves. we know that orenthal was talking to beardley through deutsch and arnelle after the robberies -- sounds to me like thick as thieves pretty much describes it.
Interesting, that you call him a lawyer in this post but doubt it in the next. I understand that in order to criticize him, if he is a lawyer, you must implicate him in the den of thieves to which you have alluded. If you don't his endorsement must be given weight and you have no link to say otherwise.
martin II
10-27-2009, 03:26 PM
I'm not so sure that lawyer swikerd wasn't in thick with the rest of the thieves. we know that orenthal was talking to beardley through deutsch and arnelle after the robberies -- sounds to me like thick as thieves pretty much describes it.
Linda is a well respected reporter by those in her profession. no amount of silly attacks will change that.imo
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 03:29 PM
LOL -- some anonymous poster says he's an attorney and posts that deutsch is honest and unbiased . . . .it's accepted because in the exchange, the anonymous maybe?? lawyer compliments another poster -- LOL -- it actually has me laughing outloud that someone on this board has fallen for it. good grief -- deutsch has proven she is not to be trusted when it comes to orenthal and the story she is willing to spin or the lengths she is willing to go to help him. :tongue:
I simply asked for a link to show that she was biased or that Neal was biased in his endorsement of her and now we have to go on to whether or not he is who he says he is etc., etc.. You could have simply said that you don't care what anyone said. You have decided that she spoke good about Simpson and, therefore, you have decided that she may have been engaged in some criminal conduct. This response was meant for tv.
martin II
10-27-2009, 03:29 PM
LOL -- some anonymous poster says he's an attorney and posts that deutsch is honest and unbiased . . . .it's accepted because in the exchange, the anonymous maybe?? lawyer compliments another poster -- LOL -- it actually has me laughing outloud that someone on this board has fallen for it. good grief -- deutsch has proven she is not to be trusted when it comes to orenthal and the story she is willing to spin or the lengths she is willing to go to help him. :tongue:
What happened to that ring??
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 03:33 PM
You're free to not respond to anything you feel I can't back up. I suggest you take that option. I don't want to explain the meaning and sentence structure of everything I post and take each post apart word by word. Once in a while clarification is need. When you have to do it all the time it's tiresome and unnecessary.
I think the rules allow me to ask you to back up your statements. It is not your sentence structure that I was questioning as it was your denial that you said a certain thing and, therefore, sought clarification. You did not need to respond to any clarification that I requested but I do appreciate the fact that you felt compelled to and so did.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 03:35 PM
Linda is a well respected reporter by those in her profession. no amount of silly attacks will change that.imo
Sometimes being disrespected is the price one pays for stating an unpopular but truthful event.
I think the rules allow me to ask you to back up your statements. It is not your sentence structure that I was questioning as it was your denial that you said a certain thing and, therefore, sought clarification. You did not need to respond to any clarification that I requested but I do appreciate the fact that you felt compelled to and so did.
The rules allow you to ask and if I don't reply to your satisfaction the rule is that you don't have to discuss/respond to me regarding that subject any longer. I've clarified and there's nothing else for you to be gained in continuing to badger me about this.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 03:42 PM
The rules allow you to ask and if I don't reply to your satisfaction the rule is that you don't have to discuss/respond to me regarding that subject any longer. I've clarified and there's nothing else for you to be gained in continuing to badger me about this.
Here we go with the false accusations, again. You have offered what you say is a clarification and now I consider that and will move on, because of knowledge of to what the false accusation leads. :):seeya:
Here we go with the false accusations, again. You have offered what you say is a clarification and now I consider that and will move on, because of knowledge of to what the false accusation leads. :):seeya:
:seeya:
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 03:56 PM
What happened to that ring??
A very interesting question. What I have discovered is that, if the majority say a thing is true, regardless of whether it is or not, is that it is considered true, because the majority say it is. There has been much speculation by the majority about that ring and that several were involved in criminal conduct in regard to the ring. However, there comes along a brave person, who looks not to how the rules are applied due to what the majority say but how they should be applied due to the truth, as with Galileo. I think if one has the strength to look to the truth and just not go by what the majority says is true, the ring may be found and truth will reign in the end.
martin II
10-27-2009, 04:27 PM
it is my belief that the ring is where it has been for 13 years in Florida and the comments that linda was involved in some criminal activity is just made up stuff by some that just make up stuff on people. imo
martin II
10-27-2009, 04:40 PM
The rules allow you to ask and if I don't reply to your satisfaction the rule is that you don't have to discuss/respond to me regarding that subject any longer. I've clarified and there's nothing else for you to be gained in continuing to badger me about this.
I will use that the next time you ask me for links and i have used imo
thanks for the tip:cool:
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 05:06 PM
it is my belief that the ring is where it has been for 13 years in Florida and the comments that linda was involved in some criminal activity is just made up stuff by some that just make up stuff on people. imo
Even though many have pointed a finger , the ring will not attach itself to the finger and refuses to be collared.
martin II
10-27-2009, 05:47 PM
Even though many have pointed a finger , the ring will not attach itself to the finger and refuses to be collared.
The ring seems to be confortable in that drawyer if florida. Has never seen Beadsley or any other person than its owner. i did hear that it was not pleased by the gossip spread around about some transfer but when told of the source, it just said "don't believe the hype" imo
I will use that the next time you ask me for links and i have used imo
thanks for the tip:cool:
Don't thank me. Hotwater has posted that at least twice. I thought it was common knowledge.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 06:42 PM
The ring seems to be confortable in that drawyer if florida. Has never seen Beadsley or any other person than its owner. i did hear that it was not pleased by the gossip spread around about some transfer but when told of the source, it just said "don't believe the hype" imo
It certainly seems to be dancing rings around those running around in circles looking for it.
GreenIce
10-27-2009, 07:30 PM
According to them Mark Fuhrman is guilty of perjury but OJ Simpson was just being noble when he pleaded no contest. As usual, one standard for OJ Simpson and a different one for everyone else.
TV,
OJ Simpson was not an LE member. OJ Simpson could have fought the charges and very likley, nothing would have been done had he gone to trial. All they both had to do was to say that they were both so drunk, they didn't remember or they have gotten the housekeeper and nanny to back up their stories, so Simpson did not have to make that plea.
MF lied over and over again and he knew what was coming. He had how many months to come clean about his past? He had how opportunties while on the stand to tell the truth?
Just like many feel it was Simpson's denials in the civil trial that "convicted" his as a liar, the exact same should be said about Mark Fuhrman, IMO.
The reason MF did not go to trial is hog wash. He would have been exposed as the true criminal he is. IMO.
GreenIce
10-27-2009, 07:57 PM
That would be your opinion.
K,
I disagree. I have the evidence on my side that his wealth did not buy the verdict. However, you have no evidence to say that it did. Mr. Simpson leveled the playing field. He won his case in the DA's case in chief. To say that Simpson bought his verdict, then you must prove that bought Dennis Fung's and several other state witnesses' testimony.
That did not happen. So he could not have bought the verdict.
martin II
10-27-2009, 08:06 PM
Exactly my point.
Most large deals are based on a need to know.Those that didn't know had no need to.
martin II
10-27-2009, 08:13 PM
K,
I disagree. I have the evidence on my side that his wealth did not buy the verdict. However, you have no evidence to say that it did. Mr. Simpson leveled the playing field. He won his case in the DA's case in chief. To say that Simpson bought his verdict, then you must prove that bought Dennis Fung's and several other state witnesses' testimony.
That did not happen. So he could not have bought the verdict.
Very true and well presented.:cool:
GreenIce
10-27-2009, 09:27 PM
Very true and well presented.:cool:
Martin,
Thanks.
I think that is one of the biggest misconceptions about the Simpson trial. They won their case in the DA's case in chief. The defense turned every one of their witnesses into theirs or "washed" their expert. It was pretty impressive to get Gary Sims to say that he couldn't understand how no one saw the blood on the socks as well as not knowing how or when the blood got on the socks.
And, IMO, if pay closer attention to MF's testimony, you can see where he shoots his daggers into the DA's case. He was one upset LE member, IMO.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 06:38 AM
That's not the same as saying to the jury that they should believe her because she said so. You are wrong -- she did say Mark Fuhrman didn't plant the glove and the defense did say there was a big conspiracy.
TV,
You are right, she did later say that MF did not plant the glove. However, her reasons for him not being able to plant glove are not based on logic. Her logic is if there was a second glove at Bundy, it would have been seen and we know for a fact that is not true.
We also know for a fact, except for 2 uniforms, no other uniforms were able to get into the crime scene. There job was to secure the area, not to look for evidence.
And it has been estalished the LAPD is sieve and they lost everything that pointed to the real killer, suchblood fingerprints, a glass lens, etc.
There is no law requiring a killer to lose the other glove if the first one comes off. I think it is obvious, that the killer took the glove off at Bundy and left it there on purpose. Is it possible that this person left the second one Rockingham---the odds are slim. MF's desire to have a career making case was his for the picking and he knew it.
Like I have posted before, he already knew what the cops at the scene saw and didn't see. His odds of getting caught or someone turning on him were slim to none and he knew that.
However, in Clark's closing, she has Simpson also getting rid of the knife and the glove, so where is the knife?
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 07:28 AM
TV,
You are right, she did later say that MF did not plant the glove. However, her reasons for him not being able to plant glove are not based on logic. Her logic is if there was a second glove at Bundy, it would have been seen and we know for a fact that is not true.
We also know for a fact, except for 2 uniforms, no other uniforms were able to get into the crime scene. There job was to secure the area, not to look for evidence.
And it has been estalished the LAPD is sieve and they lost everything that pointed to the real killer, suchblood fingerprints, a glass lens, etc.
There is no law requiring a killer to lose the other glove if the first one comes off. I think it is obvious, that the killer took the glove off at Bundy and left it there on purpose. Is it possible that this person left the second one Rockingham---the odds are slim. MF's desire to have a career making case was his for the picking and he knew it.
Like I have posted before, he already knew what the cops at the scene saw and didn't see. His odds of getting caught or someone turning on him were slim to none and he knew that.
However, in Clark's closing, she has Simpson also getting rid of the knife and the glove, so where is the knife?
GreenIce,
Your statement that Ms. Clark said to believe her, because what she said is true, is proven by the fact that she said MF did not plant the glove. She is asking the jury to ignore the evidence, which I posted that was produced, and believe that MF did not plant the glove, because she said he did not and the evidence that she said is true is true, because she said it is. In fairness to her she couldn't do anything else. The defense had an easy time pointing to reasonable doubt, because of the evidence.
TV,
You are right, she did later say that MF did not plant the glove. However, her reasons for him not being able to plant glove are not based on logic. Her logic is if there was a second glove at Bundy, it would have been seen and we know for a fact that is not true.
We also know for a fact, except for 2 uniforms, no other uniforms were able to get into the crime scene. There job was to secure the area, not to look for evidence.
And it has been estalished the LAPD is sieve and they lost everything that pointed to the real killer, suchblood fingerprints, a glass lens, etc.
There is no law requiring a killer to lose the other glove if the first one comes off. I think it is obvious, that the killer took the glove off at Bundy and left it there on purpose. Is it possible that this person left the second one Rockingham---the odds are slim. MF's desire to have a career making case was his for the picking and he knew it.
Like I have posted before, he already knew what the cops at the scene saw and didn't see. His odds of getting caught or someone turning on him were slim to none and he knew that.
However, in Clark's closing, she has Simpson also getting rid of the knife and the glove, so where is the knife?
Who was it that saw a second glove at Bundy? Please tell me because I must have missed that testimony. Mark Fuhrman didn't find the Bundy glove. He found the Rockingham glove because Kato told him about the commotion behind his room and he went to investigate. You can't actually believe that there are people that 'know' he took the Rockingham glove from Bundy and have kept quiet for 15 years. You can't make up stories to fit the evidence --it doesn't work that way.
I don't know why the NGs use the knife as damning evidence that proves Simpson didn't do it. The knife could be anywhere from the LAX trashcan to Chicago. It would have been easy to get rid of it -- nothing surprising about that.
Martin,
Thanks.
I think that is one of the biggest misconceptions about the Simpson trial. They won their case in the DA's case in chief. The defense turned every one of their witnesses into theirs or "washed" their expert. It was pretty impressive to get Gary Sims to say that he couldn't understand how no one saw the blood on the socks as well as not knowing how or when the blood got on the socks.
And, IMO, if pay closer attention to MF's testimony, you can see where he shoots his daggers into the DA's case. He was one upset LE member, IMO.
Could you give us some examples of this?
TV,
OJ Simpson was not an LE member. OJ Simpson could have fought the charges and very likley, nothing would have been done had he gone to trial. All they both had to do was to say that they were both so drunk, they didn't remember or they have gotten the housekeeper and nanny to back up their stories, so Simpson did not have to make that plea.
MF lied over and over again and he knew what was coming. He had how many months to come clean about his past? He had how opportunties while on the stand to tell the truth?
Just like many feel it was Simpson's denials in the civil trial that "convicted" his as a liar, the exact same should be said about Mark Fuhrman, IMO.
The reason MF did not go to trial is hog wash. He would have been exposed as the true criminal he is. IMO.
You're saying that OJ Simpson would have gotten off for beating Nicole? If that were the case he would have gone to trial to save his image.
Simpson's outright lies and the forensic evidence caused him to be found liable in the civil trial. Mark Fuhrman's lie led to his conviction for perjury. You have no evidence that Det. Fuhrman is a 'true criminal' but there is a mountain of evidence spanning 20 years that says OJ Simpson is a true criminal. Of those two, which one is sitting in prison today?
Most large deals are based on a need to know.Those that didn't know had no need to.
The National Enquirer announced it before anyone...did the NE have a need to know?
Kayleighjo
10-28-2009, 10:10 AM
K,
I disagree. I have the evidence on my side that his wealth did not buy the verdict. However, you have no evidence to say that it did. Mr. Simpson leveled the playing field. He won his case in the DA's case in chief. To say that Simpson bought his verdict, then you must prove that bought Dennis Fung's and several other state witnesses' testimony.
That did not happen. So he could not have bought the verdict.
It's your opinion that you have evidence on your side, and it's mine that you don't.
It's no secret that wealth and fame play big roles in this society and to think otherwise is nonsense.
Simpson won his trial through a jury that, imo, let other things besides justice cloud their vision.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 10:18 AM
. You can't make up stories to fit the evidence --it doesn't work that way.
There is no physical evidence to show that anyone walked, crawled or jumped in the location where MF allegedly found the Rockingham glove before MF went back there.
Kayleighjo
10-28-2009, 10:19 AM
TV,
OJ Simpson was not an LE member. OJ Simpson could have fought the charges and very likley, nothing would have been done had he gone to trial. All they both had to do was to say that they were both so drunk, they didn't remember or they have gotten the housekeeper and nanny to back up their stories, so Simpson did not have to make that plea.
MF lied over and over again and he knew what was coming. He had how many months to come clean about his past? He had how opportunties while on the stand to tell the truth?
Just like many feel it was Simpson's denials in the civil trial that "convicted" his as a liar, the exact same should be said about Mark Fuhrman, IMO.
The reason MF did not go to trial is hog wash. He would have been exposed as the true criminal he is. IMO.
The one and only things that Fuhrman was proven to have lied about is saying the "n" word and frankly I get why he did it. He was a coward too embarrassed to admit in front of a mostly black jury on national tv that he said it. Never mind the fact that's totally irrelevant.
Same with Simpson ... confronted with a picture of a bloodied and beaten Nicole in front of a jury and he still said he never so much as hit her that night.
Here's what interests me ... you believe all the people that have negative claims against Fuhrman but you don't seem to believe anyone, including Nicole, that has negative claims against Simpson. Despite what people have said you stick firm that Simpson never beat Nicole other than 1989.
Riiight.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 10:20 AM
The National Enquirer announced it before anyone...did the NE have a need to know?
Does the sale of their tabloid depend on the information they place in it?
There is no physical evidence to show that anyone walked, crawled or jumped in the location where MF allegedly found the Rockingham glove before MF went back there.
Not true but I'm not in the mood to rehash.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 10:24 AM
It's your opinion that you have evidence on your side, and it's mine that you don't.
It's no secret that wealth and fame play big roles in this society and to think otherwise is nonsense.
Simpson won his trial through a jury that, imo, let other things besides justice cloud their vision.
I think that we can agree that the jury's vision was clouded by other things and the main thing was the lack of trustworthy and reliable evidence the prosecution was able to produce to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty as charged.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 10:25 AM
Not true but I'm not in the mood to rehash.
No need to rehash. Show one thing that was produced and the jury heard in the trial to show that anyone was back there prior to MF.
Does the sale of their tabloid depend on the information they place in it?
Of course. They must have been on the 'need to know list' ahead of Gallanter. Since OJ Simpson's life has always been perfect tabloid material I'm not surprised.
Kayleighjo
10-28-2009, 10:26 AM
I think that we can agree that the jury's vision was clouded by other things and the main thing was the lack of trustworthy and reliable evidence the prosecution was able to produce to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty as charged.
I don't think I can agree with that. I would be willing to agree that what they were clouded by had nothing to do with evidence.
No need to rehash. Show one thing that was produced and the jury heard in the trial to show that anyone was back there prior to MF.
I'm not in the mood to rehash this subject.
I don't think I can agree with that. I would be willing to agree that what they were clouded by had nothing to do with evidence.:beer:
Fame and celebrity and a ruthless defense issuing the jury a mandate to send LE a message.
Kayleighjo
10-28-2009, 10:29 AM
TV,
OJ Simpson was not an LE member. OJ Simpson could have fought the charges and very likley, nothing would have been done had he gone to trial. All they both had to do was to say that they were both so drunk, they didn't remember or they have gotten the housekeeper and nanny to back up their stories, so Simpson did not have to make that plea.
Had Simpson gone to trial the true events of that night would have come out and he couldn't risk his image and sponsorships with that. Instead, he had Nicole get on the phone with all of his sponsors and downplay the beating, saying it was nothing serious.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 10:31 AM
The one and only things that Fuhrman was proven to have lied about is saying the "n" word and frankly I get why he did it. He was a coward too embarrassed to admit in front of a mostly black jury on national tv that he said it. Never mind the fact that's totally irrelevant.
Same with Simpson ... confronted with a picture of a bloodied and beaten Nicole in front of a jury and he still said he never so much as hit her that night.
Here's what interests me ... you believe all the people that have negative claims against Fuhrman but you don't seem to believe anyone, including Nicole, that has negative claims against Simpson. Despite what people have said you stick firm that Simpson never beat Nicole other than 1989.
Riiight.
You have provided an interesting statement, "The one and only things that Fuhrman was proven to have lied about is saying the "n" word and frankly I get why he did it. " It is interesting in that you seem to imply that there are other things MF lied about but they were not proven. The fact that he denied saying it is not totally irrelevant, as the judge convicted him of perjury, and a witness' ability to tell the truth is never irrelevant.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 10:34 AM
I don't think I can agree with that. I would be willing to agree that what they were clouded by had nothing to do with evidence.
I would be willing to agree that the prosecution's eyes were clouded by everything but reliable and trustworthy evidence, since they failed to produce any.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 10:37 AM
:beer:
Fame and celebrity and a ruthless defense issuing the jury a mandate to send LE a message.
The message being to stop lying, stop fabricating/inventing/planting reasons for searches and evidence, and stop bringing charges against citizens on the basis of unreliable and untrustworthy evidence, which a good defense team with a magnificent lead attorney can tear to shreds.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 10:39 AM
Of course. They must have been on the 'need to know list' ahead of Gallanter. Since OJ Simpson's life has always been perfect tabloid material I'm not surprised.
