Random Discussions On The Case

[Kayleighjo]

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.

Are you forgetting that Lenore Walker, considered the leading expert in DV, who met with Simpson made notes that Nicole did indeed fit the profile of a battered wife and that Simpson fit the profile of a batterer?

How easily we forget.

[Kayleighjo]

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?

I was hit several times in public and no one did anything. They considered it a "personal matter".

[martin II]

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.

The wounds that caused him to bleed out were inflicted before he died and when they were ron was going to die very soom.It may be because it is believed he did fight, they continued to stab and cut him until it was pobvious that he had become too weak to fight. These two-three death wounds is what caused his death the other 35 or more wounds could be called torture or excessive if you like. But it may be that the killers did not recognize how much damage they had already done.I do believe there were some Testing wounds also and that he was then tossed inside the gate to the plants. We know Nicole had fas less wounds. imo

[Kate Sachel]

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?

It is an obvious question to you and I because we know that the right thing to do would be to intervene either personally or by calling law enforcement.

Still in this current day and age many people advoid the topic of domestic violence because they consider it a private matter between two partners. More so back in the day and age when this was witnessed.

I personally do not know why someone would not intervene, but then I also do not know why someone would rape another, or murder another, or a whole host of things that others just do.

Kate

[martin II]

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.

Actually if a person is bleeding out from two intentional stabs at the right place, ron was going to die. Everything else can be what one wants to call them. There were no deep like cuts to ojs finger before he left for chicago.

[Kate Sachel]

Juditha Brown testified that Nicole told her Simpson was following her. Are you saying that Juditha Brown lied?

I believe it was Nicole's friend CiCi who said that, either a few days or weeks prior to her murder, that Nicole told her while they were out jogging that she was afraid that OJ was going to kill her and that her friends were turn on her and sell her out.

It is sad, because she really was smart enough to know the score.

Kate

[Kayleighjo]

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.

Yep and let's remember what Dr. Walker's notes said!

[martin II]

For some reason Americans don't like to get involved when they see violence in the street.
Take the current rape case where people actually took videos of the rape in front of them and did not do anythiing but look. Yet everyone says they are against rape.
I remember a man pulling a shotgun out on his girlfriend in a crowded subway station and shot her in front of hundreds of people standing next to them.

Then there is a local Popular tv news person whoes wife had called the police on him previously claiming he hit her.At trial yesterday she came to court and said she had lied in a effort to force him to give her money on some family real estate deal. They lived togeather after her complaint . He had lost his tv job.

[Kayleighjo]

For some reason Americans don't like to get involved when they see violence in the street.
Take the current rape case where people actually took videos of the rape in front of them and did not do anythiing but look. Yet everyone says they are against rape.
I remember a man pulling a shotgun out on his girlfriend in a crowded subway station and shot her in front of hundreds of people standing next to them.

Then there is a local Popular tv news person whoes wife had called the police on him previously claiming he hit her.At trial yesterday she came to court and said she had lied in a effort to force him to give her money on some family real estate deal. They lived togeather after her complaint . He had lost his tv job.

I know and it's horrible! That rape case you're talking about made me sick.

Why do people just sit back and do nothing?

[martin II]

As opposed to it being placed where it wasn't found? What does this mean?

I believe gi is saying his body was placed where it was found. as in moved from where he was attacked to where he was found.

[martin II]

I know and it's horrible! That rape case you're talking about made me sick.

Why do people just sit back and do nothing?

It may be that people don't want to have to go to court to testify.Don't know
what the circumstances are or maby are so consummed with their own lives
that they have no time for any involvement with another problem.Selfishness
or being too self centered..:shrug:

It takes a confident person to step in.

[Kayleighjo]

It may be that people don't want to have to go to court to testify.Don't know
what the circumstances are or maby are so consummed with their own lives
that they have no time for any involvement with another problem.Selfishness
or being too self centered..:shrug:

It takes a confident person to step in.

Well, and in that rape case not only did no one do anything but some people actually joined in!

Like I said, I was hit several times before in public by my husband and only once did someone do something. The rest of the time people actually just walked right by.

[martin II]

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
The problem with your argument is you have no ability to know what the jury understood.

[tv]

TV
The problem with your argument is you have no ability to know what the jury understood.

Neither do you. I know a couple of things for sure. If they didn't know OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove they didn't understand it because they didn't know it to begin with. If they thought Mazzola and Simpson's blood matched they didn't understand the blood evidence. If they stated the gloves fit -- 'they would have fit anybody' then they understood the gloves fit Simpson.