They were more thorough than LE in their investigation of some facts, IMHO.
You have provided an interesting statement, "The one and only things that Fuhrman was proven to have lied about is saying the "n" word and frankly I get why he did it. " It is interesting in that you seem to imply that there are other things MF lied about but they were not proven. The fact that he denied saying it is not totally irrelevant, as the judge convicted him of perjury, and a witness' ability to tell the truth is never irrelevant.
Watch out, Kayleighjo, he's parsing words again -- looking for hidden meanings as usual. :rolleyes:
The message being to stop lying, stop fabricating/inventing/planting reasons for searches and evidence, and stop bringing charges against citizens on the basis of unreliable and untrustworthy evidence, which a good defense team with a magnificent lead attorney can tear to shreds.
Not one member of LE was found to be lying or fabricating evidence in the case or found to have planted evidence. It always astonishes me that some people actually believe that the case against Simpson shouldn't have been brought. I can see it now -- his blood at the crime scene, his blood mixed with the victims blood in numerous places, no alibi, a deep cut (and several smaller ones) on his left hand that he sustained the night of the murders...but we're not going to charge him...for pete's sake! :eek:
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 11:05 AM
Watch out, Kayleighjo, he's parsing words again -- looking for hidden meanings as usual. :rolleyes:
I am not looking for hidden meanings but I am cognizant of the the fact that we all make Freudian mistakes and what those mistakes indicate to me.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 11:13 AM
Not one member of LE was found to be lying or fabricating evidence in the case or found to have planted evidence. It always astonishes me that some people actually believe that the case against Simpson shouldn't have been brought. I can see it now -- his blood at the crime scene, his blood mixed with the victims blood in numerous places, no alibi, a deep cut (and several smaller ones) on his left hand that he sustained the night of the murders...but we're not going to charge him...for pete's sake! :eek:
Weigh this against the facts that no one knew when Simpson last visited his former wife and children or whether or not he cut himself anywhere on that occasion or on a prior visit, the evidence of evidence contamination and cross contamination, missing blood, blood containing EDTA in what should have been non preserved human blood, evidence that was magical, a blood trail that did not fit the theory of the crime, blood found in Chicago in the room where Simpson said he cut his finger, no eyewitness, no murder weapon, no bloody clothes, no dandruff where the evidence allows the inference it should have been, alleged mistakes about who collected what and when, doctored envelopes, doctored photo via the testimony and evidence that a LE member had motive, means and opportunity to plant evidence.
martin II
10-28-2009, 11:41 AM
The National Enquirer announced it before anyone...did the NE have a need to know?
Regan had some previous connection to NE so i believe she leaked it to them after she had paid oj and PF.
Weigh this against the facts that no one knew when Simpson last visited his former wife and children or whether or not he cut himself anywhere on that occasion or on a prior visit, the evidence of evidence contamination and cross contamination, missing blood, blood containing EDTA in what should have been non preserved human blood, evidence that was magical, a blood trail that did not fit the theory of the crime, blood found in Chicago in the room where Simpson said he cut his finger, no eyewitness, no murder weapon, no bloody clothes, no dandruff where the evidence allows the inference it should have been, alleged mistakes about who collected what and when, doctored envelopes, doctored photo via the testimony and evidence that a LE member had motive, means and opportunity to plant evidence.
The Rockingham glove was very bloody. It's considered a piece of clothing. You don't have one iota of proof that any evidence was manufactured or tampered with.. never happened. Simpson had the motive, means and opportunity to kill Ron and Nicole and drop the bloody glove behind Kato's room.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 11:58 AM
The Rockingham glove was very bloody. It's considered a piece of clothing. You don't have one iota of proof that any evidence was manufactured or tampered with.. never happened. Simpson had the motive, means and opportunity to kill Ron and Nicole and drop the bloody glove behind Kato's room.
Since the Rockingham glove was very bloody, there should have been blood on the leaves under it, if it had been dropped there, as opposed to placed there. While the glove is considered a piece of clothing, it is not one size fits all and it did not fit Simpson's hand. Not only did the prosecution fail to provide evidence of a motive but failed more miserably in providing evidence of means and opportunity for Simpson to have killed anyone. I implore you to remember that the defense did not have to prove that MF planted the glove and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt but they did provide evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that MF did and the prosecution, after bringing the charges against Simpson, failed miserably in proving them.
Kayleighjo
10-28-2009, 12:06 PM
You have provided an interesting statement, "The one and only things that Fuhrman was proven to have lied about is saying the "n" word and frankly I get why he did it. " It is interesting in that you seem to imply that there are other things MF lied about but they were not proven. The fact that he denied saying it is not totally irrelevant, as the judge convicted him of perjury, and a witness' ability to tell the truth is never irrelevant.
LOL. I'd love to point out all of the mistakes I see in postings but I'm not paranoid enough to assume that there's hidden meaning in everything.
Or should I start thinking there's something sinister with martin since he almost always spells "divorce" as "divoice"????:eek:
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 12:11 PM
LOL. I'd love to point out all of the mistakes I see in postings but I'm not paranoid enough to assume that there's hidden meaning in everything.
Or should I start thinking there's something sinister with martin since he almost always spells "divorce" as "divoice"????:eek:
I thought that you might see the humor in my post as well as the search for truth. :)
I think there is validity in Martin's spelling but I would have spelled it devoice.:)
reality check...
Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:
As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 12:36 PM
reality check...
Judge Ito's Final Ruling on Planting of Evidence:
As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.
I had asked this, "Show one thing that was produced and the jury heard in the trial to show that anyone was back there prior to MF." You responded that you did not wish to rehash but you are rehashing what you know is not judge Ito's final ruling on the subject of MF planting evidence, since MF took the stand six days after this ruling and was asked if he planted evidence in this case, but MF took the 5th.
Let's now look at what judge Ito said on September 7th.
"THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. The record in this case indicates in our hearing yesterday outside the presence of the jury--and that was an appropriate procedure to proceed outside the presence of the jury because the counsel for Mr. Fuhrman, Darryl Mounger, did advise the court that it was a--and counsel that it was a possibility, in fact, a likelihood that Mr. Fuhrman would in fact seek to exercise his right not to testify under the 5th amendment to the United States constitution. After we held our hearing yesterday afternoon, the record is also clear that Mr. Fuhrman will refuse to answer any further questions as a witness in this case and he is, therefore, unavailable within the definition of evidence code section 240. The record is equally clear that when we adjourned, that the cross-examination as to Detective Fuhrman was adjourned subject to recall for further cross-examination. The subject matter that Mr. Fuhrman is likely and reasonably and appropriately subject to further cross-examination, we have heard over the last day and a half four witnesses who have come in to testify for the specific reason to impeach the testimony of Detective Fuhrman. Kathleen Bell was called--and this is not a particularly compelling reason for further cross-examination since Detective Fuhrman was in fact asked questions about Miss Bell on direct examination and cross-examination and there was sufficient opportunity since counsel on both sides were aware of the facts and circumstances that led to Miss Bell coming to the attention of counsel on both sides. However, as to Miss Singer, as to Mr. Hodge and as to Miss McKinny, Detective Fuhrman was not direct or cross-examined as to any of the statements made by those three witnesses who were called for the specific purpose of impeaching Detective Fuhrman. The prejudice to the Defendant based upon this unique set of circumstances is the inability to further cross-examine as to these three witnesses and the impeachment evidence that they have offered through their testimony; that is Singer, Hodge and McKinny. However, the case law is equally clear to the court that it is not appropriate to call a witness before a jury that counsel know will invoke the privilege, and that is clearly the fact and circumstance here. And the court will, therefore, deny the request to recall Detective Fuhrman at this time in front of the jury. The instruction offered as an alternative by the Defense, which has been already read into the record and which is page 3 of the Defendant's points and authorities, does have the disability of mentioning the invocation of the right against self-incrimination. Evidence code section 913 clearly states that it is not appropriate to comment upon or bring to the finder of fact's attention the invocation of a privilege. California jury instruction 2.25, Caljic 2.25 deals with the situation where a witness in the course of testifying before the jury invokes the privilege and then the jury is then instructed not to infer or imply anything from that invocation. Therefore, the court will instruct the jury as possible--excuse me--as follows: Detective Mark Fuhrman is not available for further testimony as a witness in this case. His unavailability for further testimony both on cross-examination--excuse me--on cross-examination is a factor which you may consider in evaluating his credibility as a witness. Now, having found that Detective Fuhrman is unavailable as a witness under evidence code section 240, the court then has reexamined its ruling with regards to the five excerpts which are now offered as statements against penal interest, and the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. All right. Are you ready to proceed?"
I think the defense made a tactical error by arguing that they were statements against penal interest but I would have argued the evidence in the case about the glove and that the jury should have had the benefit of hearing the statements in order to draw inferences about MF's credibility, which judge Ito did in another way by means of the instruction. This is why the defense could argue that MF planted the glove.
weezer
10-28-2009, 01:11 PM
I had asked this, "Show one thing that was produced and the jury heard in the trial to show that anyone was back there prior to MF." You responded that you did not wish to rehash but you are rehashing what you know is not judge Ito's final ruling on the subject of MF planting evidence, since MF took the stand six days after this ruling and was asked if he planted evidence in this case, but MF took the 5th.
Let's now look at what judge Ito said on September 7th.
"THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. The record in this case indicates in our hearing yesterday outside the presence of the jury--and that was an appropriate procedure to proceed outside the presence of the jury because the counsel for Mr. Fuhrman, Darryl Mounger, did advise the court that it was a--and counsel that it was a possibility, in fact, a likelihood that Mr. Fuhrman would in fact seek to exercise his right not to testify under the 5th amendment to the United States constitution. After we held our hearing yesterday afternoon, the record is also clear that Mr. Fuhrman will refuse to answer any further questions as a witness in this case and he is, therefore, unavailable within the definition of evidence code section 240. The record is equally clear that when we adjourned, that the cross-examination as to Detective Fuhrman was adjourned subject to recall for further cross-examination. The subject matter that Mr. Fuhrman is likely and reasonably and appropriately subject to further cross-examination, we have heard over the last day and a half four witnesses who have come in to testify for the specific reason to impeach the testimony of Detective Fuhrman. Kathleen Bell was called--and this is not a particularly compelling reason for further cross-examination since Detective Fuhrman was in fact asked questions about Miss Bell on direct examination and cross-examination and there was sufficient opportunity since counsel on both sides were aware of the facts and circumstances that led to Miss Bell coming to the attention of counsel on both sides. However, as to Miss Singer, as to Mr. Hodge and as to Miss McKinny, Detective Fuhrman was not direct or cross-examined as to any of the statements made by those three witnesses who were called for the specific purpose of impeaching Detective Fuhrman. The prejudice to the Defendant based upon this unique set of circumstances is the inability to further cross-examine as to these three witnesses and the impeachment evidence that they have offered through their testimony; that is Singer, Hodge and McKinny. However, the case law is equally clear to the court that it is not appropriate to call a witness before a jury that counsel know will invoke the privilege, and that is clearly the fact and circumstance here. And the court will, therefore, deny the request to recall Detective Fuhrman at this time in front of the jury. The instruction offered as an alternative by the Defense, which has been already read into the record and which is page 3 of the Defendant's points and authorities, does have the disability of mentioning the invocation of the right against self-incrimination. Evidence code section 913 clearly states that it is not appropriate to comment upon or bring to the finder of fact's attention the invocation of a privilege. California jury instruction 2.25, Caljic 2.25 deals with the situation where a witness in the course of testifying before the jury invokes the privilege and then the jury is then instructed not to infer or imply anything from that invocation. Therefore, the court will instruct the jury as possible--excuse me--as follows: Detective Mark Fuhrman is not available for further testimony as a witness in this case. His unavailability for further testimony both on cross-examination--excuse me--on cross-examination is a factor which you may consider in evaluating his credibility as a witness. Now, having found that Detective Fuhrman is unavailable as a witness under evidence code section 240, the court then has reexamined its ruling with regards to the five excerpts which are now offered as statements against penal interest, and the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. All right. Are you ready to proceed?"
I think the defense made a tactical error by arguing that they were statements against penal interest but I would have argued the evidence in the case about the glove and that the jury should have had the benefit of hearing the statements in order to draw inferences about MF's credibility, which judge Ito did in another way by means of the instruction. This is why the defense could argue that MF planted the glove.
Fuhrman was willing to answer other questions but the criminal defense in their little ploy to once again manipulate the court, would not agree to not ask about Fuhrman's use of the n-word thus making the whole question anwer all about nothing. I have to laugh that 3 NG's on this board, a criminal jury (???), and a minority of folks are the only people in the world who believe LE failed to prove their case. The even more laughable part is that even if they hid their head in the sand for the criminal trial -- they still didn't want to pull it out and look at the truth in the civil trial. :shrug:
martin II
10-28-2009, 01:13 PM
Weigh this against the facts that no one knew when Simpson last visited his former wife and children or whether or not he cut himself anywhere on that occasion or on a prior visit, the evidence of evidence contamination and cross contamination, missing blood, blood containing EDTA in what should have been non preserved human blood, evidence that was magical, a blood trail that did not fit the theory of the crime, blood found in Chicago in the room where Simpson said he cut his finger, no eyewitness, no murder weapon, no bloody clothes, no dandruff where the evidence allows the inference it should have been, alleged mistakes about who collected what and when, doctored envelopes, doctored photo via the testimony and evidence that a LE member had motive, means and opportunity to plant evidence.
If i may
The blood that Mazzola collected that was switched into new bendels without her initials.
martin II
10-28-2009, 01:19 PM
Fuhrman was willing to answer other questions but the criminal defense in their little ploy to once again manipulate the court, would not agree to not ask about Fuhrman's use of the n-word thus making the whole question anwer all about nothing. I have to laugh that 3 NG's on this board, a criminal jury (???), and a minority of folks are the only people in the world who believe LE failed to prove their case. The even more laughable part is that even if they hid their head in the sand for the criminal trial -- they still didn't want to pull it out and look at the truth in the civil trial. :shrug:
The opinions of those not in the court room and on the jury does not really matter.What the majority thinks matters less.
what matters is what the jury saw and heard and what THE JUDGES INSTRUCTIONS TOLD THEM WHAT THEY HAD/COULD DO WITH THAT TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE. IMO
martin II
10-28-2009, 01:31 PM
jUDGES INSTRUCTIONS
'If you find that any witness lied on any material fact you can reject all of his/her testimony"
The jury said Vannater was not truthful. Furhman lied. They knew ,Mazzola samples were switched. they saw and heard Martz LIE. They saw and heard Rubin lie.They saw Katos and Parks conflicting testimony. They saw and heard Phillips conflicting testimnony.They did not believe the DNA.They heard unbelievable testiony from lab tech about the glove anmd Martz proved that EDTA was on the glove and the gate. They heard G Sims testimony.
They were not given murder clothes,shoes or knife.
The jury made the correct verdict.
That may not be all.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 01:47 PM
Fuhrman was willing to answer other questions but the criminal defense in their little ploy to once again manipulate the court, would not agree to not ask about Fuhrman's use of the n-word thus making the whole question anwer all about nothing. I have to laugh that 3 NG's on this board, a criminal jury (???), and a minority of folks are the only people in the world who believe LE failed to prove their case. The even more laughable part is that even if they hid their head in the sand for the criminal trial -- they still didn't want to pull it out and look at the truth in the civil trial. :shrug:
Let's look to see what was represented to the court about whether or not MF was willing to answer any questions.
September 6th
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Let's have it quiet, please. Where did Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Cochran disappear to?
MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Cochran is in lockup.
MR. NEUFELD: The two we need.
(The Defendant is now present.)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present, including counsel Kent Spaulding. The court has acted upon the application pro hac vice and approved that. Good afternoon, counsel.
MR. SPAULDING: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Over the--during the brief recess, counsel had the opportunity to informally discuss scheduling matters and based upon the Brady issue that the court still needs to deal with this afternoon. Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: One thing, your Honor, on the Brady matter. I had indicated to the court that with regard to Brady, Messers. Scheck and Shapiro along with Miss Shawn Snider Chapman will be down at 4 o'clock. They're in the process of interviewing witnesses. They did indicate to me that there may be--they may not be ready to proceed completely today on that and may ask to start that tomorrow morning, and I told them to come by 4 o'clock so they could let the court know that. That's the only holdup, what we talked about earlier.
THE COURT: All right. And I see Mr. Mounger stepped out briefly.
MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, may I take this opportunity very briefly just to mention something that I neglected--it's my fault--I neglected to mention to the court earlier?
THE COURT: No, I don't think so, Miss Lewis. We've--you've filed your points and authorities. I've heard rather extensive argument--
MS. LEWIS: Well, there was a supplemental memorandum filed by the Defense yesterday afternoon after they had already filed their two other memos in the same thing that I did not pay careful attention to. So I--just briefly for the record, please. Please. I can see your--we have time. We are waiting for Mr. Mounger. Very quickly. Very quickly. It might help the court in its ruling.
THE COURT: The moment he walks in the court.
MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor. First of all, on page no. 4 of their Defense--
THE COURT: But then I have to listen to Mr. Uelmen as well.
MS. LEWIS: Okay. Offer of proof of newly discovered evidence for motion to suppress, the first--they have three things. Very briefly, your Honor. The first thing is that they say the decision to make entry by climbing the wall. Detective Fuhrman was the D2. We know that the others out there were all D3's.
THE COURT: Counsel, I recollect the testimony.
MS. LEWIS: I'm sure. It was their decision. The second offer had to do with Mark Fuhrman searching Kato's room, but that--their cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman would add nothing to the--Mark Fuhrman's credibility on that because Kato testified at the preliminary hearing during the motion to suppress and testified to the thumps--
THE COURT: He indicated he gave consent, he gave consent to the search. Next question.
MS. LEWIS: Yes. And also indicating the thumps on the wall. So that makes Detective Fuhrman's testimony that Kato told him he heard thumps on the wall--I mean, there's no credibility issue there whatsoever. And the third one was that, given the statements that Kato made to Detective Fuhrman, which we know were made, that was obviously why Detective Fuhrman went behind the walkway. So how is the Defense going to hurt his credibility in terms of why he went to the walkway when we know Kato testified during the preliminary hearing as to those three thumps behind there. That's all I wanted to say, your Honor. I just wanted to point out that their intended cross-examination would not shed light on the issues they list in their supplemental brief.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Uelmen, do you feel compelled to respond to that?
MR. UELMEN: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. We've been rejoined now by counsel Darryl Mounger who represents Mark Fuhrman. Good afternoon again, counsel.
MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, over the break, I talked to Mr. Fuhrman, and it is our position that because I am walking into this trial after eight months, I am unfamiliar with all of the testimony. I have been handling my own cases and not followed this trial intimately. I have come into this court asking for the McKinny tapes and a copy of the transcripts so that I might review them with my client, although I have reviewed most of them. I have tried to correlate that information and interview my client, and I'm unable to put it in the context which it deserves. Based upon this court's July 31st--I'm sorry--August 31st ruling and the words specifically I believe on page 5, on the information I do know and the information especially I do not know, I have advised Mr. Fuhrman that he should not answer any questions before this court. Therefore, it is my understanding that he will assert his 5th amendment privilege if asked any questions."
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 01:54 PM
If i may
The blood that Mazzola collected that was switched into new bendels without her initials.
You certainly may. That is what I meant by the doctored envelopes but you are correct, because it indicates evidence tampering.
martin II
10-28-2009, 02:04 PM
Fuhrman was willing to answer other questions but the criminal defense in their little ploy to once again manipulate the court, would not agree to not ask about Fuhrman's use of the n-word thus making the whole question anwer all about nothing. I have to laugh that 3 NG's on this board, a criminal jury (???), and a minority of folks are the only people in the world who believe LE failed to prove their case. The even more laughable part is that even if they hid their head in the sand for the criminal trial -- they still didn't want to pull it out and look at the truth in the civil trial. :shrug:
TV
If i remember furhman wanted to dictate the questions he could be answerwed on cross.This in not procedure for cross and his lawyer knew it.
If he had been able to dictate the questions then the defense would not have been able to ask the important questions they needed to make their case.
No other witness in the case was able to dictate the defense questions so why furhman?
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 02:10 PM
Fuhrman was willing to answer other questions but the criminal defense in their little ploy to once again manipulate the court, would not agree to not ask about Fuhrman's use of the n-word thus making the whole question anwer all about nothing. I have to laugh that 3 NG's on this board, a criminal jury (???), and a minority of folks are the only people in the world who believe LE failed to prove their case. The even more laughable part is that even if they hid their head in the sand for the criminal trial -- they still didn't want to pull it out and look at the truth in the civil trial. :shrug:
To me it is laughable to compare the socio political production to that of the criminal trial, because the burden of proof of the plaintiffs was much much less than the burden of the prosecution in the criminal trial. Legal scholars and practitioners use percentages to explain the burdens, saying the burden of proof of the plaintiffs in a civil trial is 51%, whereas the burden of proof in a criminal trial is 95%. Thus, the burden of proof in a criminal trial becomes 44% greater than the burden in the civil trial. The three Ngs and some Gs know this and G and maybe more have honestly stated that there was reasonable doubt and, IIRC, the majority of the legal practitioners and scholars recognize that there was reasonable doubt. I do not agree that only the three Ngs on this message board and a minority of people, who believe that LE failed to prove its case, have their heads in the sand. I tend to believe that the majority of the people, who do not believe that there was reasonable doubt, despite the verdict and the evidence, must have had tunnel vision when the evidence was presented. I think the Ngs and those Gs that realize there was reasonable doubt are particularly sophisticated when it comes to understanding legal concepts.
martin II
10-28-2009, 02:11 PM
Let's look to see what was represented to the court about whether or not MF was willing to answer any questions.
September 6th
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Let's have it quiet, please. Where did Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Cochran disappear to?
MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Cochran is in lockup.
MR. NEUFELD: The two we need.
(The Defendant is now present.)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present, including counsel Kent Spaulding. The court has acted upon the application pro hac vice and approved that. Good afternoon, counsel.
MR. SPAULDING: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Over the--during the brief recess, counsel had the opportunity to informally discuss scheduling matters and based upon the Brady issue that the court still needs to deal with this afternoon. Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: One thing, your Honor, on the Brady matter. I had indicated to the court that with regard to Brady, Messers. Scheck and Shapiro along with Miss Shawn Snider Chapman will be down at 4 o'clock. They're in the process of interviewing witnesses. They did indicate to me that there may be--they may not be ready to proceed completely today on that and may ask to start that tomorrow morning, and I told them to come by 4 o'clock so they could let the court know that. That's the only holdup, what we talked about earlier.
THE COURT: All right. And I see Mr. Mounger stepped out briefly.
MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, may I take this opportunity very briefly just to mention something that I neglected--it's my fault--I neglected to mention to the court earlier?
THE COURT: No, I don't think so, Miss Lewis. We've--you've filed your points and authorities. I've heard rather extensive argument--
MS. LEWIS: Well, there was a supplemental memorandum filed by the Defense yesterday afternoon after they had already filed their two other memos in the same thing that I did not pay careful attention to. So I--just briefly for the record, please. Please. I can see your--we have time. We are waiting for Mr. Mounger. Very quickly. Very quickly. It might help the court in its ruling.
THE COURT: The moment he walks in the court.
MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor. First of all, on page no. 4 of their Defense--
THE COURT: But then I have to listen to Mr. Uelmen as well.
MS. LEWIS: Okay. Offer of proof of newly discovered evidence for motion to suppress, the first--they have three things. Very briefly, your Honor. The first thing is that they say the decision to make entry by climbing the wall. Detective Fuhrman was the D2. We know that the others out there were all D3's.
THE COURT: Counsel, I recollect the testimony.
MS. LEWIS: I'm sure. It was their decision. The second offer had to do with Mark Fuhrman searching Kato's room, but that--their cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman would add nothing to the--Mark Fuhrman's credibility on that because Kato testified at the preliminary hearing during the motion to suppress and testified to the thumps--
THE COURT: He indicated he gave consent, he gave consent to the search. Next question.
MS. LEWIS: Yes. And also indicating the thumps on the wall. So that makes Detective Fuhrman's testimony that Kato told him he heard thumps on the wall--I mean, there's no credibility issue there whatsoever. And the third one was that, given the statements that Kato made to Detective Fuhrman, which we know were made, that was obviously why Detective Fuhrman went behind the walkway. So how is the Defense going to hurt his credibility in terms of why he went to the walkway when we know Kato testified during the preliminary hearing as to those three thumps behind there. That's all I wanted to say, your Honor. I just wanted to point out that their intended cross-examination would not shed light on the issues they list in their supplemental brief.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Uelmen, do you feel compelled to respond to that?
MR. UELMEN: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. We've been rejoined now by counsel Darryl Mounger who represents Mark Fuhrman. Good afternoon again, counsel.
MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, over the break, I talked to Mr. Fuhrman, and it is our position that because I am walking into this trial after eight months, I am unfamiliar with all of the testimony. I have been handling my own cases and not followed this trial intimately. I have come into this court asking for the McKinny tapes and a copy of the transcripts so that I might review them with my client, although I have reviewed most of them. I have tried to correlate that information and interview my client, and I'm unable to put it in the context which it deserves. Based upon this court's July 31st--I'm sorry--August 31st ruling and the words specifically I believe on page 5, on the information I do know and the information especially I do not know, I have advised Mr. Fuhrman that he should not answer any questions before this court. Therefore, it is my understanding that he will assert his 5th amendment privilege if asked any questions."
Thanks
Furhman was not WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. The post claiming he was is not accurate. imo
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 02:15 PM
TV
If i remember furhman wanted to dictate the questions he could be answerwed on cross.This in not procedure for cross and his lawyer knew it.
If he had been able to dictate the questions then the defense would not have been able to ask the important questions they needed to make their case.
No other witness in the case was able to dictate the defense questions so why furhman?
He wanted a list of the exact questions he would be asked.
September 6th,
"MR. MOUNGER: Well, your Honor, first, I would ask that, similar to the issue when Mr. Kardashian was asked to be a witness, because of the position that Detective Fuhrman is in, I would first like to see if the court could allow it, the questions, the exact questions that they plan on asking him because asking him to testify at this point in time may have a difference depending upon the questions that are asked.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, do you have an additional copy of your specific offer of proof regarding this issue available?
MR. UELMEN: I'm sure we can have a copy duplicated, but we don't believe a witness is entitled to a preview of the questions that they're going to be asked on cross-examination. The whole purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of the witness in reacting to questions as they are put and--
THE COURT: Well, at this point, counsel, since--I mean, that offer of proof is not under seal. It's not exactly a mystery as to what it is we're talking about here and we've discussed it here in open court just now.
MR. UELMEN: Yes. Well, I'm sure we can simply duplicate the copy we have available."
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 02:17 PM
Thanks
Furhman was not WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. The post claiming he was is not accurate. imo
I do not know for sure but I do believe that the poster may have bought into the idea sold in MF's work of fiction.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 03:08 PM
To me it is laughable to compare the socio political production to that of the criminal trial, because the burden of proof of the plaintiffs was much much less than the burden of the prosecution in the criminal trial. Legal scholars and practitioners use percentages to explain the burdens, saying the burden of proof of the plaintiffs in a civil trial is 51%, whereas the burden of proof in a criminal trial is 95%. Thus, the burden of proof in a criminal trial becomes 44% greater than the burden in the civil trial. The three Ngs and some Gs know this and G and maybe more have honestly stated that there was reasonable doubt and, IIRC, the majority of the legal practitioners and scholars recognize that there was reasonable doubt. I do not agree that only the three Ngs on this message board and a minority of people, who believe that LE failed to prove its case, have their heads in the sand. I tend to believe that the majority of the people, who do not believe that there was reasonable doubt, despite the verdict and the evidence, must have had tunnel vision when the evidence was presented. I think the Ngs and those Gs that realize there was reasonable doubt are particularly sophisticated when it comes to understanding legal concepts.
Correction for clarity;
To me it is laughable to compare the socio political production to that of the criminal trial, because the burden of proof of the plaintiffs was much much less than the burden of the prosecution in the criminal trial. Legal scholars and practitioners use percentages to explain the burdens, saying the burden of proof of the plaintiffs in a civil trial is 51%, whereas the burden of proof in a criminal trial is 95%. Thus, the burden of proof in a criminal trial becomes 44% greater than the burden in the civil trial. The three Ngs and some Gs know this and maybe those Gs have more honestly stated that there was reasonable doubt and, IIRC, the majority of the legal practitioners and scholars recognize that there was reasonable doubt. I do not agree that only the three Ngs on this message board and a minority of people, who believe that LE failed to prove its case, have their heads in the sand. I tend to believe that the majority of the people, who do not believe that there was reasonable doubt, despite the verdict and the evidence, must have had tunnel vision when the evidence was presented. I think the Ngs and those Gs that realize there was reasonable doubt are particularly sophisticated when it comes to understanding legal concepts.
martin II
10-28-2009, 05:10 PM
I do not know for sure but I do believe that the poster may have bought into the idea sold in MF's work of fiction.
Your post information was posted before but one poster continues to post false/wrong info on the subject.:shrug:
martin II
10-28-2009, 05:40 PM
He wanted a list of the exact questions he would be asked.
September 6th,
"MR. MOUNGER: Well, your Honor, first, I would ask that, similar to the issue when Mr. Kardashian was asked to be a witness, because of the position that Detective Fuhrman is in, I would first like to see if the court could allow it, the questions, the exact questions that they plan on asking him because asking him to testify at this point in time may have a difference depending upon the questions that are asked.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, do you have an additional copy of your specific offer of proof regarding this issue available?
MR. UELMEN: I'm sure we can have a copy duplicated, but we don't believe a witness is entitled to a preview of the questions that they're going to be asked on cross-examination. The whole purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of the witness in reacting to questions as they are put and--
THE COURT: Well, at this point, counsel, since--I mean, that offer of proof is not under seal. It's not exactly a mystery as to what it is we're talking about here and we've discussed it here in open court just now.
MR. UELMEN: Yes. Well, I'm sure we can simply duplicate the copy we have available."
oh i see
If he gets the questions in advance he would have time to create another one of his fibs. I see he thought he was special.
martin II
10-28-2009, 05:46 PM
Fuhrman was willing to answer other questions but the criminal defense in their little ploy to once again manipulate the court, would not agree to not ask about Fuhrman's use of the n-word thus making the whole question anwer all about nothing. I have to laugh that 3 NG's on this board, a criminal jury (???), and a minority of folks are the only people in the world who believe LE failed to prove their case. The even more laughable part is that even if they hid their head in the sand for the criminal trial -- they still didn't want to pull it out and look at the truth in the civil trial. :shrug:
Who is this minority of folks you speak of. Many people believed the DA did not prove their case as required by law.
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 06:06 PM
oh i see
If he gets the questions in advance he would have time to create another one of his fibs. I see he thought he was special.
He wanted the exact questions, which I took to mean verbatim. :)
martin II
10-28-2009, 06:54 PM
He wanted the exact questions, which I took to mean verbatim. :)
i think it was uleman sp that did ask him the correct question. 'Did you plant evidence' FURHMAN said i take the 5th imo
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 07:02 PM
i think it was uleman sp that did ask him the correct question. 'Did you plant evidence' FURHMAN said i take the 5th imo
September 6th,
"MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, further questions don't serve any purpose since my client has already answered that he will not answer any question and will assert his 5th amendment privilege. Anything further can only be a show.
MR. UELMEN: I only have one other question, your Honor.
THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Uelmen?
MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?
DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.
THE COURT: All right. Based upon the witness' answers, the representation by his counsel, Mr. Mounger--
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People make an objection to the last question and ask the court to strike it as being improper and does nothing but headline.
THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. All right. Miss Clark, do you have any questions of this witness?
MS. CLARK: No questions."
martin II
10-28-2009, 07:20 PM
Checking the game out now.
bobaugust
10-28-2009, 07:28 PM
If i may
The blood that Mazzola collected that was switched into new bendels without her initials.
Your comment is incorrect. Mazzola testified the bindles in the coin envelopes were the original bindles that she and Fung created. Mazzola identified them by her and Fung’s handwriting of the item numbers on the bindles.
bobaugust
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 07:36 PM
Who was it that saw a second glove at Bundy? Please tell me because I must have missed that testimony. Mark Fuhrman didn't find the Bundy glove. He found the Rockingham glove because Kato told him about the commotion behind his room and he went to investigate. You can't actually believe that there are people that 'know' he took the Rockingham glove from Bundy and have kept quiet for 15 years. You can't make up stories to fit the evidence --it doesn't work that way.
I don't know why the NGs use the knife as damning evidence that proves Simpson didn't do it. The knife could be anywhere from the LAX trashcan to Chicago. It would have been easy to get rid of it -- nothing surprising about that.
TV,
I clearly stated that MF knew what others had seen before him. The fact that a second glove was not told to him or pointed out to him does not mean that one was not there. He may have been the first and maybe even the only person who saw the second glove.
A fellow detective, so petrified of MF kept a log of his activities. He burned that log and was going to commit perjury if he was called to the stand about it. Knowing that this is true, does it really surprise that you no one would talk about it? What happened when fellow DA's went to MC and Bill Hodgeman about MF, they weren't listened to and they were mocked and scorned. Again, does it surprise you that no would talk?
The LAPD has been racked by corruption for years and years, that is a fact. This corruption was known by many members of the LE department, yet they remained quiet as well-----for how many years?
Do you really believe that had a second glove been found, this person would have confronted MF or the other detectives? This preson would put their career on the line? Their safety and that of their families in jeopardy? Isn't it sad when fellow LE members are more scared of their "brother" officers then they are of the criminals they take off the streets?
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 07:47 PM
Could you give us some examples of this?
TV,
He testifies that he did not tell VA about the thumps. He testifies that he was asked to take them to Rockingham because he knew the way. He testifies that he never saw the other detectives enter the house and only saw that a door was open. He testified about seeing blood that could not have been seen unless he had opened the door. He testified that the picture of the park Bronco did appear to be the same as he saw it in the picture. He plays several games with Baily about how words can be pronounced and tried his best to make FLB look like a fool. He lied about a question that he knew was coming from months, he knew the defense had many, many, many witnesses to testify about this.
His book is also loaded with this type of proof, on how he treated Darden, why he hated Darden and that the jury did not care that a white wife was being beaten. He wrote that Ron Phillips point blanked asked Kato if Simpson was home and Kato answered the direct question, Phillips later denies all of this. The list goes on and on.
He testified that he knew before he went over the wall that the Simpsons had joint custody----how could he have known that? He knew about all three incidents and he told the other detectives, but they denied knowing it.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 07:58 PM
You're saying that OJ Simpson would have gotten off for beating Nicole? If that were the case he would have gone to trial to save his image.
Simpson's outright lies and the forensic evidence caused him to be found liable in the civil trial. Mark Fuhrman's lie led to his conviction for perjury. You have no evidence that Det. Fuhrman is a 'true criminal' but there is a mountain of evidence spanning 20 years that says OJ Simpson is a true criminal. Of those two, which one is sitting in prison today?
TV,
What I am saying is that you can't have it both ways. If Simpson bought a not guilty in a murder trial, he sure has hell could have bought a not guilty in the DV case. If he was such a bully and had so much power, he could have destroyed Nicole on the stand.
Had Mark Fuhrman gone to trial, he would have opened the door to his career and all the compliants filed against him. He would have been asked what he meant about being the most important witness in the trial of the century. Other detectives that knew him to be a liar, would have testified against him.
Yes, Mark Fuhrman is a criminal and I hate everything that he represents and the pain he loves to inflict. If he went to trial, he would have been found guilty of many charges of perjury as well as manufacturing and planting evidence. To his credit, I must say that he was very wise to drop it and take his hand slap. I bet the LAPD was very, very relieved when he took this sweet heart deal.
Remember, the LAPD promoted him, knowing what they knew about him. That would have been very hard to explain those shrink reports. IMO.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 08:04 PM
Your comment is incorrect. Mazzola testified the bindles in the coin envelopes were the original bindles that she and Fung created. Mazzola identified them by her and Fung’s handwriting of the item numbers on the bindles.
bobaugust
Mr. August,
So you are saying that Andrea Mozzola lied when she said she put her initials on the bindles and that she was lying when she said that she did not know what happened to the original bindles that had her initials on them?
William Anthony
10-28-2009, 08:05 PM
Checking the game out now.
I watched the two last night and hated that the Cavaliers lost.
TV,
What I am saying is that you can't have it both ways. If Simpson bought a not guilty in a murder trial, he sure has hell could have bought a not guilty in the DV case. If he was such a bully and had so much power, he could have destroyed Nicole on the stand.
Had Mark Fuhrman gone to trial, he would have opened the door to his career and all the compliants filed against him. He would have been asked what he meant about being the most important witness in the trial of the century. Other detectives that knew him to be a liar, would have testified against him.
Yes, Mark Fuhrman is a criminal and I hate everything that he represents and the pain he loves to inflict. If he went to trial, he would have been found guilty of many charges of perjury as well as manufacturing and planting evidence. To his credit, I must say that he was very wise to drop it and take his hand slap. I bet the LAPD was very, very relieved when he took this sweet heart deal.
Remember, the LAPD promoted him, knowing what they knew about him. That would have been very hard to explain those shrink reports. IMO.
GreenIce, I've never said that OJ Simpson bought his verdict. This is at least the second time that you've attributed that claim to me. If anyone is saying that Simpson bought the verdict it's the Gs. I'm not addressing the Mark Fuhrman comments -- it's all your personal opinion with no facts to back up what you're saying.
TV,
He testifies that he did not tell VA about the thumps. He testifies that he was asked to take them to Rockingham because he knew the way. He testifies that he never saw the other detectives enter the house and only saw that a door was open. He testified about seeing blood that could not have been seen unless he had opened the door. He testified that the picture of the park Bronco did appear to be the same as he saw it in the picture. He plays several games with Baily about how words can be pronounced and tried his best to make FLB look like a fool. He lied about a question that he knew was coming from months, he knew the defense had many, many, many witnesses to testify about this.
His book is also loaded with this type of proof, on how he treated Darden, why he hated Darden and that the jury did not care that a white wife was being beaten. He wrote that Ron Phillips point blanked asked Kato if Simpson was home and Kato answered the direct question, Phillips later denies all of this. The list goes on and on.
He testified that he knew before he went over the wall that the Simpsons had joint custody----how could he have known that? He knew about all three incidents and he told the other detectives, but they denied knowing it.
I don't recall Det. Fuhrman saying that he hated Chris Darden or mistreated him in any way. Do you have the page numbers of these alleged statements by him? As far as the white wife remark -- we aren't supposed to be discussing race on this board so I'll let my opinion of it pass.
TV,
I clearly stated that MF knew what others had seen before him. The fact that a second glove was not told to him or pointed out to him does not mean that one was not there. He may have been the first and maybe even the only person who saw the second glove.