[tv]

Well, and in that rape case not only did no one do anything but some people actually joined in!

Like I said, I was hit several times before in public by my husband and only once did someone do something. The rest of the time people actually just walked right by.

Kayleighjo, I'm sorry to hear this happened to you. Many people do look the other way and don't consider it a real crime if it's between a couple. I think things are changing somewhat but there is still a long way to go.

[tv]

I believe it was Nicole's friend CiCi who said that, either a few days or weeks prior to her murder, that Nicole told her while they were out jogging that she was afraid that OJ was going to kill her and that her friends were turn on her and sell her out.

It is sad, because she really was smart enough to know the score.

Kate

I think you're right about CiCi. There's too much evidence that he was a batterer for it just to be rumor or lies. Nicole knew and that's why she put the things in the safety deposit box. How sad that she felt that was necessary.

[tv]

The wounds that caused him to bleed out were inflicted before he died and when they were ron was going to die very soom.It may be because it is believed he did fight, they continued to stab and cut him until it was pobvious that he had become too weak to fight. These two-three death wounds is what caused his death the other 35 or more wounds could be called torture or excessive if you like. But it may be that the killers did not recognize how much damage they had already done.I do believe there were some Testing wounds also and that he was then tossed inside the gate to the plants. We know Nicole had fas less wounds. imo

Nicole had less wounds because she was an easy kill. Ron gave OJ Simpson a real struggle. If two killers had been attacking him it wouldn't have been necessary to inflict so many wounds. The two killer theory doesn't work for me based on the evidence.

[Its just me]

Neither do you. I know a couple of things for sure. If they didn't know OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove they didn't understand it because they didn't know it to begin with. If they thought Mazzola and Simpson's blood matched they didn't understand the blood evidence. If they stated the gloves fit -- 'they would have fit anybody' then they understood the gloves fit Simpson.

IMHOO the jury just flat didn't know much or refused to know. One thing wrong with the justice system today....all people are allowed to serve on a jury.....even the ones who lack the ability to understand what the evidence is. Is that justice....NO. I'm not down rating anyone but it's a fact there are different levels of intelligence. As in Nicole being a match for OJ's abuse. If that is not nonsense and/or lack of knowledge I've never seen it. MHOO

[Its just me]

Well, and in that rape case not only did no one do anything but some people actually joined in!

Like I said, I was hit several times before in public by my husband and only once did someone do something. The rest of the time people actually just walked right by.

I'm sorry you have been abused. I'm familiar with an abusive husband and wife situation. The wife has been abused many many times....but continues to live with the husband. She never had the courage to take her children and get out on her own. Her children are grown now and have a good relationship with the Dad but they resent how he treated/treats their Mom. The oldest recently stepped in and said No More. Only time will tell.

[William Anthony]

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

The difference is in what the person, who hears or reads the response, believes about the response.

[William Anthony]

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

I guess, if the jury thought she lied or was false in one part of her testimony, they were free to operate under the concept of falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus.

[William Anthony]

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".

Where is the evidence that Simpson was a murderer, as opposed to a wife beater?

[William Anthony]

Because of the desire to notify him in person would be the logical response. :rolleyes:

Would you expect to notify someone in person at home, when someone is not home?

[William Anthony]

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 understand but place more emphasis on proving why it was logical by the evidence for Simpson to have killed his wife, than why it is not illogical for him to have killed her.

[William Anthony]

They even admitted the gloves fit him but they didn't care.

A couple thought the gloves fit but may have also believed the gloves were planted.

[William Anthony]

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 beg to differ about MF being on trial but I will agree and think that you meant to say that no charges were brought against him. A defendant has the right to confront/try the witnesses against him and, in that sense, LE was correctly put on trial.

[William Anthony]

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.

I have given you some of the reasons/evidence evidencing reasonable doubt but can give more.

[William Anthony]

Those that have paid close attention know it but will not admit it.

Ditto.

[William Anthony]

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.

The reason they took the 5th is self-explanatory, IMHO. It protects a witness from self-incrimination and MF was asked, if he planted evidence in this case.

[martin II]

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. :)

If the prosecution did not call a dv why should the defense.

[William Anthony]

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.

Active with the arthritis condition equal to that of younger men, correct?

[William Anthony]

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.

All of us that have been engaged in more than one act of physical violence, would then be guilty of murder if charged, correct?

[William Anthony]

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:

The defense did not need to prove Simpson was not something the prosecution failed miserably to prove.