A fellow detective, so petrified of MF kept a log of his activities. He burned that log and was going to commit perjury if he was called to the stand about it. Knowing that this is true, does it really surprise that you no one would talk about it? What happened when fellow DA's went to MC and Bill Hodgeman about MF, they weren't listened to and they were mocked and scorned. Again, does it surprise you that no would talk?
The LAPD has been racked by corruption for years and years, that is a fact. This corruption was known by many members of the LE department, yet they remained quiet as well-----for how many years?
Do you really believe that had a second glove been found, this person would have confronted MF or the other detectives? This preson would put their career on the line? Their safety and that of their families in jeopardy? Isn't it sad when fellow LE members are more scared of their "brother" officers then they are of the criminals they take off the streets?
When you can provide proof/evidence that another glove was found at Bundy by Mark Fuhrman or that other officers saw it there I'll discuss this.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 08:31 PM
GreenIce, I've never said that OJ Simpson bought his verdict. This is at least the second time that you've attributed that claim to me. If anyone is saying that Simpson bought the verdict it's the Gs. I'm not addressing the Mark Fuhrman comments -- it's all your personal opinion with no facts to back up what you're saying.
TV,
No, you never actually stated that. I think your support of another post gave me the impression that you believed Simpson did buy his verdict. But no, you never came out and said that. I think there was also a comment about his fame helping him in the criminal trial. I am just saying that he had these same things during the DV case.
The most important facts about the DV case have never been really discussed and have been totally dismissed. There is no doubt in my mind had Simpson gone to trial in the DV case, he would have been found not guilty and Nicole would have come out of it a lot worse---that is just how it goes. It is not right and it is not fair but that is how it goes, IMO.
Yes, it is my personal opinon that MF is a criminal and that had he gone to trial for perjury, he would have gone down for a lot more.
However, the comments about his testimony and the stuff in is his book are true.
TV,
*snipped*
He testified that he knew before he went over the wall that the Simpsons had joint custody----how could he have known that? He knew about all three incidents and he told the other detectives, but they denied knowing it.
It's obvious that he's speaking generically about what he would do if he were in charge in a similiar situation --
All right. Were you aware that Mr. Simpson
02 and his wife were divorced?
03 A I think I had heard it, only because we work
04 West L.A.
05 Q Do you routinely notify the former husband of
06 a homicide victim?
07 A I think if there's children involved and we
08 have the children, I think it would probably be the
09 appropriate thing to do.
10 Q All right. So you were concerned about the
11 disposition of the children as well?
12 A Well, I believe a lot of the decisions of this
13 came from the commander and detective Vannatter, and I
14 really wasn't privileged to that conversation.
15 But I would believe that I would be concerned
16 with the children and the ex-husband since they still
17 had joint custody of the children.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 08:40 PM
When you can provide proof/evidence that another glove was found at Bundy by Mark Fuhrman or that other officers saw it there I'll discuss this.
TV,
Okay, and when you produce proof and evidence that another police officer would have reported it if they did see a second glove and that Mark Fuhrman would have ratted himself out, then I agree, we can discuss this. :)
Looks like this subject is closed between us.
TV,
Okay, and when you produce proof and evidence that another police officer would have reported it if they did see a second glove and that Mark Fuhrman would have ratted himself out, then I agree, we can discuss this. :)
Looks like this subject is closed between us.
I never said Mark Fuhrman would rat himself out so this subject is definitely closed between us. I'm tired of having to deny what you've claim I've said.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 08:45 PM
It's obvious that he's speaking generically about what he would do if he were in charge in a similiar situation --
All right. Were you aware that Mr. Simpson
02 and his wife were divorced?
03 A I think I had heard it, only because we work
04 West L.A.
05 Q Do you routinely notify the former husband of
06 a homicide victim?
07 A I think if there's children involved and we
08 have the children, I think it would probably be the
09 appropriate thing to do.
10 Q All right. So you were concerned about the
11 disposition of the children as well?
12 A Well, I believe a lot of the decisions of this
13 came from the commander and detective Vannatter, and I
14 really wasn't privileged to that conversation.
15 But I would believe that I would be concerned
16 with the children and the ex-husband since they still
17 had joint custody of the children.
TV,
I am not sure I understand your point.
TV,
No, you never actually stated that. I think your support of another post gave me the impression that you believed Simpson did buy his verdict. But no, you never came out and said that. I think there was also a comment about his fame helping him in the criminal trial. I am just saying that he had these same things during the DV case.
The most important facts about the DV case have never been really discussed and have been totally dismissed. There is no doubt in my mind had Simpson gone to trial in the DV case, he would have been found not guilty and Nicole would have come out of it a lot worse---that is just how it goes. It is not right and it is not fair but that is how it goes, IMO.
Yes, it is my personal opinon that MF is a criminal and that had he gone to trial for perjury, he would have gone down for a lot more.
However, the comments about his testimony and the stuff in is his book are true.
My opinion is that the jury was dazzled by his fame and money. Just because I support another post doesn't mean you can attribute the comment to me.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 08:48 PM
I never said Mark Fuhrman would rat himself out so this subject is definitely closed between us. I'm tired of having to deny what you've claim I've said.
TV,
Also, didn't you ask me if I thought Simpson would have gotten off if he went to trial in the DV case? I think I answer that question, yes, I believe he would have--using the same tools others have accused him of using to get the not guility verdict in the criminal trial.
TV,
I am not sure I understand your point.
My point is that he's saying he would routinely notify the ex-husband of a homicide victim if there are children involved and no where does he say he knew before he went over the wall that Nicole and Simpson had joint custody even though it was probably a reasonable thing to assume that they did.
TV,
Also, didn't you ask me if I thought Simpson would have gotten off if he went to trial in the DV case? I think I answer that question, yes, I believe he would have--using the same tools others have accused him of using to get the not guility verdict in the criminal trial.
It's possible he would have because of his fame and celebrity but it would have been a miscarriage of justice in my opinion. We'll never know.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 08:56 PM
My point is that he's saying he would routinely notify the ex-husband of a homicide victim if there are children involved and no where does he say he knew before he went over the wall that Nicole and Simpson had joint custody even though it was probably a reasonable thing to assume that they did.
TV,
You have a point. However, wasn't it proven in the civil trial that MF and Ron Phillips also worked on a case for Nicole regarding obscene phone calls she was receiving and that had nothing to do with Simpson?
And come to think about it, it would be reasonable to assume they had joint custody. Because of his fame and celebrity, if they did not, that would have been well known. IMO.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 09:04 PM
It's possible he would have because of his fame and celebrity but it would have been a miscarriage of justice in my opinion. We'll never know.
TV,
Here is shocker, I agree with your post. Had he gotten away with it because of his fame and celebrity, if those were the only reasons, then it would have been a miscarriage of justice. But we do know that didn't happen.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 09:30 PM
[QUOTE=William Anthony;9230584]Weigh this against the facts that no one knew when Simpson last visited his former wife and children or whether or not he cut himself anywhere on that occasion or on a prior visit"
William,
You may be wrong about this part of your post. I find it hard to believe that Sydney and Justin were not asked, at least two or three times, in very subtle ways when the last time they remembered their father being at Bundy.
I also find it hard to believe that the police did not know his travel schedule for the past month or so before the end of the first day of investigation.
I think Lange and Vanatter were very surprised that Simpson gave them a time when the last time he was at Condo. His time could have easily been disproved or proved. My guess is that they had more evidence supporting Simpson's timeline on this issue.
Also, I also think that the children would have been asked about the blood drops, if they saw anything like this before this night. Just because Sydney and Justin didn't testify or were not formally questioned by the DA's or the defense, it doesn't mean that this could have been done by the Browns and if it was done, they did not have to report the kids' answers.
The fact Clark knew what the defense was going to argue and she could not counter it, IMO, speaks volumes about the blood drops at Bundy.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 09:42 PM
He wanted a list of the exact questions he would be asked.
September 6th,
"MR. MOUNGER: Well, your Honor, first, I would ask that, similar to the issue when Mr. Kardashian was asked to be a witness, because of the position that Detective Fuhrman is in, I would first like to see if the court could allow it, the questions, the exact questions that they plan on asking him because asking him to testify at this point in time may have a difference depending upon the questions that are asked.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, do you have an additional copy of your specific offer of proof regarding this issue available?
MR. UELMEN: I'm sure we can have a copy duplicated, but we don't believe a witness is entitled to a preview of the questions that they're going to be asked on cross-examination. The whole purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of the witness in reacting to questions as they are put and--
THE COURT: Well, at this point, counsel, since--I mean, that offer of proof is not under seal. It's not exactly a mystery as to what it is we're talking about here and we've discussed it here in open court just now.
MR. UELMEN: Yes. Well, I'm sure we can simply duplicate the copy we have available."
William,
IMO, most people don't understand the real reason why MF had to take the 5th and it really had nothing to do with one word. Didn't the defense always claim that his racial views is the motive for his planting the glove?
It appears to me that most people aren't getting that the lie about one word is a direct to link to the subject of planting or manufacturing evidence?
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 09:57 PM
It's your opinion that you have evidence on your side, and it's mine that you don't.
It's no secret that wealth and fame play big roles in this society and to think otherwise is nonsense.
Simpson won his trial through a jury that, imo, let other things besides justice cloud their vision.
K,
I agree with you that wealth and fame play huge roles in our society. We see examples of it every single day.
However, there have been others who have been on trial that had more money then the Simpson and have been convicted.
In this case, Simpson's fame and celebrity had nothing to do with Fung's testimony or the sub par performance by many of the state witnesses. Simpson's fame and celebrity had nothing to do with chain of command and evidence integrity. Simpson did not make MF lie on a material issue to the case. There are more examples but I think you get the gist.
The jurors had no choice with the verdict. They had vote not guilty according to the rules issued by Judge Ito.
You also made about post that MF was only to have been proven to lie about one thing. However, that is not necessarily true. He and Vanatter testified to diffrently on key issues. One of them has to be lying, the question is which one.
Also, IMO, way to much focus has been placed on MF and his lie. The jurors, at least one of them who believed Simpson was guilty, had a more difficult time with Vanatter and felt he wasn't being "square" with them--the jury.
I also have posted many times, MF was not the only reason the DA's lost the case. However, he was made the number 1 scapegoat and I don't agree with that. IMO.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 10:53 PM
If i may
The blood that Mazzola collected that was switched into new bendels without her initials.
Martin,
What has always baffled me was AM and her paperwork as well as Fung's. In Clark's book, she says she reviewed them and she said nothing to Fung and doesn't appear to me that she ever followed up on this.
I don't understand how she could have read those reports and not have been alerted right away that these reports were not finished and that AM was still in training.
I also have been baffled why Michelle Kestler allowed her two people to be eaten alive by the defense. Why she never took responsibilty for their work.
The biggest problem or mistake I see with Fung and Mozzola, they could never be sure if the results of the tests were the results from the stains they collected--where they said they were collected.
As for the initials, I don't think who ever switched them would have attempted to write Mozzola's initials on the bindles. That would answer the question about the bindles, IMO.
GreenIce
10-28-2009, 11:12 PM
oh i see
If he gets the questions in advance he would have time to create another one of his fibs. I see he thought he was special.
Martin,
I think you may be wrong on this issue. It appears to me that it was MF's lawyer who wanted to see the questions. I think he was using the best tactic possible to protect his client.
IMO, I think MF would have loved to have gotten back on the stand and play his cat and mouse games with the defense. He had a blast the first time, I am sure the second time would have even been better.
Just like the defense team talked Simpson out of taking the stand, I think MF's lawyer was the one who talked MF out of answering the questions.
I think MF's lawyer advised him to answer the questions he would have been brought up before the legal board. It would have been horrible dis-service to his client by allowing him to answer the questions.
Don't forget, his lawyer was a former cop. He knows how this was going to play out, IMO.
bobaugust
10-28-2009, 11:58 PM
Mr. August,
So you are saying that Andrea Mozzola lied when she said she put her initials on the bindles and that she was lying when she said that she did not know what happened to the original bindles that had her initials on them?
Mazzola testified in the criminal trial that her testimony at the Griffin Hearing that she had initialed the coin envelopes or the bindles was wrong. Where and when do you think Mazzola ever said “she did not know what happened to the original bindles that had her initials on them’?
April 25, 1995
MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, as to the coin envelopes that you were asked about on cross-examination by the Defense attorney, did you open up and look in every single one of these coin envelopes today?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where did you do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Here in the courtroom.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who was present when you did that?
MS. MAZZOLA: The Prosecution and the Defense.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was this something that was done on the record but outside the presence of the jury?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you take a look at the bindles that were in each one of those coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you did that, did you recognize the bindles in each one of the coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: I recognize them as to the item numbers.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize the writing on the numbers as being either yours or Dennis Fung's?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the item numbers, yes.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: When you and Mr. Fung were processing these, was it--was he writing on the bindles that he was creating and you were writing on the bindle that you were creating?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought I was writing on the bindles I was creating.
MR. GOLDBERG: I mean the item number?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you went through these various items, did you recognize them to be the original bindles that were created by you and Mr. Fung?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to when.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: On the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize them?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at the time that you testified at the griffin hearing you were under the impression that you had initialed the coin envelope and the bindles--excuse me--the coin envelope in the field; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I know we discussed this a little bit on direct examination, but why is it that you believe that to be the case?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because at the previous scene that I had done, my first scene, that is the way the criminalist at that scene did it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And why is it that you did not do that in that particular way on the 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because Mr. Fung said we would be working as a team. There was only two of us, and it had to be picked up by either one of us.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your understanding as a criminalist with respect to what individualizes the bindles that are created by the criminalist?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is the item numbers that are important, because the item number on the bindle ties it to the item number of, say, the blood stain that was collected.
*
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that all the bindles that you initialed were put back in the original coin envelopes on the morning of the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not initial any bindles.
MR. NEUFELD: You're saying that your testimony, your sworn testimony of August 23rd is wrong?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that what you're saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
bobaugust
William Anthony
10-29-2009, 05:38 AM
When you can provide proof/evidence that another glove was found at Bundy by Mark Fuhrman or that other officers saw it there I'll discuss this.
MF provided evidence when he said the word, "them".
William Anthony
10-29-2009, 05:44 AM
[QUOTE=William Anthony;9230584]Weigh this against the facts that no one knew when Simpson last visited his former wife and children or whether or not he cut himself anywhere on that occasion or on a prior visit"
William,
You may be wrong about this part of your post. I find it hard to believe that Sydney and Justin were not asked, at least two or three times, in very subtle ways when the last time they remembered their father being at Bundy.
I also find it hard to believe that the police did not know his travel schedule for the past month or so before the end of the first day of investigation.
I think Lange and Vanatter were very surprised that Simpson gave them a time when the last time he was at Condo. His time could have easily been disproved or proved. My guess is that they had more evidence supporting Simpson's timeline on this issue.
Also, I also think that the children would have been asked about the blood drops, if they saw anything like this before this night. Just because Sydney and Justin didn't testify or were not formally questioned by the DA's or the defense, it doesn't mean that this could have been done by the Browns and if it was done, they did not have to report the kids' answers.
The fact Clark knew what the defense was going to argue and she could not counter it, IMO, speaks volumes about the blood drops at Bundy.
GreenIce,
You may be correct about what the children knew but their memories could have been suggested either by the Browns or Simpson. Simpson testified, IIRC, that he could not remember if he cut himself on a prior visit but he did testify that he was always cutting himself.
William Anthony
10-29-2009, 05:48 AM
William,
IMO, most people don't understand the real reason why MF had to take the 5th and it really had nothing to do with one word. Didn't the defense always claim that his racial views is the motive for his planting the glove?
It appears to me that most people aren't getting that the lie about one word is a direct to link to the subject of planting or manufacturing evidence?
GreenIce,
I think people understand but want to ignore the connection. Some people come up with the notion that it was too risky for MF to plant evidence and lose his job and pension. Did he not so do for telling a lie? Some people think that rational thinking outweighs the irrational emotion of hatred.
William Anthony
10-29-2009, 05:54 AM
Mazzola testified in the criminal trial that her testimony at the Griffin Hearing that she had initialed the coin envelopes or the bindles was wrong. Where and when do you think Mazzola ever said “she did not know what happened to the original bindles that had her initials on them’?
April 25, 1995
MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, as to the coin envelopes that you were asked about on cross-examination by the Defense attorney, did you open up and look in every single one of these coin envelopes today?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where did you do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Here in the courtroom.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who was present when you did that?
MS. MAZZOLA: The Prosecution and the Defense.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was this something that was done on the record but outside the presence of the jury?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you take a look at the bindles that were in each one of those coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you did that, did you recognize the bindles in each one of the coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: I recognize them as to the item numbers.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize the writing on the numbers as being either yours or Dennis Fung's?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the item numbers, yes.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: When you and Mr. Fung were processing these, was it--was he writing on the bindles that he was creating and you were writing on the bindle that you were creating?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought I was writing on the bindles I was creating.
MR. GOLDBERG: I mean the item number?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you went through these various items, did you recognize them to be the original bindles that were created by you and Mr. Fung?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to when.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: On the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize them?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at the time that you testified at the griffin hearing you were under the impression that you had initialed the coin envelope and the bindles--excuse me--the coin envelope in the field; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I know we discussed this a little bit on direct examination, but why is it that you believe that to be the case?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because at the previous scene that I had done, my first scene, that is the way the criminalist at that scene did it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And why is it that you did not do that in that particular way on the 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because Mr. Fung said we would be working as a team. There was only two of us, and it had to be picked up by either one of us.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your understanding as a criminalist with respect to what individualizes the bindles that are created by the criminalist?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is the item numbers that are important, because the item number on the bindle ties it to the item number of, say, the blood stain that was collected.
*
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that all the bindles that you initialed were put back in the original coin envelopes on the morning of the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not initial any bindles.
MR. NEUFELD: You're saying that your testimony, your sworn testimony of August 23rd is wrong?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that what you're saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
bobaugust
IMHO, what we have here is more testilying. The bindles do not have my initials, so I will lie and say that I was wrong when I truthfully testified I initialed them.
martin II
10-29-2009, 06:24 AM
IMHO, what we have here is more testilying. The bindles do not have my initials, so I will lie and say that I was wrong when I truthfully testified I initialed them.
AM had two options
1. I Lied in my previous testimony. I did not intial the bendels.
2. My previous testimnony was correct. These are not the bendels i
intitialed . And loose her job.
AM saying she lied in her first testimony allowed the jury to reject all of her testimony including what she said she collected and where she collected it. This was to the benefit of the defense.
martin II
10-29-2009, 06:31 AM
GreenIce,
I think people understand but want to ignore the connection. Some people come up with the notion that it was too risky for MF to plant evidence and lose his job and pension. Did he not so do for telling a lie? Some people think that rational thinking outweighs the irrational emotion of hatred.
Furhman didn't think about being caught when he planted the knife on Mr Bratten or the other times when he told LHM of how he worked or when he cooked up that story to get early retirement.mo
William Anthony
10-29-2009, 06:32 AM
Furhman didn't think about being caught when he planted the knife on Mr Bratten or the other times when he told LHM of how he worked or when he cooked up that story to get early retirement.mo
She certainly did not appear credible, IMHO.
martin II
10-29-2009, 06:35 AM
I don't recall Det. Fuhrman saying that he hated Chris Darden or mistreated him in any way. Do you have the page numbers of these alleged statements by him? As far as the white wife remark -- we aren't supposed to be discussing race on this board so I'll let my opinion of it pass.
Have you forgotten the incident where Clarke had Darden hug her in front of furhman and furham asked her why did she allow him to hug her.I think like a cheap suit. Or furhman complaining about the hat Darden had in his office.It has been posted and discussed before. imo
William Anthony
10-29-2009, 06:35 AM
Furhman didn't think about being caught when he planted the knife on Mr Bratten or the other times when he told LHM of how he worked or when he cooked up that story to get early retirement.mo
He should have been given the early retirement as I agree with Ms. Clark that he should not have been on the force or the planet.
martin II
10-29-2009, 06:40 AM
Mazzola testified in the criminal trial that her testimony at the Griffin Hearing that she had initialed the coin envelopes or the bindles was wrong. Where and when do you think Mazzola ever said “she did not know what happened to the original bindles that had her initials on them’?
April 25, 1995
MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, as to the coin envelopes that you were asked about on cross-examination by the Defense attorney, did you open up and look in every single one of these coin envelopes today?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where did you do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Here in the courtroom.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who was present when you did that?
MS. MAZZOLA: The Prosecution and the Defense.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was this something that was done on the record but outside the presence of the jury?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you take a look at the bindles that were in each one of those coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you did that, did you recognize the bindles in each one of the coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: I recognize them as to the item numbers.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize the writing on the numbers as being either yours or Dennis Fung's?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the item numbers, yes.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: When you and Mr. Fung were processing these, was it--was he writing on the bindles that he was creating and you were writing on the bindle that you were creating?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought I was writing on the bindles I was creating.
MR. GOLDBERG: I mean the item number?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you went through these various items, did you recognize them to be the original bindles that were created by you and Mr. Fung?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to when.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: On the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize them?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at the time that you testified at the griffin hearing you were under the impression that you had initialed the coin envelope and the bindles--excuse me--the coin envelope in the field; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I know we discussed this a little bit on direct examination, but why is it that you believe that to be the case?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because at the previous scene that I had done, my first scene, that is the way the criminalist at that scene did it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And why is it that you did not do that in that particular way on the 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because Mr. Fung said we would be working as a team. There was only two of us, and it had to be picked up by either one of us.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your understanding as a criminalist with respect to what individualizes the bindles that are created by the criminalist?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is the item numbers that are important, because the item number on the bindle ties it to the item number of, say, the blood stain that was collected.
*
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that all the bindles that you initialed were put back in the original coin envelopes on the morning of the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not initial any bindles.
MR. NEUFELD: You're saying that your testimony, your sworn testimony of August 23rd is wrong?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that what you're saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
bobaugust
When the lab is caught switching samples AM is told to say she gave wrong testimony and the lab is off the hook. Oj changes his testimony and he lied.
martin II
10-29-2009, 06:51 AM
It's your opinion that you have evidence on your side, and it's mine that you don't.
It's no secret that wealth and fame play big roles in this society and to think otherwise is nonsense.
Simpson won his trial through a jury that, imo, let other things besides justice cloud their vision.
If one only pays attention to the prosecution direct of their witnesses and ignores how the defense proved to the jury that that testimony could not be believed, one would come to the conclusion that the prosecution proved their case. Those that listened to the defense know the procesution failed.
Martz, Rubin, vannatter,AM, Phillips and G Sims are a few where the defense showed the jury the testimony could not be believed.imo
martin II
10-29-2009, 06:57 AM
The Rockingham glove was very bloody. It's considered a piece of clothing. You don't have one iota of proof that any evidence was manufactured or tampered with.. never happened. Simpson had the motive, means and opportunity to kill Ron and Nicole and drop the bloody glove behind Kato's room.
AM bendels,the sock and the blood on the gate are a few. imo
martin II
10-29-2009, 07:02 AM
It's obvious that he's speaking generically about what he would do if he were in charge in a similiar situation --
All right. Were you aware that Mr. Simpson
02 and his wife were divorced?
03 A I think I had heard it, only because we work
04 West L.A.
05 Q Do you routinely notify the former husband of
06 a homicide victim?
07 A I think if there's children involved and we
08 have the children, I think it would probably be the
09 appropriate thing to do.
10 Q All right. So you were concerned about the
11 disposition of the children as well?
12 A Well, I believe a lot of the decisions of this
13 came from the commander and detective Vannatter, and I
14 really wasn't privileged to that conversation.
15 But I would believe that I would be concerned
16 with the children and the ex-husband since they still
17 had joint custody of the children.
So why didn't they call oj using the DADDY phone number on nicoles message board next to the phone the detective was using.They would have received a message saying 'THIS IS OJ I AM NOT HOME" Then they would not have had to go to Rockingham.imo
martin II
10-29-2009, 07:05 AM
You have provided an interesting statement, "The one and only things that Fuhrman was proven to have lied about is saying the "n" word and frankly I get why he did it. " It is interesting in that you seem to imply that there are other things MF lied about but they were not proven. The fact that he denied saying it is not totally irrelevant, as the judge convicted him of perjury, and a witness' ability to tell the truth is never irrelevant.
Nicole made a statement that oj hit her only one time.Some may be ignoring that statement. imo
martin II
10-29-2009, 07:13 AM
Of course. They must have been on the 'need to know list' ahead of Gallanter. Since OJ Simpson's life has always been perfect tabloid material I'm not surprised.
TV
IF i remember correctly Regan and PF both worked at NE at the same time previously. I believe Regan leaked the book story to them after having paid OJ AND PF. She must have felt that Fred no no need to know. imo
Kayleighjo
10-29-2009, 09:06 AM
K,
You also made about post that MF was only to have been proven to lie about one thing. However, that is not necessarily true. He and Vanatter testified to diffrently on key issues. One of them has to be lying, the question is which one.
It is true, hence use of the word "proven".
bobaugust
10-29-2009, 11:52 AM
When the lab is caught switching samples AM is told to say she gave wrong testimony and the lab is off the hook. Oj changes his testimony and he lied.
The difference between Mazzola’s mistaken testimony and the Simpson’s lies is that Mazzola admitted she was mistaken. Your claim the lab was caught switching samples is a false claim.
bobaugust
martin II
10-29-2009, 11:59 AM
The difference between Mazzola’s mistaken testimony and the Simpson’s lies is that Mazzola admitted she was mistaken. Your claim the lab was caught switching samples is a false claim.
bobaugust
I don't think the jury believed her second testimony. It was a lie. imo
I don't think the jury believed her second testimony. It was a lie. imo
The jury didn't even listen to her testimony or much of any testimony that implicated OJ Simpson. That's obvious from reading Armanda Cooley's book. Remember, they think OJ Simpson and Andrea Mazzola have matching blood.:D
Kayleighjo
10-29-2009, 01:18 PM
Nicole made a statement that oj hit her only one time.Some may be ignoring that statement. imo
Some of us just choose to recognize why that might have been said. We choose to understand the meaning in her diaries, the testimonies of eye witnesses and statements of friends. We choose to listen to her words on the 1993 911 tape "he's going to beat the sh*t out of me" (not words spoken by a woman hit only once), we choose to understand the meaning behind a safety deposit box that held photos of her beaten face, a will, and letters. We choose to listen to Simpson's own words that said "you guys have been out here 8 times before".
Kayleighjo
10-29-2009, 01:20 PM
The jury didn't even listen to her testimony or much of any testimony that implicated OJ Simpson. That's obvious from reading Armanda Cooley's book. Remember, they think OJ Simpson and Andrea Mazzola have matching blood.:D
No kidding. They just weren't willing to hear anything that pointed to Simpson's obvious guilt.
Kayleighjo
10-29-2009, 01:21 PM
So why didn't they call oj using the DADDY phone number on nicoles message board next to the phone the detective was using.They would have received a message saying 'THIS IS OJ I AM NOT HOME" Then they would not have had to go to Rockingham.imo
Because of the desire to notify him in person would be the logical response. :rolleyes:
Because of the desire to notify him in person would be the logical response. :rolleyes:
They were bending over backwards because he was a celebrity. That's not hard to understand at all. People would rather attach some sinister meaning to the personal notification.
Kayleighjo
10-29-2009, 01:26 PM
GreenIce,
Some people think that rational thinking outweighs the irrational emotion of hatred.
I feel the same about those that claim it isn't logical for Simpson to have killed Nicole because he was moving on with his life.
Some of us just choose to recognize why that might have been said. We choose to understand the meaning in her diaries, the testimonies of eye witnesses and statements of friends. We choose to listen to her words on the 1993 911 tape "he's going to beat the sh*t out of me" (not words spoken by a woman hit only once), we choose to understand the meaning behind a safety deposit box that held photos of her beaten face, a will, and letters. We choose to listen to Simpson's own words that said "you guys have been out here 8 times before".
Nicole fit right into the profile of a battered woman by covering for him and minimizing the abuse. Those that don't want to see are just making excuses for Simpson. If the domestic abuse has no relevance to the murder of Nicole why do they keep denying it happened?
Kayleighjo
10-29-2009, 01:30 PM
Nicole fit right into the profile of a batter woman by covering for him and minimizing the abuse. Those that don't want to see are just making excuses for Simpson. If the domestic abuse has no relevance to the murder of Nicole why do they keep denying it happened?
:beer::beer::beer:
I feel the same about those that claim it isn't logical for Simpson to have killed Nicole because he was moving on with his life.
I've never thought he was moving on with his life. He made it clear that Paula wasn't marriage material. He was stuck in one gear -- Nicole.
No kidding. They just weren't willing to hear anything that pointed to Simpson's obvious guilt.
They even admitted the gloves fit him but they didn't care.
martin II
10-29-2009, 02:36 PM
The jury didn't even listen to her testimony or much of any testimony that implicated OJ Simpson. That's obvious from reading Armanda Cooley's book. Remember, they think OJ Simpson and Andrea Mazzola have matching blood.:D
Amanda cooley had a right to say what you say she said and the contex you say she said it. i have not read the book so i have no idea what she said.
The fact that you ignore is she and eleven others voted not guilty.meaning the prosecution did not prove their case.
you can say what you say she said in a book as long as you li8ke.. The book or what she may have said was not on trial so it does not matter one bit.imo
weezer
10-29-2009, 02:39 PM
Amanda cooley had a right to say what you say she said and the contex you say she said it. i have not read the book so i have no idea what she said.
The fact that yuou ignore is she and eleven others voted not guilty.meaning the prosecution did not prove their case.
you can say what you say she said in a book as long as you li8ke.. The book or what she may have said was not on trial so it does not matter one bit.imo
Fuhrman wasn't on trial either but the NG's have spent the better part of 14 years spouting their hatred and lies toward him.
Amanda cooley had a right to say what you say she said and the contex you say she said it. i have not read the book so i have no idea what she said.
The fact that you ignore is she and eleven others voted not guilty.meaning the prosecution did not prove their case.
you can say what you say she said in a book as long as you li8ke.. The book or what she may have said was not on trial so it does not matter one bit.imo
Maybe you need to read the book before you pass judgement on what I've posted about it. You do know what she said because it's been quoted word for word on this forum more than once.
Fuhrman wasn't on trial either but the NG's have spent the better part of 14 years spouting their hatred and lies toward him.
Exactly. Furhman is their whole reason for asserting OJ Simpson's guilt. Anytime they can't start a rant about Det. Fuhrman it diverts attention from Simpson. It's all they have.
martin II
10-29-2009, 02:45 PM
Fuhrman wasn't on trial either but the NG's have spent the better part of 14 years spouting their hatred and lies toward him.
i have absolutely no problem with your support of furhman. He was uncovered for what he is in the trial but you absolutely have the right to support him. :cool:
martin II
10-29-2009, 02:48 PM
I've never thought he was moving on with his life. He made it clear that Paula wasn't marriage material. He was stuck in one gear -- Nicole.
nicole knew he had. what soneone else thought does not matter.
martin II
10-29-2009, 03:39 PM
Maybe you need to read the book before you pass judgement on what I've posted about it. You do know what she said because it's been quoted word for word on this forum more than once.
What has been posted means nothng. 12 jurors voted not guilty. i don't know what contex her quotes were given and she had a right to put whatever in a book. She was well aware of what she was doing when she voted.Attempts to make her look foolish based on how YOU see her words may work for you but not for me.imo
martin II
10-29-2009, 03:40 PM
William,
IMO, most people don't understand the real reason why MF had to take the 5th and it really had nothing to do with one word. Didn't the defense always claim that his racial views is the motive for his planting the glove?
It appears to me that most people aren't getting that the lie about one word is a direct to link to the subject of planting or manufacturing evidence?
Those that have paid close attention know it but will not admit it.
weezer
10-29-2009, 04:43 PM
Those that have paid close attention know it but will not admit it.
can we all agree that EVERYONE who plead the 5th during the orenthal james simpson criminal trial did so for a reason?
1. Mark Fuhrman
2. Robert Kardashian
3. Al Cowlings
need to add here that ac also plead the 5th for the civil trial -- :eek:
martin II
10-29-2009, 04:46 PM
K,
I agree with you that wealth and fame play huge roles in our society. We see examples of it every single day.
However, there have been others who have been on trial that had more money then the Simpson and have been convicted.
In this case, Simpson's fame and celebrity had nothing to do with Fung's testimony or the sub par performance by many of the state witnesses. Simpson's fame and celebrity had nothing to do with chain of command and evidence integrity. Simpson did not make MF lie on a material issue to the case. There are more examples but I think you get the gist.
The jurors had no choice with the verdict. They had vote not guilty according to the rules issued by Judge Ito.
You also made about post that MF was only to have been proven to lie about one thing. However, that is not necessarily true. He and Vanatter testified to diffrently on key issues. One of them has to be lying, the question is which one.
Also, IMO, way to much focus has been placed on MF and his lie. The jurors, at least one of them who believed Simpson was guilty, had a more difficult time with Vanatter and felt he wasn't being "square" with them--the jury.
I also have posted many times, MF was not the only reason the DA's lost the case. However, he was made the number 1 scapegoat and I don't agree with that. IMO.
The jury member that stated she did not believe vannatter told the truth was only one that felt this way. she and others came to this conclusion by listening to his testimony. Contrary to what some believe this jury paid close attention to the prosecutions direct AND THE DEFENSE CROSS of the witnesses.
Martz, Rubin,AM,Fung and G Sims were important witnesses when it came to evidence presented and all of their testimony was proven to be not believable. Maby some because of hatred of oj decided that the jury and their verdict should be attacked. But informed people know the jury had no choice but to issue the not giuilty verdict based on what the prosecution claimed and could not prove. imo
to his testimony.
martin II
10-29-2009, 05:10 PM
can we all agree that EVERYONE who plead the 5th during the orenthal james simpson criminal trial did so for a reason?
1. Mark Fuhrman
2. Robert Kardashian
3. Al Cowlings
need to add here that ac also plead the 5th for the civil trial -- :eek:
All had a legal right to plead the 5th.
Furhman was the only one that as a cop sworn to tell the truth LIED ON THE STAND. He is also the only one that dictated into a tape recorder how he abused citizens which gives me the idea that he did not care who knew what he did as a lapd cop. imo
martin II
10-29-2009, 05:30 PM
Maybe you need to read the book before you pass judgement on what I've posted about it. You do know what she said because it's been quoted word for word on this forum more than once.
I don't know what she said in her book because i have not read it. I know what some claim she said. thats about it.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 05:31 PM
Nicole fit right into the profile of a battered woman by covering for him and minimizing the abuse. Those that don't want to see are just making excuses for Simpson. If the domestic abuse has no relevance to the murder of Nicole why do they keep denying it happened?
TV,
According to Gerald Uelman's book, that is not true. The reason why the DA's never called a DV expert is because Nicole did not fit the pattern of a battered woman. The DA's had access to the DV case in 1989 and also the shrink reports. In a nut shell, OJ and Nicole solved many differences through 17 years and they both showed the ability to solve them without resorting to violence. I got the impression the DA's were forced to accept this as an isolated incident and since he never laid another hand on her in anger, they couldn't do anything.
Had they attempted to push the DV, then they risked Simpson's response to the DV incident, in regarding to rip up the pre-nup as well as the letters they exchanged. Also, they had the divorce papers and very likey probably had other witness who would have confirmed what Nicole said about Dr. Forward.
While it is understandable why a battered woman may lie and the profile of these women explain it, Nicole did not fit that profile and therefore she most likely telling the truth that Simpson hit her once. She told that to the cops and she did not know she was being recorded. She told AC once and while Ron Shipp has done a bit of dance, he said that as far as he knew, it only happened once. However, I don't that much stock in to what Shipp says. His testimony in the trial doesn't match up with what he said in a book.
What has been posted means nothng. 12 jurors voted not guilty. i don't know what contex her quotes were given and she had a right to put whatever in a book. She was well aware of what she was doing when she voted.Attempts to make her look foolish based on how YOU see her words may work for you but not for me.imo
It's funny that when you don't like the message it doesn't matter. All posted by you today --
"The book or what she may have said was not on trial so it does not matter one bit.imo"
"What has been posted means nothng."
"nicole knew he had. what soneone else thought does not matter"
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 05:51 PM
Exactly. Furhman is their whole reason for asserting OJ Simpson's guilt. Anytime they can't start a rant about Det. Fuhrman it diverts attention from Simpson. It's all they have.
TV,
That is not true. I have posted as well as the othe NG's that MF was not the main reason the case was lost. The defense challenged every one of the state's witnesses as well as the evidence. There was an obvious problem of evidence. The DA's sent samples out to be tested for EDTA, and when their own expert found it, they did not call their own witness.
The same with Michelle Kestler. The defense turned almost every state witness into their own.
Petrocelli did the same in the civil trial.
I have posted many times that if you took MF completely out of the trial or as MC suggested, off of this planet, the evidence in this case doesn't change and neither do the problems of it. IMO.
I do hate everything MF stands for, however, I have never blamed him for the DA's losing the case and I have always felt that he was used by the DA's as their scapegoat.
Have you forgotten the incident where Clarke had Darden hug her in front of furhman and furham asked her why did she allow him to hug her.I think like a cheap suit. Or furhman complaining about the hat Darden had in his office.It has been posted and discussed before. imo
When did Det. Fuhrman make the statement about the cheap suit? I remember the hat comment from his book. I agree about the hat. If it had said the opposite of what it did you would find that to be inappropriate. That's as far as I'm going to discuss the hat because it's a racial issue.
TV,
That is not true. I have posted as well as the othe NG's that MF was not the main reason the case was lost. The defense challenged every one of the state's witnesses as well as the evidence. There was an obvious problem of evidence. The DA's sent samples out to be tested for EDTA, and when their own expert found it, they did not call their own witness.
The same with Michelle Kestler. The defense turned almost every state witness into their own.
Petrocelli did the same in the civil trial.
I have posted many times that if you took MF completely out of the trial or as MC suggested, off of this planet, the evidence in this case doesn't change and neither do the problems of it. IMO.
I do hate everything MF stands for, however, I have never blamed him for the DA's losing the case and I have always felt that he was used by the DA's as their scapegoat.
No problem -- I'll consider you the exception to the rule. Thank you for clearing this up for me. :)
can we all agree that EVERYONE who plead the 5th during the orenthal james simpson criminal trial did so for a reason?
1. Mark Fuhrman
2. Robert Kardashian
3. Al Cowlings
need to add here that ac also plead the 5th for the civil trial -- :eek:
I can agree with that. I would also like to add that the reason Mark Fuhrman pleaded the 5th had nothing to do with whether or not OJ Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. The other two were directly related.