[martin II]

Nicole had less wounds because she was an easy kill. Ron gave OJ Simpson a real struggle. If two killers had been attacking him it wouldn't have been necessary to inflict so many wounds. The two killer theory doesn't work for me based on the evidence.

Based on where ron was attacked and where Nicole was attacked. Based on the number and kind of wounds both suffered. Based on the time some say it took to kill both, i believe there were two killers.I don't believe the number of wounds inflicted on both could have been done in 1 minute.

I believe it started with one attacking nicole and one attacking ron. When ron started fighting back, the killer that had cut nicole came over to help rons killer finish him off. imo

[William Anthony]

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.

The jurors decide what is proven but there is evidence of missing blood from Simpson's reference vial.

[William Anthony]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda -- where's the proof? And what blood are you talking about being switched in the lab?

There was evidence that blood was allegedly spilled in the lab, IIRC.

[tv]

I guess, if the jury thought she lied or was false in one part of her testimony, they were free to operate under the concept of falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus.

I agree with that but what does that have to do with them thinking Andrea Mazzola and OJ Simpson have matching DNA?

[tv]

The reason they took the 5th is self-explanatory, IMHO. It protects a witness from self-incrimination and MF was asked, if he planted evidence in this case.

What about Kardashian and Cowlings? Do you think they took the 5th just for the fun of it? They didn't want to be implicated in helping out after the murders.

[William Anthony]

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.

Perhaps, their understanding is different from yours and may be on a more sophisticated or shall I say divergent understanding of LE's capabilities and may see your understanding as unacceptable.

[William Anthony]

I agree with that but what does that have to do with them thinking Andrea Mazzola and OJ Simpson have matching DNA?

It had more to do with your post about them paying attention and why they may not have given her their undivided attention.

[William Anthony]

What about Kardashian and Cowlings? Do you think they took the 5th just for the fun of it? They didn't want to be implicated in helping out after the murders.

Do you have the questions they were asked?

[tv]

The jurors decide what is proven but there is evidence of missing blood from Simpson's reference vial.

No there isn't. Only wild speculation and unfounded claims.

[tv]

Do you have the questions they were asked?

I could look them up but I'm not inclined to do that right now. Please feel free to pursue that yourself.

[tv]

It had more to do with your post about them paying attention and why they may not have given her their undivided attention.

They were obligated to give their undivided attention as much as possible.

[William Anthony]

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.

You have claimed that they were not listening but, IIRC, even the statistical evidence on DNA matches was challenged and the experts were not allowed to use the word match or the use of the word match may have been disallowed on exhibits.

[William Anthony]

I could look them up but I'm not inclined to do that right now. Please feel free to pursue that yourself.

That is okay but you made the statement as to why they took the 5th but I was able to post the exact question to which MF took the 5th, so there would be no doubt that I was not falsely accusing MF.

[William Anthony]

No there isn't. Only wild speculation and unfounded claims.

There is the changed testimonies/evidence of nurse Thano Peratis.

[William Anthony]

They were obligated to give their undivided attention as much as possible.

How much, IMHO, testilying do you think they were mandated to give their undivided attention?

[William Anthony]

Imo, the most important piece of evidence at Rockingham was the bloody glove.

The glove that did not fit and the glove that mysteriously was allegedly found by a racist detective that hated interracial couples and admitted to fabricating evidence to stop them. The glove, whose alleged found location, did not match the blood trail.

[tv]

How much, IMHO, testilying do you think they were mandated to give their undivided attention?

They needed to listen so they could come to a conclusion about whether witnesses were being truthful. There's no way you can spin this problem of their inattention to make it okay.

[tv]

The glove that did not fit and the glove that mysteriously was allegedly found by a racist detective that hated interracial couples and admitted to fabricating evidence to stop them. The glove, whose alleged found location, did not match the blood trail.

The highly intelligent jurors said the gloves fit.

[William Anthony]

They needed to listen so they could come to a conclusion about whether witnesses were being truthful. There's no way you can spin this problem of their inattention to make it okay.

There is no need to spin anything. I simply said that they may have realized she was, IMHO, testilying and had no need to give anything else that came out of her mouth credibility.

[William Anthony]

The highly intelligent jurors said the gloves fit.

Were those the same highly intelligent ones that ignored the rest of the evidence I posted in regard to the glove, or did their high degree of intelligence catch up and cause them to vote not guilty?

[William Anthony]

They needed to listen so they could come to a conclusion about whether witnesses were being truthful. There's no way you can spin this problem of their inattention to make it okay.