TV,
According to Gerald Uelman's book, that is not true. The reason why the DA's never called a DV expert is because Nicole did not fit the pattern of a battered woman. The DA's had access to the DV case in 1989 and also the shrink reports. In a nut shell, OJ and Nicole solved many differences through 17 years and they both showed the ability to solve them without resorting to violence. I got the impression the DA's were forced to accept this as an isolated incident and since he never laid another hand on her in anger, they couldn't do anything.
Had they attempted to push the DV, then they risked Simpson's response to the DV incident, in regarding to rip up the pre-nup as well as the letters they exchanged. Also, they had the divorce papers and very likey probably had other witness who would have confirmed what Nicole said about Dr. Forward.
While it is understandable why a battered woman may lie and the profile of these women explain it, Nicole did not fit that profile and therefore she most likely telling the truth that Simpson hit her once. She told that to the cops and she did not know she was being recorded. She told AC once and while Ron Shipp has done a bit of dance, he said that as far as he knew, it only happened once. However, I don't that much stock in to what Shipp says. His testimony in the trial doesn't match up with what he said in a book.
GI, you are under a mistaken impression if you think Nicole didn't meet the profile of a battered woman. Not only did she personally fit the criteria she was killed in what is commonly accepted as the most dangerous time for a batter woman -- when she's moving on with her life and asserting her independence. It doesn't matter whether she knew her statement was being recorded -- she knew the cops could have testified to her statements. Even AC Cowlings admitted she was abused by Simpson.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 06:46 PM
GI, you are under a mistaken impression if you think Nicole didn't meet the profile of a battered woman. Not only did she personally fit the criteria she was killed in what is commonly accepted as the most dangerous time for a batter woman -- when she's moving on with her life and asserting her independence. It doesn't matter whether she knew her statement was being recorded -- she knew the cops could have testified to her statements. Even AC Cowlings admitted she was abused by Simpson.
TV,
I am only stating what was in Gerald Uelman's book and it does answer the question why the DA's never put a DV expert on the stand. There was and is no evidence to support that Nicole was physically abused other then 1989 incident.
TV,
I am only stating what was in Gerald Uelman's book and it does answer the question why the DA's never put a DV expert on the stand. There was and is no evidence to support that Nicole was physically abused other then 1989 incident.
The 1989 incident is the only one he was prosecuted for but there is evidence that it was not the only time. I'll ask a question I asked earlier and no one answered. If domestic abuse doesn't relate directly to why he killed Nicole why is it so adamantly denied by the NGs?
martin II
10-29-2009, 06:57 PM
It's funny that when you don't like the message it doesn't matter. All posted by you today --
"The book or what she may have said was not on trial so it does not matter one bit.imo"
"What has been posted means nothng."
"nicole knew he had. what soneone else thought does not matter"
Those that have used many very negative words to describe the jury because of their verdict in the criminal trial have claimed that a jury member
said something that they see as a opportunity to bash them and claim they were some stupid bunch of people that never in 9 mo listened to the testimony or knew what they were hearing and seeing. The jury was as smart as any other jury. They understood what they saw and heard. Various jury members had different idead about some SPECIFIC piece of evidence. But when they had to evaluate ALL of the testimony/evidence as a whole and come to a personal conclusion on whether the prosecution had proved their case to the standard required by law and considering the judges instructions to them they had no choice but to vote NOT GUILTY.
Commenting on 1-2 comments it is claimed a jury memberis was suppose to have made in a book is just something that is claimed was in a book. It has no more importance than other stuff that was in some of the many many books written on the trial. In other words just noise not really worth repeating. all my opinion.
PS
If as reported Nicole said oj hit her only once, why not believe her?:cool:
TV,
I am only stating what was in Gerald Uelman's book and it does answer the question why the DA's never put a DV expert on the stand. There was and is no evidence to support that Nicole was physically abused other then 1989 incident.Stage One describes perfectly why Nicole may have lied to the officer about it being the only time. State Two fits Nicole saying that she tried to live up to Simpson's expectations. Stages Three and Four fit well also.
Stage One–Denial
The stage one of battered women’s syndrome occurs when the women usually denies to others, that she is in a problem. They tend to make different excuses for any abusive incident. They also believe that the abuse will never be repeated again.
Stage Two–Guilt
The stage two of battered women's syndrome occurs wherein the women accept the fact and acknowledges that there is a problem in her relation and agree that they have received beating from their partner. Battered women will begin to question on their own characters and try there hard to live up to their partner’s expectations.
Stage Three-Enlightenment
The stage three of battered women's syndrome occurs when the battered woman begins to understand that she no more deserves to be beaten-up by their partner. A battered woman comes to see that the beatings she receives from her partner are not justified. The women also recognize that her partner has a severe problem or some psychological problem that provoke him to beat her. However, she stays with her partner in an attempt to keep the relation in tact with hopes of some change in the nature and behavior of her partner.
Stage Four–Responsibility
The stage four of battered women's syndrome occurs when a battered woman feels that her partner has a problem that only he himself can fix and solve it of his own. Battered women in the stage come to understand that there is nothing that they can do about their partner. Battered women in this stage might take take the necessary steps to leave their partner and begin to start new lives.
http://www.peoples-health.com/battered_womens_syndrome.htm
martin II
10-29-2009, 07:03 PM
The 1989 incident is the only one he was prosecuted for but there is evidence that it was not the only time. I'll ask a question I asked earlier and no one answered. If domestic abuse doesn't relate directly to why he killed Nicole why is it so adamantly denied by the NGs?
tv
Maby it is because nicole said oj only hit her one time 1989.
Domestic abuse does not = murder even if you believe it does.
This Domestic abuse did not = murder and you have no definitive proof that it did.imo:cool:
martin II
10-29-2009, 07:10 PM
Stage One describes perfectly why Nicole may have lied to the officer about it being the only time. State Two fits Nicole saying that she tried to live up to Simpson's expectations. Stages Three and Four fit well also.
Stage One–Denial
The stage one of battered women’s syndrome occurs when the women usually denies to others, that she is in a problem. They tend to make different excuses for any abusive incident. They also believe that the abuse will never be repeated again.
Stage Two–Guilt
The stage two of battered women's syndrome occurs wherein the women accept the fact and acknowledges that there is a problem in her relation and agree that they have received beating from their partner. Battered women will begin to question on their own characters and try there hard to live up to their partner’s expectations.
Stage Three-Enlightenment
The stage three of battered women's syndrome occurs when the battered woman begins to understand that she no more deserves to be beaten-up by their partner. A battered woman comes to see that the beatings she receives from her partner are not justified. The women also recognize that her partner has a severe problem or some psychological problem that provoke him to beat her. However, she stays with her partner in an attempt to keep the relation in tact with hopes of some change in the nature and behavior of her partner.
Stage Four–Responsibility
The stage four of battered women's syndrome occurs when a battered woman feels that her partner has a problem that only he himself can fix and solve it of his own. Battered women in the stage come to understand that there is nothing that they can do about their partner. Battered women in this stage might take take the necessary steps to leave their partner and begin to start new lives.
http://www.peoples-health.com/battered_womens_syndrome.htm
This appears to be opinions of some abuse group. It has nothing to do with the specific situation of OJ and Nicole. It is not possible to use some study on general abuse or what happens some time and then say it specifically relates to oj and nicole. Their situation was unique as are most individual situations. imo:cool:
Nicole wrote a letter begging him to allow her to come home to rockingham and taking some responsibility for their problems
Nicole told Kato that her ultimate goal was to remarry oj.
Nicole said oj hit her only once.
This cannot be ignored if one is seeking the truth. imo
martin II
10-29-2009, 07:25 PM
The 1989 incident is the only one he was prosecuted for but there is evidence that it was not the only time. I'll ask a question I asked earlier and no one answered. If domestic abuse doesn't relate directly to why he killed Nicole why is it so adamantly denied by the NGs?
tv
I did not answer your question.
there is no evidence that abuse led directly to murder. There are many opinions from people that believe he killed her and try to use abuse as to the reason but bottom line there is no proof.imo
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 07:29 PM
The 1989 incident is the only one he was prosecuted for but there is evidence that it was not the only time. I'll ask a question I asked earlier and no one answered. If domestic abuse doesn't relate directly to why he killed Nicole why is it so adamantly denied by the NGs?
TV,
I don't think DV played any role in the murder of Nicole and Ron. There is no evidence to support that he had physically abused her on other occassions. You are forgetting that Simpson has legal documents that say it happened once and only once. Any claims that the police had responded to other DV calls were never supported.
I have always posted that it made no sense to me why they went with such a weak motive, when the obvious motive would have been a crime a passion.
We only know, from Nicole herself, that it only happened once. Why is that not believed?
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 07:31 PM
Stage One describes perfectly why Nicole may have lied to the officer about it being the only time. State Two fits Nicole saying that she tried to live up to Simpson's expectations. Stages Three and Four fit well also.
Stage One–Denial
The stage one of battered women’s syndrome occurs when the women usually denies to others, that she is in a problem. They tend to make different excuses for any abusive incident. They also believe that the abuse will never be repeated again.
Stage Two–Guilt
The stage two of battered women's syndrome occurs wherein the women accept the fact and acknowledges that there is a problem in her relation and agree that they have received beating from their partner. Battered women will begin to question on their own characters and try there hard to live up to their partner’s expectations.
Stage Three-Enlightenment
The stage three of battered women's syndrome occurs when the battered woman begins to understand that she no more deserves to be beaten-up by their partner. A battered woman comes to see that the beatings she receives from her partner are not justified. The women also recognize that her partner has a severe problem or some psychological problem that provoke him to beat her. However, she stays with her partner in an attempt to keep the relation in tact with hopes of some change in the nature and behavior of her partner.
Stage Four–Responsibility
The stage four of battered women's syndrome occurs when a battered woman feels that her partner has a problem that only he himself can fix and solve it of his own. Battered women in the stage come to understand that there is nothing that they can do about their partner. Battered women in this stage might take take the necessary steps to leave their partner and begin to start new lives.
http://www.peoples-health.com/battered_womens_syndrome.htm
TV,
The DA's would have need proof that Nicole fit the profile, they did not have this proof. Why else would they not have called a DV expert?
This appears to be opinions of some abuse group. It has nothing to do with the specific situation of OJ and Nicole. It is not possible to use some study on general abuse or what happens some time and then say it specifically relates to oj and nicole. Their situation was unique as are most individual situations. imo:cool:
Nicole wrote a letter begging him to allow her to come home to rockingham and taking some responsibility for their problems
Nicole told Kato that her ultimate goal was to remarry oj.
Nicole said oj hit her only once. This cannot be ignored if one is seeking the truth. imo
It's a guideline and it, or similiar versions of it, can be found in many places and is agreed upon by abuse groups, professionals etc. You make statements about what Nicole said and did following your dismissal of what I posted and it fits in perfectly with the four stages of the battered woman syndrome.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 07:42 PM
tv
I did not answer your question.
there is no evidence that abuse led directly to murder. There are many opinions from people that believe he killed her and try to use abuse as to the reason but bottom line there is no proof.imo
Martin,
I agree with you. People are forgetting their are legal documents that indicate this was a one time incident. What Nicole wrote for her divorce, again there should have been proof of these incidents but there is none. I do believe she was scared of him when they fought but I think Simpson was just as afraid of her when she went off. Also, the 1989 incident happened while both were drunk---yet neither one of them blamed drink on their behavior that night.
TV,
The DA's would have need proof that Nicole fit the profile, they did not have this proof. Why else would they not have called a DV expert?
I don't know. They did lots of things omitted lots of things that I wouldn't have done. Their decisions on how to try the case don't make OJ Simpson innocent of wife beating or murder. IMO, they did provide plenty of evidence that Nicole was a battered woman.
Martin,
I agree with you. People are forgetting their are legal documents that indicate this was a one time incident. What Nicole wrote for her divorce, again there should have been proof of these incidents but there is none. I do believe she was scared of him when they fought but I think Simpson was just as afraid of her when she went off. Also, the 1989 incident happened while both were drunk---yet neither one of them blamed drink on their behavior that night.
Alcohol isn't a legal excuse for criminal activity. It doesn't matter that they were drinking. It's hard for me to believe that you really believe that a man who once plowed through 300 pound opponents was afraid of a 129 pound woman. I don't get why you don't understand that women lie about the extent of domestic abuse that they suffer. It's a very complicated issue as to why this is but it's true.
martin II
10-29-2009, 07:49 PM
TV,
The DA's would have need proof that Nicole fit the profile, they did not have this proof. Why else would they not have called a DV expert?
There was also a expert that said oj did not fit that profile.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 07:56 PM
I don't know. They did lots of things omitted lots of things that I wouldn't have done. Their decisions on how to try the case don't make OJ Simpson innocent of wife beating or murder. IMO, they did provide plenty of evidence that Nicole was a battered woman.
TV,
The problem is, there is no proof that it happened more then once. I am sure if the DA's had it and it "passed" the rules of evidence, it would have been allowed. I would think that this type of evidence is crucial in any case and therefore there are strict guidelines on it.
However, even if he is guilty of hitting his wife, that does not mean he is guilty of her murder.
martin II
10-29-2009, 07:57 PM
Alcohol isn't a legal excuse for criminal activity. It doesn't matter that they were drinking. It's hard for me to believe that you really believe that a man who once plowed through 300 pound opponents was afraid of a 129 pound woman. I don't get why you don't understand that women lie about the extent of domestic abuse that they suffer. It's a very complicated issue as to why this is but it's true.
OJS size as a football player had nothing to do with his ability to overpower nicole many years after he had stopped playing ball. Based on her friends description of her, she was in great physical shape and gave as good as she got. She was no meak person that did not know that she did not have to accept abuse. To try to paint her as some helpless woman with no options is not accurate.imo
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 08:00 PM
Alcohol isn't a legal excuse for criminal activity. It doesn't matter that they were drinking. It's hard for me to believe that you really believe that a man who once plowed through 300 pound opponents was afraid of a 129 pound woman. I don't get why you don't understand that women lie about the extent of domestic abuse that they suffer. It's a very complicated issue as to why this is but it's true.
TV,
I never said it was a legal excuse for any type of behavior. However, that does not stop many people all over the world to use it as an excuse for their behavior.
And When Simpson played football, the players were not the size they are today. William Perry was the first 300 lb player and he played in the mid 80's.
Also, Simpson was not a "smash" runner. There are different styles of running backs. However, when you talk about what Simpson could do on the football field in his prime, then you must also talk about the toll it took on his body, the number of knee surgeries he had as well as having a very crippling form of arthristis (sp).
martin II
10-29-2009, 08:23 PM
TV,
The problem is, there is no proof that it happened more then once. I am sure if the DA's had it and it "passed" the rules of evidence, it would have been allowed. I would think that this type of evidence is crucial in any case and therefore there are strict guidelines on it.
However, even if he is guilty of hitting his wife, that does not mean he is guilty of her murder.
GI
TV seems to be trying to use some general discussion on abuse by some group as her proof that oj killed nicole. She needs more facts than a study to prove that oj hit nicole more than nicole said he did and actual proof that if there was more abuse that led to murder. not possible.
It is the same when some try to take a jurors comment and call them stupid
and that is why the verdict was wrong. :cool:
martin II
10-29-2009, 08:27 PM
TV,
I never said it was a legal excuse for any type of behavior. However, that does not stop many people all over the world to use it as an excuse for their behavior.
And When Simpson played football, the players were not the size they are today. William Perry was the first 300 lb player and he played in the mid 80's.
Also, Simpson was not a "smash" runner. There are different styles of running backs. However, when you talk about what Simpson could do on the football field in his prime, then you must also talk about the toll it took on his body, the number of knee surgeries he had as well as having a very crippling form of arthristis (sp).
GI
Thanks for clearing that up.
OJS size as a football player had nothing to do with his ability to overpower nicole many years after he had stopped playing ball. Based on her friends description of her, she was in great physical shape and gave as good as she got. She was no meak person that did not know that she did not have to accept abuse. To try to paint her as some helpless woman with no options is not accurate.imo
OJ Simpson had stayed very active after retiring from football. He was in much better shape than most other men his age. If you think that Nicole was a match for him physically or that she had the strength to overpower him you are wrong. The 'gave as good as she got' is one of the most insulting things that is said about Nicole on this forum.
You don't understand that her limitations weren't only physical. Battered woman syndrome is very much like post-traumatic stress syndrome. There are many psychological factors that go into making a woman react to being abused the way that she does.
TV,
I never said it was a legal excuse for any type of behavior. However, that does not stop many people all over the world to use it as an excuse for their behavior.
And When Simpson played football, the players were not the size they are today. William Perry was the first 300 lb player and he played in the mid 80's.
Also, Simpson was not a "smash" runner. There are different styles of running backs. However, when you talk about what Simpson could do on the football field in his prime, then you must also talk about the toll it took on his body, the number of knee surgeries he had as well as having a very crippling form of arthristis (sp).
GreenIce, you may not remember when OJ Simpson was a football star but I do. As football players go he wasn't among the largest or heaviest but he was in excellent shape and was muscular and staying active at the time of the murders. The doctor testified that he was capable of committing the murders. Al Cowlings said that OJ Simpson was capable of running down opponents on the football field so he did indeed 'smash' people at times. The argument is unrealistic that Nicole was any physical match for Simpson. She wouldn't have been a match for him even if he weren't a former athlete.
GI
TV seems to be trying to use some general discussion on abuse by some group as her proof that oj killed nicole. She needs more facts than a study to prove that oj hit nicole more than nicole said he did and actual proof that if there was more abuse that led to murder. not possible.
It is the same when some try to take a jurors comment and call them stupid
and that is why the verdict was wrong. :cool:
The battered woman syndrome is very real and the criteria for it that I posted is generally accepted. If you can find something significantly different I'd like to see it.
I hope you're not trying to say that I've called the jurors stupid and I'm wondering why you even brought up the jurors in your post.
TV,
The problem is, there is no proof that it happened more then once. I am sure if the DA's had it and it "passed" the rules of evidence, it would have been allowed. I would think that this type of evidence is crucial in any case and therefore there are strict guidelines on it.
However, even if he is guilty of hitting his wife, that does not mean he is guilty of her murder.
It shows he couldn't control his rage and he was definitely enraged when he killed Ron and Nicole. It's another link in the chain.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 08:53 PM
GI
TV seems to be trying to use some general discussion on abuse by some group as her proof that oj killed nicole. She needs more facts than a study to prove that oj hit nicole more than nicole said he did and actual proof that if there was more abuse that led to murder. not possible.
It is the same when some try to take a jurors comment and call them stupid
and that is why the verdict was wrong. :cool:
Martin,
I understand what TV is trying to convey. You are correct, they need proof that Nicole did fit the pattern and she didn't. Barry Scheck is an expert on DV as was Dr. Walker.
If the DA's sought out any DV experts, either they were told they couldn't testify because there was no proof of this. Or they never sought one out.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 08:57 PM
It shows he couldn't control his rage and he was definitely enraged when he killed Ron and Nicole. It's another link in the chain.
TV,
There was proof that Simpson could be in a rage and not even approach Nicole. The injuries to both Ron and Nicole were not consistent, which is why many people believe there were two killers. Ron was tortured and Nicole was not.
The killers walked away from the condo, there was no indication of any panic on behalf of the killers. There is no way one killer could have kept both of them quiet.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 09:05 PM
The battered woman syndrome is very real and the criteria for it that I posted is generally accepted. If you can find something significantly different I'd like to see it.
I hope you're not trying to say that I've called the jurors stupid and I'm wondering why you even brought up the jurors in your post.
TV,
I had the chance to ask Marcia Clark a question and I asked her if Nicole had killed OJ, would she have been able to use the Battered Woman Syndrome. She said it was a great question but no, Nicole would not have been able to use that defense. She said the majority of the abuse in the Simpson relationship was emotional and it wasn't one sided. So please don't tear my head off---that is what she said.
I agree with you about the battered woman's syndrome and I believe it is a valid defense, however, very few women ever get aquitted or even pardoned in cases like this.
While I don't think this is an issue in the Simpson case, I do think it is fair to say that many, many people of both genders can't comprehend this syndrome. They don't understand why the woman killed the abuser while he was sleeping or drunk and just didn't leave. They just don't get it, IMO.
TV,
There was proof that Simpson could be in a rage and not even approach Nicole. The injuries to both Ron and Nicole were not consistent, which is why many people believe there were two killers. Ron was tortured and Nicole was not.
The killers walked away from the condo, there was no indication of any panic on behalf of the killers. There is no way one killer could have kept both of them quiet.
You know what? I don't think Ron was tortured. I know the marks are there and can be indicative of torture but I don't think that's what happened with Ron. I think it happened during the thrashing around. That's just my personal opinion -- I'm certainly no forensic scientist or medical examiner.
TV,
I had the chance to ask Marcia Clark a question and I asked her if Nicole had killed OJ, would she have been able to use the Battered Woman Syndrome. She said it was a great question but no, Nicole would not have been able to use that defense. She said the majority of the abuse in the Simpson relationship was emotional and it wasn't one sided. So please don't tear my head off---that is what she said.
I agree with you about the battered woman's syndrome and I believe it is a valid defense, however, very few women ever get aquitted or even pardoned in cases like this.
While I don't think this is an issue in the Simpson case, I do think it is fair to say that many, many people of both genders can't comprehend this syndrome. They don't understand why the woman killed the abuser while he was sleeping or drunk and just didn't leave. They just don't get it, IMO.
I don't consider Marcia Clark an expert on battered women's syndrome. Nicole clearly fits the criteria. There is plenty of evidence in Nicole's safety deposit box, statements by her friends and testimony by Denise to convince me she was battered and that it happened many times.
The jury member that stated she did not believe vannatter told the truth was only one that felt this way. she and others came to this conclusion by listening to his testimony. Contrary to what some believe this jury paid close attention to the prosecutions direct AND THE DEFENSE CROSS of the witnesses.
Martz, Rubin,AM,Fung and G Sims were important witnesses when it came to evidence presented and all of their testimony was proven to be not believable. Maby some because of hatred of oj decided that the jury and their verdict should be attacked. But informed people know the jury had no choice but to issue the not giuilty verdict based on what the prosecution claimed and could not prove. imo
to his testimony.
If they paid close attention why did they think Mazzola and Simpson were a blood match and why didn't they know his blood was on the Rockingham glove?
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 09:20 PM
You know what? I don't think Ron was tortured. I know the marks are there and can be indicative of torture but I don't think that's what happened with Ron. I think it happened during the thrashing around. That's just my personal opinion -- I'm certainly no forensic scientist or medical examiner.
TV,
I think Dr. L felt they could have been inflicted just to prove that Ron was in fact dead. I am sure there are a few reasons why he suffered these wounds.
One of the main reasons why I believe they were torture or "control wounds" is because I think Ron kept quiet because of the kids. There was no damage done to his lips or mouth area that would indicate that he was gagged or anything.
Also, because the envelope was opened and there was a fingerprint on the lens that end up missing---so, this leads me to believe that Ron was being asked questions and he was able to give the answers the killers were looking for.
I can see where these wounds could be looked at differently.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 09:31 PM
I don't consider Marcia Clark an expert on battered women's syndrome. Nicole clearly fits the criteria. There is plenty of evidence in Nicole's safety deposit box, statements by her friends and testimony by Denise to convince me she was battered and that it happened many times.
TV,
Marcia Clark might not be an expert in DV but she had plenty of resources to turn to discuss this. In her book, she does say she did not pay much attention to Scott Gordon, who is an expert on DV. She didn't think this was DV case until much later. I think she even apologizes to him. However, once she got on board with it, she is too good of a lawyer not to have done the research.
Statements made by Nicole's friends do not mean that it is true. Denise's testimony didn't really prove much and it is clear the defense had a witness they were going to call that would challenge her version of events.
Another point, while Clark was not expert on DV, Barry Sheck and Dr. Walker were experts on this subject. Perhaps Clark was told that there was not enough proof to support an expert testifying for the DA's. It appears to me that the DA's didn't call a DV expert becasue they could not. Big difference, IMO.
martin II
10-29-2009, 09:34 PM
You know what? I don't think Ron was tortured. I know the marks are there and can be indicative of torture but I don't think that's what happened with Ron. I think it happened during the thrashing around. That's just my personal opinion -- I'm certainly no forensic scientist or medical examiner.
tv
After the first cut to rons neck, jugular he was going to die from blood loss if he was not cut again.
Yet he was cut/stabbed some 40 times after this and after it was clear that he would not survive he was stabbed several testing 'TESTING WOUNDS"
to make sure he was dead. He clearly received more wounds than Nicole.
The wounds to his flank and center body mass were not from trashing around.
They were wounds inflicted by a prosessional that knew where to stab and cut for maxium effect. Thrashing wounds would have been slight cuts not cuts to the jugular and the major blood vessels.Nicole suffered much less stabs and cuts.imo
imo
weezer
10-29-2009, 09:40 PM
If they paid close attention why did they think Mazzola and Simpson were a blood match and why didn't they know his blood was on the Rockingham glove?
I see the NG's are wanting someone to prove their negative! LOL
they are quick to point out that the DA's didn't call a DV expert BUT avoid the question why the criminal defense didn't call the DV expert they hired to assess orenthal. :rolleyes:
martin II
10-29-2009, 09:41 PM
TV,
I think Dr. L felt they could have been inflicted just to prove that Ron was in fact dead. I am sure there are a few reasons why he suffered these wounds.
One of the main reasons why I believe they were torture or "control wounds" is because I think Ron kept quiet because of the kids. There was no damage done to his lips or mouth area that would indicate that he was gagged or anything.
Also, because the envelope was opened and there was a fingerprint on the lens that end up missing---so, this leads me to believe that Ron was being asked questions and he was able to give the answers the killers were looking for.
I can see where these wounds could be looked at differently.
I think ron tried to put up a fight in the beginning wich caused the killers to
stab/cut him more but from the jugular cut he was becomming very weak but the killers continued to do him because of his initial fight. Which may be why they did the TESTING WOUNDS to be sure he was dead.
I think they tossed his body inside the gate so he would not be seen from the street. imo
TV,
I think Dr. L felt they could have been inflicted just to prove that Ron was in fact dead. I am sure there are a few reasons why he suffered these wounds.
One of the main reasons why I believe they were torture or "control wounds" is because I think Ron kept quiet because of the kids. There was no damage done to his lips or mouth area that would indicate that he was gagged or anything.
Also, because the envelope was opened and there was a fingerprint on the lens that end up missing---so, this leads me to believe that Ron was being asked questions and he was able to give the answers the killers were looking for.
I can see where these wounds could be looked at differently.
Dr. L could probably tell if they were post or ante-mortem. If they were torture marks they weren't done post mortem. I don't think Ron kept quiet because of the kids. He was fighting for his life and I believe that would be the only thing on his mind. I don't think he was answering questions. Also, there was no fingerprint on the glasses that I recall. It was a smudge.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 09:45 PM
If they paid close attention why did they think Mazzola and Simpson were a blood match and why didn't they know his blood was on the Rockingham glove?
TV,
I don't know anything about AM and OJ and the blood. I did read the comment the juror made about Simpson's blood not being on the Rockingham glove.
To be fair to both the state's experts, such as Fung, AM, Michelle Kestler and the jurors, I am pretty sure they could engage in hours of these types of questions, like how come you didn't use the right light to see the blood on the socks or how come you couldn't see the blood on the socks when we could see it in the courtroom?
Like I said, to be fair, I am sure both sides have these types of questions. However, it must be noted, if the jurors didn't understand some of the evidence, then that is the fault of the DA's, IMO. If the juror didn't know Simpson's blood was on the glove, then the DA's didn't make it clear enough. They had how many months to make sure the jurors knew their case as well as they did?
But to be fair to the DA's, they had to be careful with the Rockingham glove, they couldn't prove how it got back there and they couldn't prove that Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove was not transfered by accident.
BTW, Chris Darden was hit hard for getting the gloves mixed up in his closing, so if a DA can get the gloves mixed up, as to which glove was found at which scene, I can understand how a juror might make the same mistake. IMO.
martin II
10-29-2009, 09:49 PM
I see the NG's are wanting someone to prove their negative! LOL
they are quick to point out that the DA's didn't call a DV expert BUT avoid the question why the criminal defense didn't call the DV expert they hired to assess orenthal. :rolleyes:
Common sense says if the prosecution did not call a dv expert it was a dead issue. The defense was smart this way.imo
You still seem to believe the defense had a responsibility to prove something.
You have been informed that by law this is not required. imo
TV,
I don't know anything about AM and OJ and the blood. I did read the comment the juror made about Simpson's blood not being on the Rockingham glove.
To be fair to both the state's experts, such as Fung, AM, Michelle Kestler and the jurors, I am pretty sure they could engage in hours of these types of questions, like how come you didn't use the right light to see the blood on the socks or how come you couldn't see the blood on the socks when we could see it in the courtroom?
Like I said, to be fair, I am sure both sides have these types of questions. However, it must be noted, if the jurors didn't understand some of the evidence, then that is the fault of the DA's, IMO. If the juror didn't know Simpson's blood was on the glove, then the DA's didn't make it clear enough. They had how many months to make sure the jurors knew their case as well as they did?
But to be fair to the DA's, they had to be careful with the Rockingham glove, they couldn't prove how it got back there and they couldn't prove that Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove was not transfered by accident.
BTW, Chris Darden was hit hard for getting the gloves mixed up in his closing, so if a DA can get the gloves mixed up, as to which glove was found at which scene, I can understand how a juror might make the same mistake. IMO.
There's really no excuse for the jurors not knowing Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. The only reason has to be inattention or ignoring what's being said. Simpson's blood on it proves how it got back there and there is no proof that the blood was planted on the glove.
martin II
10-29-2009, 09:54 PM
TV,
I don't know anything about AM and OJ and the blood. I did read the comment the juror made about Simpson's blood not being on the Rockingham glove.
To be fair to both the state's experts, such as Fung, AM, Michelle Kestler and the jurors, I am pretty sure they could engage in hours of these types of questions, like how come you didn't use the right light to see the blood on the socks or how come you couldn't see the blood on the socks when we could see it in the courtroom?
Like I said, to be fair, I am sure both sides have these types of questions. However, it must be noted, if the jurors didn't understand some of the evidence, then that is the fault of the DA's, IMO. If the juror didn't know Simpson's blood was on the glove, then the DA's didn't make it clear enough. They had how many months to make sure the jurors knew their case as well as they did?
But to be fair to the DA's, they had to be careful with the Rockingham glove, they couldn't prove how it got back there and they couldn't prove that Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove was not transfered by accident.
BTW, Chris Darden was hit hard for getting the gloves mixed up in his closing, so if a DA can get the gloves mixed up, as to which glove was found at which scene, I can understand how a juror might make the same mistake. IMO.
So the jurors book comment was a result of how the prosecution presented it.
confusion is transferable. i guess.
martin II
10-29-2009, 09:59 PM
There's really no excuse for the jurors not knowing Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. The only reason has to be inattention or ignoring what's being said. Simpson's blood on it proves how it got back there and there is no proof that the blood was planted on the glove.
Wrong
The blood could have been put on the glove in the lab because you don't know if the blood on the ground was the same blood sent out for testing. That is a fact. To prove that oj dropped the glove in the walkway you have to show he was in the walkway.Clarke did not prove that.Opinions are not proof. imo
TV,
Marcia Clark might not be an expert in DV but she had plenty of resources to turn to discuss this. In her book, she does say she did not pay much attention to Scott Gordon, who is an expert on DV. She didn't think this was DV case until much later. I think she even apologizes to him. However, once she got on board with it, she is too good of a lawyer not to have done the research.
Statements made by Nicole's friends do not mean that it is true. Denise's testimony didn't really prove much and it is clear the defense had a witness they were going to call that would challenge her version of events.
Another point, while Clark was not expert on DV, Barry Sheck and Dr. Walker were experts on this subject. Perhaps Clark was told that there was not enough proof to support an expert testifying for the DA's. It appears to me that the DA's didn't call a DV expert becasue they could not. Big difference, IMO.
Barry Scheck is an expert on domestic violence? This is the first time I've heard this.
I believe Nicole's friends. What did they have to gain by lying?
Wrong
The blood could have been put on the glove in the lab because you don't know if the blood on the ground was the same blood sent out for testing. That is a fact. To prove that oj dropped the glove in the walkway you have to show he was in the walkway.Clarke did not prove that.Opinions are not proof. imo
Provide proof that the blood was put on the glove in the lab. Maybe all cases where blood on evidence is tested in a lab should be thown out if all you have to do is offer wild speculation to get an acquittal.
martin II
10-29-2009, 10:08 PM
One juror stated that they listened to testimony for 9 mo they did not need to go over everything they had heard in deliberations.So to say the jury did not listen is just a faulty opinion imo.
One juror stated that head listened to testimony for 9 mo they did not need to go over everything they had heard in deliberations.So to say the jury did not listen is just a faulty opinion imo.
I'm not talking about what they went over in deliberations even though it was very little. I'm talking about them saying in Armanda Cooley's book that if OJ Simpson did it his blood would have been on the Rockingham glove. His glove was on the glove. It was a main component of the prosecution's case and they should have known that. Don't call my opinion faulty when you don't know what you're talking about.
Wrong
The blood could have been put on the glove in the lab because you don't know if the blood on the ground was the same blood sent out for testing. That is a fact. To prove that oj dropped the glove in the walkway you have to show he was in the walkway.Clarke did not prove that.Opinions are not proof. imo
You should try to remember this.
martin II
10-29-2009, 10:18 PM
I'm not talking about what they went over in deliberations even though it was very little. I'm talking about them saying in Armanda Cooley's book that if OJ Simpson did it his blood would have been on the Rockingham glove. His glove was on the glove. It was a main component of the prosecution's case and they should have known that. Don't call my opinion faulty when you don't know what you're talking about.
The blood could have been put on the glove when it was in that lab.What you say the jury member said is not proof that they did not listen.She may have remembered that AM sample of ojs blood was switched in that lab.But in reality it did not mean anything as far as the verdict was concerned.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 10:20 PM
Barry Scheck is an expert on domestic violence? This is the first time I've heard this.
I believe Nicole's friends. What did they have to gain by lying?
TV,
Do you remember that little girl who was beaten to death by her adoptive father, Joel Steinberg? Remember the woman, Hedda something? Scheck was her lawyer. He was able to prove that Hedda was so badley beaten for so many years that she could not even defend herself let alone Lisa, which is why she was never prosecuted.
I don't know if Nicole's friends were lying. What I am saying is that it is a question of proving it. The best witness they had was Faye Resnick. From what has been written, the DA's used her book as the foundation of their case. While both Darden and Clark said that many of her stories checked out, it makes no sense because they did not call these people to testify to it.
The blood could have been put on the glove when it was in that lab.What you say the jury member said is not proof that they did not listen.She may have remembered that AM sample of ojs blood was switched in that lab.But in reality it did not mean anything as far as the verdict was concerned.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda -- where's the proof? And what blood are you talking about being switched in the lab?
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 10:24 PM
There's really no excuse for the jurors not knowing Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. The only reason has to be inattention or ignoring what's being said. Simpson's blood on it proves how it got back there and there is no proof that the blood was planted on the glove.
TV,
To the best of my knowledge, only one juror made that comment. However, I stand by my post, both sides could ask these types of questions and I bet the answers would not be acceptable to the other side.
I fully support your anger on this issue. I hope you can support my anger about the lights and the socks. One juror missed this issue, however at least 4 state experts missed the blood on the socks.
Does either side have a reasonable explaination for this?
TV,
Do you remember that little girl who was beaten to death by her adoptive father, Joel Steinberg? Remember the woman, Hedda something? Scheck was her lawyer. He was able to prove that Hedda was so badley beaten for so many years that she could not even defend herself let alone Lisa, which is why she was never prosecuted.
I don't know if Nicole's friends were lying. What I am saying is that it is a question of proving it. The best witness they had was Faye Resnick. From what has been written, the DA's used her book as the foundation of their case. While both Darden and Clark said that many of her stories checked out, it makes no sense because they did not call these people to testify to it.
Have you forgotten about India Allen and the man (can't remember his name) that saw Simpson hit Nicole on the beach?
martin II
10-29-2009, 10:24 PM
I'm not talking about what they went over in deliberations even though it was very little. I'm talking about them saying in Armanda Cooley's book that if OJ Simpson did it his blood would have been on the Rockingham glove. His glove was on the glove. It was a main component of the prosecution's case and they should have known that. Don't call my opinion faulty when you don't know what you're talking about.
I think trying to use some comments by a juror in a book to show that were some stupid people is a loosing effort. They were just as smart as the civil jurors. imo
TV,
To the best of my knowledge, only one juror made that comment. However, I stand by my post, both sides could ask these types of questions and I bet the answers would not be acceptable to the other side.
I fully support your anger on this issue. I hope you can support my anger about the lights and the socks. One juror missed this issue, however at least 4 state experts missed the blood on the socks.
Does either side have a reasonable explaination for this?
GI, I'm not angry. The two situations are not comparable because the blood was eventually discovered on the socks and the lab admitted they missed it at first. The jurors seem to not have even an elementary understanding of the evidence in the trial and to me that is unacceptable.
I think trying to use some comments by a juror in a book to show that were some stupid people is a loosing effort. They were just as smart as the civil jurors. imo
Stupid is your word not mine.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 10:33 PM
Coulda, woulda, shoulda -- where's the proof? And what blood are you talking about being switched in the lab?
TV,
The problem is that Fung and Mozzola did not keep accurate records and they did not complete the checklists. The evidence numbers were changed at least twice.
I have a difficult time with AM's explaination about her initals. It seems to me that she did change her story, however, did she lie or was she pressured to change her story? Or was she pressured in such a manner that she no longer knows what she did?
There are many statements in books about witnesses who were afraid to come forward because they were afraid of the consequences of coming forward.
Fung's and Mozzola's testimony about them being a team makes no sense to me in regards to the paperwork and the changing of the evidence numbers. I can't accept that the DA's let them takie the stand knowing they were going to be creamed by the defense. It makes no sense to me that Michelle Kestler did not step in sooner and make sure her people were prepared to testified and their paperwork would be completed.
It just seems like they were both hung out to dry. IMO.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Just nine days before she was murdered, Nicole Brown Simpson wrote of threats from her ex-husband. Excerpts from her diary are being published for the first time this week.
Nicole Brown Simpson's father, Lou Brown, confirmed for CNN the authenticity of the excerpts, which are being published by the National Enquirer. He said he doesn't know how the tabloid got his daughter's diary.
"It is her handwriting," Lou Brown said. "I can't vouch for the authenticity of what she wrote ... but I don't think she had any reason to lie about what she was writing at the time she was writing it." (200K AIFF sound or 200K WAV sound)
Nine days before she was slashed to death at her home, Nicole wrote in her diary that O.J. Simpson warned her: "You hang up on me last night, you're gonna pay for this, b----." She also wrote about Simpson's infidelity and the verbal abuse she suffered.