Speaking of gloves and testilying.

"MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you testify on direct examination that it was your practice to change your gloves either when it became uncomfortable or when you went into a new area? Was that your testimony?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: And page and line cite?

MR. NEUFELD: Is that your testimony, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if it was my exact words.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, fine. In sum and substance is that what you testified to?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Umm--

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MS. MAZZOLA: I assume so.

MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today, do you have an independent recollection of feeling--finding the gloves uncomfortable at one point or another?

MS. MAZZOLA: They became uncomfortable. They--we moved around, we changed gloves. You don't really need a reason to do it.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, I'm just asking you based upon what you testified for your reasons for changing gloves, do you have an independent recollection, as you sit here today, of experiencing discomfort of the gloves and changing them as a result of that while you were at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You do have that recollection? And when did that occur, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Several times.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you tell me which times, what point?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember the exact point.

MR. NEUFELD: Tell me as best you can, ma'am, when were the several times that you changed your gloves while you were at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember exactly when I changed my gloves.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, give me approximately when, ma'am. You said it happened two or three times.

THE COURT: I think that misstates the evidence. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: How many times did you say you did it, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I changed my gloves many times. There is no reason to change it. You don't think about it; you just do it."

Considerably, different from changing them when they become uncomfortable, which, to my level of intelligence, requires an ability to be aware that something is not pleasing, at which point the sophisticated jury may have decided falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus.

[martin II]

What about Kardashian and Cowlings? Do you think they took the 5th just for the fun of it? They didn't want to be implicated in helping out after the murders.

Another statement with zero proof.

[martin II]

The highly intelligent jurors said the gloves fit.

When you say jurors do you mean two or all 12??

[martin II]

The highly intelligent jurors said the gloves fit.

tv

I don't think you can make a case that oj was guilty of murder based on what you say 2 jurors thought about the glove fitting and AM and ojs blood.

If your intent is to cast blame or show the jurors in a bad light that is one thing but those opinions were not the reason oj was found not guilty.
The reason he was found not guilty was because taking all the testimony in consideration the jury did not believe the case was proven.The two examples you continue to post about was not the determining factor. imo

[martin II]

The highly intelligent jurors said the gloves fit.

How do you know the 12 jurors were not lintening. by what 2 said about a glove fitting. i don't think so.

[GreenIce]

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?

TV,

The evidence is in the prelim hearing and the other hearings. At the very least, Simpson's blood, which was only his blood found by the wrist lip of the glove should have been identified right away, no questions. However, again, it was not until later, after Collin Y already testified that he did spill some of Simpson's blood.

And, what is funny is that not many of the books state that such a mixtured existed on the Rockingham glove. However, again, at the time they did tests, they could only determine that it was a mixture of at least two and maybe a third person's. They had to do more tests, which I get. However, they have no excuse, not one excuse regarding Simpson's blood on the inside of the glove. Because they did not test that blood until later, the results of such tests are pointless. Vanatter already carried all 3 reference samples. Cellmark already discovered that Simpson's markers or markers consistent with Simpson's DNA was found in the reference Samples of Ron and Nicole.

That has been posted many times as well.

[GreenIce]

Juditha Brown testified that Nicole told her Simpson was following her. Are you saying that Juditha Brown lied?

TV,

I am saying that when Nicole allegedly told her mother, months before the murders, she and Simpson were still trying to make it work. There would have been no reason for Simpson to follow her.

We do know that Nicole was being followed and this has never ever been linked to OJ being behind it.

In Shelia Weller's book, Nicole says she felt she was being followed but didn't know who it was.

What I am saying is that Juditha Brown would have known that Nicole was being followed, Nicole could have told her it was OJ but that does not mean that it is true, that it was Simpson who was following her.

I think the Browns were bombarded with so much junk, IMO, they didn't know anything about anything any more. If Geraldo or Gloria Allred told them it had to be Simpson who was following her, I can see where Juditha would slant her story and name him. But again, that does not mean it was true.

The truth is that Nicole was being followed. However, I would love to know what the police did with this information, if they ever told Nicole about this.

I am sure they told Nicole, they told her who's car was stolen and where it was found. She may have suspected Paula was behind it but blamed OJ. Who knows?

[GreenIce]

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,

The point is the defense had an expert to counter the DA's expert. It was up to the DA's to prove their motive---granted, they don't have to prove motive, but that did not prevent them from doing so. They took on a burden they couldn't prove. The defense knowing they couldn't prove it did have an expert ready to counter their expert.