In the diary, she wrote that when she was two months pregnant with their son, Justin, O.J. Simpson called her a "fat pig." Jurors were told that Simpson called his pregnant wife a "fat pig," but were not told other things that Nicole Brown Simpson recorded in that diary entry, that Simpson demanded she have an abortion and aimed a gun at her.
Prosecutors wanted to use Nicole's diary as evidence in Simpson's murder trial, but Judge Lance Ito ruled it "inadmissible hearsay."
The Enquirer said it got a copy from someone "concerned about battered women's issues." It would not say if it paid for the diary.
Excerpts from Nicole Brown Simpson's diary
"I wanted to be a wonderful wife...but you made me feel so ugly. You beat the holy hell out of me. ... I hated you so much."
"I just don't see how our stories compare -- I was so bad because I wore sweats, left shoes around plus I didn't keep a perfect house or comb my hair the way you liked it -- or had dinner ready at the precise moment you walked through the door, or that I just plain got on your nerves sometimes."
"I just don't see how that compares to infidelity, wife beating, verbal abuse -- I just don't think everybody goes through this."
"You're a fat pig, you're disgusting, you're a slob ... I want you out of my f---ing house. I want you to have an abortion. ... I have a gun in my hand right now. ... get the f--- out of here."
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-17/index.html
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 10:45 PM
GI, I'm not angry. The two situations are not comparable because the blood was eventually discovered on the socks and the lab admitted they missed it at first. The jurors seem to not have even an elementary understanding of the evidence in the trial and to me that is unacceptable.
TV,
I disagree, I think if you feel it is fair to raise questions about the jurors performance and understanding the important of evidence, then every one should be held to the same standard.
IMO, there are the "basics" of all evidence, such as the socks. At least 4 state experts, through hours and hours of training and experience know that blood on dark objects can be invisiable to the naked eye. For them not use the proper equipment in this case regarding the socks is unacceptable.
It also important to remember that the socks were the most important pieces of evidence at Rockingham. For them to wait and finally find the blood evidence on them, is unacceptable. When you compound this with the compression of the blood on the socks and the location of the stains, then what is a juror suppose to think?
IMO, you also to have remember the juror instruction regarding evidence. The defense is always to get the benefit of the doubt if they can counter the state's evidence. In other words, if there is a "tie" between them, the tie always goes to the defense.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 10:51 PM
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Just nine days before she was murdered, Nicole Brown Simpson wrote of threats from her ex-husband. Excerpts from her diary are being published for the first time this week.
Nicole Brown Simpson's father, Lou Brown, confirmed for CNN the authenticity of the excerpts, which are being published by the National Enquirer. He said he doesn't know how the tabloid got his daughter's diary.
"It is her handwriting," Lou Brown said. "I can't vouch for the authenticity of what she wrote ... but I don't think she had any reason to lie about what she was writing at the time she was writing it." (200K AIFF sound or 200K WAV sound)
Nine days before she was slashed to death at her home, Nicole wrote in her diary that O.J. Simpson warned her: "You hang up on me last night, you're gonna pay for this, b----." She also wrote about Simpson's infidelity and the verbal abuse she suffered.
In the diary, she wrote that when she was two months pregnant with their son, Justin, O.J. Simpson called her a "fat pig." Jurors were told that Simpson called his pregnant wife a "fat pig," but were not told other things that Nicole Brown Simpson recorded in that diary entry, that Simpson demanded she have an abortion and aimed a gun at her.
Prosecutors wanted to use Nicole's diary as evidence in Simpson's murder trial, but Judge Lance Ito ruled it "inadmissible hearsay."
The Enquirer said it got a copy from someone "concerned about battered women's issues." It would not say if it paid for the diary.
Excerpts from Nicole Brown Simpson's diary
"I wanted to be a wonderful wife...but you made me feel so ugly. You beat the holy hell out of me. ... I hated you so much."
"I just don't see how our stories compare -- I was so bad because I wore sweats, left shoes around plus I didn't keep a perfect house or comb my hair the way you liked it -- or had dinner ready at the precise moment you walked through the door, or that I just plain got on your nerves sometimes."
"I just don't see how that compares to infidelity, wife beating, verbal abuse -- I just don't think everybody goes through this."
"You're a fat pig, you're disgusting, you're a slob ... I want you out of my f---ing house. I want you to have an abortion. ... I have a gun in my hand right now. ... get the f--- out of here."
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-17/index.html
TV,
The diary is one of these issues that has more questions then answers. Did Nicole always keep a diary?
Her father couldn't validate what was written and I believe even Judge Fujisaki said that this was being admitted into evidence not because it was true only it shows her state of mind. Which I totally don't get but that is how he ruled.
And Mr. Brown is not an expert in handwritting--he may think it is her's but does that mean it was her's? I know that I can write just like my mom--and
no, I never forged her signature or a note about skipping school. :)
TV,
I disagree, I think if you feel it is fair to raise questions about the jurors performance and understanding the important of evidence, then every one should be held to the same standard.
IMO, there are the "basics" of all evidence, such as the socks. At least 4 state experts, through hours and hours of training and experience know that blood on dark objects can be invisiable to the naked eye. For them not use the proper equipment in this case regarding the socks is unacceptable.
It also important to remember that the socks were the most important pieces of evidence at Rockingham. For them to wait and finally find the blood evidence on them, is unacceptable. When you compound this with the compression of the blood on the socks and the location of the stains, then what is a juror suppose to think?
IMO, you also to have remember the juror instruction regarding evidence. The defense is always to get the benefit of the doubt if they can counter the state's evidence. In other words, if there is a "tie" between them, the tie always goes to the defense.
You're missing my point. The jurors had OJ Simpson's fate in their hands and they should have been listening. It's not any more complicated than that.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 10:54 PM
Have you forgotten about India Allen and the man (can't remember his name) that saw Simpson hit Nicole on the beach?
TV,
IMO, their testimony makes no sense. I think India Allen never came forward until after the criminal trial. I think the limo driver did come forward but his testimony makes no sense. I think the obvious question about the limo driver is if he was 60 yards away and he saw what he saw, why didn't he call the police? How could someone watch another human being hit another human being and not at least call the police?
TV,
The diary is one of these issues that has more questions then answers. Did Nicole always keep a diary?
Her father couldn't validate what was written and I believe even Judge Fujisaki said that this was being admitted into evidence not because it was true only it shows her state of mind. Which I totally don't get but that is how he ruled.
And Mr. Brown is not an expert in handwritting--he may think it is her's but does that mean it was her's? I know that I can write just like my mom--and
no, I never forged her signature or a note about skipping school. :)
I guarantee you that I would know my children's handwriting anywhere. She wrote down the abuse so there would be a record of what happened if she couldn't speak for herself. Are you now saying that Nicole is a liar also? Don't you see that it's ludicrous that the only person that never lies in this case is OJ Simpson? He's a wifebeater, GI. Nicole, strangers, her friends, his friends, her sister all say the same thing.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 10:58 PM
You're missing my point. The jurors had OJ Simpson's fate in their hands and they should have been listening. It's not any more complicated than that.
TV,
Fung, AM and the other state witnesses always had Simpson's fate in their hands. To use your reasoning, if Fung and Company didn't care about the evidence and how to protect it, why should the jurors have cared about what they testified to?
The problem is, this is a two way street and the question is, does either side have an acceptable excuse?
TV,
IMO, their testimony makes no sense. I think India Allen never came forward until after the criminal trial. I think the limo driver did come forward but his testimony makes no sense. I think the obvious question about the limo driver is if he was 60 yards away and he saw what he saw, why didn't he call the police? How could someone watch another human being hit another human being and not at least call the police?
That's the whole problem with domestic violence. Everyone turns a blind eye and that's one of the reasons it goes on so long. This is a good link if you want to take a minute to read it.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/InNicolesWord.html
TV,
Fung, AM and the other state witnesses always had Simpson's fate in their hands. To use your reasoning, if Fung and Company didn't care about the evidence and how to protect it, why should the jurors have cared about what they testified to?
The problem is, this is a two way street and the question is, does either side have an acceptable excuse?
GI, the jury had the option to accept or reject the evidence presented in court but they should at least know what evidence was presented.
TV,
I disagree, I think if you feel it is fair to raise questions about the jurors performance and understanding the important of evidence, then every one should be held to the same standard.
IMO, there are the "basics" of all evidence, such as the socks. At least 4 state experts, through hours and hours of training and experience know that blood on dark objects can be invisiable to the naked eye. For them not use the proper equipment in this case regarding the socks is unacceptable.
It also important to remember that the socks were the most important pieces of evidence at Rockingham. For them to wait and finally find the blood evidence on them, is unacceptable. When you compound this with the compression of the blood on the socks and the location of the stains, then what is a juror suppose to think?
IMO, you also to have remember the juror instruction regarding evidence. The defense is always to get the benefit of the doubt if they can counter the state's evidence. In other words, if there is a "tie" between them, the tie always goes to the defense.
Imo, the most important piece of evidence at Rockingham was the bloody glove.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 11:14 PM
I guarantee you that I would know my children's handwriting anywhere. She wrote down the abuse so there would be a record of what happened if she couldn't speak for herself. Are you now saying that Nicole is a liar also? Don't you see that it's ludicrous that the only person that never lies in this case is OJ Simpson? He's a wifebeater, GI. Nicole, strangers, her friends, his friends, her sister all say the same thing.
TV,
I have no doubt that you could recognize your own children's handwriting. But that does not make you an expert. If the diary came out of Nicole's security box, then isn't it reasonable to assume that Mr. Brown would assume it was Nicole's handwriting? Would you expect him to testify to any thing else?
IMO, this is another issue that could have been dealt with by experts, take the emotion or the question out it. And again, this evidence was not admitted as it being the truth, only her state of mind.
Nicole's sister went public very early on claiming that Nicole was not an abused women. Both of her sisters went on TV to say that Nicole was not a battered woman because there is no way she would have taken it.
Granted, Denise did change her mind, but why did she change her mind?
I never knew Nicole, so I don't know if she is a liar. However, I did hear her say that Simpson only hit her once. If Nicole was lying when she said this, you have wonder if she would have lied in her writtings.
I never said that Simpson never lied. However, isn't it fair to say that you feel only Simpson lied? That everybody else is telling the truth but him?
IMO, had Simpson lied, he would have been off in the civil trial. One thing is for sure, when it came to the 1989 incident, his story has always been consistent.
Not one of Nicole's friends ever testified about DV, in either trial.
TV,
I have no doubt that you could recognize your own children's handwriting. But that does not make you an expert. If the diary came out of Nicole's security box, then isn't it reasonable to assume that Mr. Brown would assume it was Nicole's handwriting? Would you expect him to testify to any thing else?
IMO, this is another issue that could have been dealt with by experts, take the emotion or the question out it. And again, this evidence was not admitted as it being the truth, only her state of mind.
Nicole's sister went public very early on claiming that Nicole was not an abused women. Both of her sisters went on TV to say that Nicole was not a battered woman because there is no way she would have taken it.
Granted, Denise did change her mind, but why did she change her mind?
I never knew Nicole, so I don't know if she is a liar. However, I did hear her say that Simpson only hit her once. If Nicole was lying when she said this, you have wonder if she would have lied in her writtings.
I never said that Simpson never lied. However, isn't it fair to say that you feel only Simpson lied? That everybody else is telling the truth but him?
IMO, had Simpson lied, he would have been off in the civil trial. One thing is for sure, when it came to the 1989 incident, his story has always been consistent.
Not one of Nicole's friends ever testified about DV, in either trial.
No, I don't feel only Simpson lied. I think Arnelle lied too.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 11:20 PM
Imo, the most important piece of evidence at Rockingham was the bloody glove.
TV,
The problem with the glove, there was more evidence to support that it was put there on purpose. There was also a problem with the story given by the detectives why they went to Rockingham. The DA's and the LAPD had no way of knowing how a judge was going to rule on this. I am pretty sure they felt 95% comfortable, that even with the lies in the search warrant, the judge would deem it a legal search---but they had to be prepared.
The socks were found inside his home and they were believed to have been worn during the crime. The glove, the defense could argue was planted, but the socks, much, much harder.
Also remember, Simpson's blood was never found on the glove until later and allegedly there was a mixture of blood on it--they could confirm it was a mixture of two people's blood, but they could not confirm a third person's blood. The one stain that was Simpson's blood and only his blood was never found until much later.
Had the socks did not have a mixture issue. IMO.
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 11:21 PM
No, I don't feel only Simpson lied. I think Arnelle lied too.
TV,
Well at least you are keeping it in the family. :)
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 11:29 PM
That's the whole problem with domestic violence. Everyone turns a blind eye and that's one of the reasons it goes on so long. This is a good link if you want to take a minute to read it.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/InNicolesWord.html
TV,
I read the link. First off, the author says that Nicole told her mother a few months before the murders that she felt she was being followed by Simpson. But a few months before the murders, they were still trying to make a go of it.
However, Nicole was being followed---during the time they were trying to make a go of it.
I think it is also fair to point that there are reasons why this type of "evidence" is not admissiable. I think it is fair to say that people will lie about stuff like this just to get even or to make the other person's life miserable--which is why it is inadmissable.
As for her calling the shelter. I have problems with that. The DA's had a lawyer who told Judge Ito that Nicole did identify herself and that she named OJ Simpson--yet we know that is not true according to Nancy Ney. So what do we believe?
GreenIce
10-29-2009, 11:33 PM
I think ron tried to put up a fight in the beginning wich caused the killers to
stab/cut him more but from the jugular cut he was becomming very weak but the killers continued to do him because of his initial fight. Which may be why they did the TESTING WOUNDS to be sure he was dead.
I think they tossed his body inside the gate so he would not be seen from the street. imo
Martin,
I do believe Ron's body was place where it was found. However, it makes no sense they would try to hide his body and leave Nicole's under a light that could be seen from the street. That never made any sense to me.
Also, the footprint on Ron's jeans also leads me to believe he was moved.
GreenIce
10-30-2009, 06:52 AM
Common sense says if the prosecution did not call a dv expert it was a dead issue. The defense was smart this way.imo
You still seem to believe the defense had a responsibility to prove something.
You have been informed that by law this is not required. imo
Martin,
I have always posted that the DV motive made no sense. Early on the submitted several instances of what they considered to be DV and I think the judge only allowed very few. The one's he did allow, IMO, were very weak as well as even putting a bigger spot light on MF.
However, I think they may have been forced to use this motive because it is clear they did not want to risk going into Nicole's and Ron's personal lives very deeply at all.
To this day, it is still unclear what the true nature of their relationship was. It seems every book has a different perception about their relationship. One has Ron over the house so often, that she thinks they were a family.
I also find it very odd that Lange and Vanatter totally dismissed this motive because of the inside of Nicole's condo and they had to know what Faye said about Ron being there that night. It is clear they did not to go there.
There are some books that suggest it was Nicole at the wrong place at the wrong time and not Ron.
IMO, it is clear, Ron's or another adult's being there did not surprise the killers any more then Nicole's dog did.
I am reading a book that is very interesting that has Ron and Nicole dead at 10:00 p.m. and Simpson showed up after the murders. His focus is on the footprints. But to me, these footprints were left there on purpose and it seems to me at least one of them wanted the prints to be as clear as possible. I can't see why Simpson would have done that.
We do the killers were in no hurry to leave so they could have wiped out the footprints. Again, IMO.
TV,
The problem with the glove, there was more evidence to support that it was put there on purpose. There was also a problem with the story given by the detectives why they went to Rockingham. The DA's and the LAPD had no way of knowing how a judge was going to rule on this. I am pretty sure they felt 95% comfortable, that even with the lies in the search warrant, the judge would deem it a legal search---but they had to be prepared.
The socks were found inside his home and they were believed to have been worn during the crime. The glove, the defense could argue was planted, but the socks, much, much harder.
Also remember, Simpson's blood was never found on the glove until later and allegedly there was a mixture of blood on it--they could confirm it was a mixture of two people's blood, but they could not confirm a third person's blood. The one stain that was Simpson's blood and only his blood was never found until much later.
Had the socks did not have a mixture issue. IMO.
GI, I've posted the blood evidence on the glove several times. It was OJ Simpson's mixed with Ron and Nicole's and Ron and Nicole's not mixed with his in some areas. Both sides accepted that evidence. You are wrong about the blood not being found until much later. Could you please provide a link to these claims?
Martin,
I do believe Ron's body was place where it was found. However, it makes no sense they would try to hide his body and leave Nicole's under a light that could be seen from the street. That never made any sense to me.
Also, the footprint on Ron's jeans also leads me to believe he was moved.
As opposed to it being placed where it wasn't found? What does this mean?
TV,
I read the link. First off, the author says that Nicole told her mother a few months before the murders that she felt she was being followed by Simpson. But a few months before the murders, they were still trying to make a go of it.
However, Nicole was being followed---during the time they were trying to make a go of it.
I think it is also fair to point that there are reasons why this type of "evidence" is not admissiable. I think it is fair to say that people will lie about stuff like this just to get even or to make the other person's life miserable--which is why it is inadmissable.
As for her calling the shelter. I have problems with that. The DA's had a lawyer who told Judge Ito that Nicole did identify herself and that she named OJ Simpson--yet we know that is not true according to Nancy Ney. So what do we believe?
Juditha Brown testified that Nicole told her Simpson was following her. Are you saying that Juditha Brown lied?
I see the NG's are wanting someone to prove their negative! LOL
they are quick to point out that the DA's didn't call a DV expert BUT avoid the question why the criminal defense didn't call the DV expert they hired to assess orenthal. :rolleyes:
That's what is always being asked on this board. An outrageous claim is made and then we're asked to prove it's not so. Good point about the defense not calling their DV expert. :)
tv
After the first cut to rons neck, jugular he was going to die from blood loss if he was not cut again.
Yet he was cut/stabbed some 40 times after this and after it was clear that he would not survive he was stabbed several testing 'TESTING WOUNDS"
to make sure he was dead. He clearly received more wounds than Nicole.
The wounds to his flank and center body mass were not from trashing around.
They were wounds inflicted by a prosessional that knew where to stab and cut for maxium effect. Thrashing wounds would have been slight cuts not cuts to the jugular and the major blood vessels.Nicole suffered much less stabs and cuts.imo
imo
You say testing wounds and GI says torture wounds. Which is it? I don't think they're torture wounds -- I'd go more with your testing wounds but I still think they could have just happened in the struggle. You could be right though. Wounds sustained during the struggle would have most likely been deep like the cut to Simpson's finger. Of course, Simpson had several smaller, more shallow wounds on his hand also.
martin II
10-30-2009, 08:36 AM
If they paid close attention why did they think Mazzola and Simpson were a blood match and why didn't they know his blood was on the Rockingham glove?
tv
in direct and cross arguments are made for and against what was found,where it was found and the condition it was in when found. Many people come away with different opinions of all of this.I have read different opinions about what was on the glove here. Wagner argues that the detective,don't remember his name,could not have known the glove was shining. After all this was one juror not 12.
You still don't know if the blood on the glove when found was ojs.Considering all the testimony and evidence the jury heard the prosecution did not prove their case so what one juror thought on that specific issue means little.imo
martin II
10-30-2009, 08:39 AM
Martin,
I do believe Ron's body was place where it was found. However, it makes no sense they would try to hide his body and leave Nicole's under a light that could be seen from the street. That never made any sense to me.
Also, the footprint on Ron's jeans also leads me to believe he was moved.
I agree
I believe ron was initially attacked from behind AT THE GATE. I believe he was tossed inside in the plants after they finished with him. Nicoole was found further in the walkway at her steps. Less likely to be seen by a person walking on the sidewalk.imo
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.