It was clear and it was talked about by the talking heads that the DV part of the DA's case fell apart, the DA's closed the door on the issue, why would the defense open a door they already knew the DA's closed the door?

The DA's had over 6 months to prove their DV case, the failed miserably, why waste the juror's time? Especially when the jurors heard from Nicole her self the 1989 incident was the only one.

[martin II]

listening

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tv View Post
Juditha Brown testified that Nicole told her Simpson was following her. Are you saying that Juditha Brown lied?


I would love to have the date of that testimony to see how it was allowed to be entered into evidence. Was it a part of deposition testimony? Your post highlights the problem with hearsay, because it cannot be admitted to prove the proof of the matter asserted, if it is an out of court statement uttered by someone other than the declarant. I would love to know which exception this testimony fell under, if it was not part of a deposition.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tv View Post
Juditha Brown testified that Nicole told her Simpson was following her. Are you saying that Juditha Brown lied?

I read Ms. Brown's testimony and did not see this but I did see where the judge in the socio political production let in a statement allegedly made by Ms. NBS that she was an abused woman. The statement was let in under the premise of showing Ms. NBS's state of mind. I think that this is rather iffy at best but, since the action was allegedly a survival action (although, to my knowledge, Ms. NBS did not have an action against Simpson at the time of her death) for battery, then her state of mind might be relevant, but I don't agree with that because Simpson was denied the right to confront Ms. NBS as to her alleged state of mind and I don't need the statements that she could not be crossed, because he killed her, as I am speaking form a legal point of view. I just do not agree with the ruling.

[GreenIce]

I read Ms. Brown's testimony and did not see this but I did see where the judge in the socio political production let in a statement allegedly made by Ms. NBS that she was an abused woman. The statement was let in under the premise of showing Ms. NBS's state of mind. I think that this is rather iffy at best but, since the action was allegedly a survival action (although, to my knowledge, Ms. NBS did not have an action against Simpson at the time of her death) for battery, then her state of mind might be relevant, but I don't agree with that because Simpson was denied the right to confront Ms. NBS as to her alleged state of mind and I don't need the statements that she could not be crossed, because he killed her, as I am speaking form a legal point of view. I just do not agree with the ruling.

William,

What exactly does "State of Mind" mean? Apparently, it doesn't have anything to do with the truth of the matter. Can you explain it to me please?

[GreenIce]

I read Ms. Brown's testimony and did not see this but I did see where the judge in the socio political production let in a statement allegedly made by Ms. NBS that she was an abused woman. The statement was let in under the premise of showing Ms. NBS's state of mind. I think that this is rather iffy at best but, since the action was allegedly a survival action (although, to my knowledge, Ms. NBS did not have an action against Simpson at the time of her death) for battery, then her state of mind might be relevant, but I don't agree with that because Simpson was denied the right to confront Ms. NBS as to her alleged state of mind and I don't need the statements that she could not be crossed, because he killed her, as I am speaking form a legal point of view. I just do not agree with the ruling.

William,

The problem for Petrocelli was that Nicole was being followed, but not by OJ Simpson. Judy Brown probably would have been confronted by the defense attorneys on this.

[GreenIce]

Are you forgetting that Lenore Walker, considered the leading expert in DV, who met with Simpson made notes that Nicole did indeed fit the profile of a battered wife and that Simpson fit the profile of a batterer?

How easily we forget.

Please produce a link to this. I read her civil trial testimony and I couldn't find this.

[GreenIce]

It is an obvious question to you and I because we know that the right thing to do would be to intervene either personally or by calling law enforcement.

Still in this current day and age many people advoid the topic of domestic violence because they consider it a private matter between two partners. More so back in the day and age when this was witnessed.

I personally do not know why someone would not intervene, but then I also do not know why someone would rape another, or murder another, or a whole host of things that others just do.

Kate

Kate,

I agree with you that people, through out history and probably even to present day still believe DV is a "private matter". However, this where Simpson's fame comes into it. It is one thing to pretend you don't see when you don't "know" some one, but it is quite another when the person is a famous celebrity.

I read both India Allen's and Albert's testimony and I have several problems with it. Both of their recollections make no sense and I have serious doubts about Miss Allen's recollections.

As I reading their accounts, I kept think of MF and what he wrote about his responding to an alleged DV call between the Simpsons. Why he was able to remember the details so clearly. He responded to Simpson's fame. Yet these other two did not? Also, Allen seems to know the DA's case and one hand she is denying she came forward but then on the other hand, she says they knew about her. I don't what to believe.

However, Nicole was not nor has she ever been a famous person. She wasn't into that. I don't count fame after death really fame. It appears to me that others were also witnesses to these events, so where are they?

[GreenIce]

I was hit several times in public and no one did anything. They considered it a "personal matter".

K,

I have no response because someone not doing anything makes no sense to me at all. However, I do hope that any of these people who saw what they did and did nothing, never have a good night's sleep for the rest of their lives.

Man's inhumanity to man does not just happen in times of worry. I am sorry that happened to you.

[GreenIce]

As opposed to it being placed where it wasn't found? What does this mean?

TV,

I was very clear. I believe Ron's body was moved after he was dead. I believe he was placed against the fence, half sitting up, IIRC the picture of him correctly.

Martin made a comment in his post that he believed Ron's body was moved because they did not want him to be seen from the street. However, I countered that why would they move his body but not Nicole's, who was not only under a light but was right on the walk way and could be seen from the street.

[GreenIce]

K,

I have no response because someone not doing anything makes no sense to me at all. However, I do hope that any of these people who saw what they did and did nothing, never have a good night's sleep for the rest of their lives.

Man's inhumanity to man does not just happen in times of worry. I am sorry that happened to you.

K,

I meant to say that man's inhumanity to man does not just happen in times of war.

[GreenIce]

IMHOO the jury just flat didn't know much or refused to know. One thing wrong with the justice system today....all people are allowed to serve on a jury.....even the ones who lack the ability to understand what the evidence is. Is that justice....NO. I'm not down rating anyone but it's a fact there are different levels of intelligence. As in Nicole being a match for OJ's abuse. If that is not nonsense and/or lack of knowledge I've never seen it. MHOO

ITM,

You are wrong, not all people are allowed to serve on juries. There is a very long and drawn out process. It is obvious that our justice system has evolved enough to know that you can't just take the first 12 people who answer the call to be on a jury. Both sides do their best to maniupulate the jury pool to their favor. Both sides want to have jurors who they feel will see the case through their eyes. Jurors were dismissed in this case because one side or the other felt they were a threat to their case. However, in most of these dismissals, the judge did have just cause to do so.

Yes, you are right, there are different levels of intelligence. However, that also applies to the lawyers and the judges and the LE departs and SID departments.

DNA only tells us who's blood it is or who's blood it isn't. However, to accurate results, the rules of collection is mandated. It is not fair to blame the jury for questioning results that make no sense. It is not fair to ask the jury to assume the DA's account of why the low vs high DNA counts were a result of state experts not being intelligent to know that if you don't put these samples in the fridge, the heat will eat up the DNA and make it very difficult to determine who's blood it is or isn't.

DNA does not tell us how or when it got there. Too many times the most damning blood evidence was found days, weeks and months later. How much intelligence do you need before a juror knows something isn't right here?

IMO, I think many people who were or are critical of the jury have almost demanded the jury forget about the judge instructions and they should have cherry picked the evidence as well as the testimony and they should have convicted Simpson.

I don't know how many times the talking heads gave the clear impression that if the jury had problems with the glove, they should have dropped it and moved on to the socks, if they had a problem with the socks and the glove, then they should have moved on the blood drops at Bundy. If they had a problem with the drops on the back gate, with the socks, with the glove, with the cooked DNA, lack of integerity of the evidence, they still should have voted guilty.

Justice is as only as good as the trust the jurors have in the evidence, the lawyers, LE and SID and even the judge. In this case, it is easy to see why the jurors could not trust them.

In regards to Nicole matching Simpson's abuse is a fair assumption. Unless you are saying that emotional abuse is worse when it comes from a man's lips then a woman's. When some one strikes another human being, is it the amount of pain it inflicts or is the act itself? IMO, if a person, any person takes a swing at another human being and they miss, they still took a swing and it doesn't matter if it landed or not. Again, IMO.

However, I think it is fair to say that in most cases, a man does have an upper hand when it comes to divorce, child support and alimony. I think it is fair to say that when divorce happens between a famous person and their non-famous spouse, this is even more obvious and money is used as a weapon against the non-famous spouse.

[GreenIce]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda -- where's the proof? And what blood are you talking about being switched in the lab?

TV,

Because of the job performances and testimony, there is no way to prove this didn't happen. Taking their word for it, IMO, just doesn't make it true.

Isn't it fair to say that a lot of the issues the defense brought up about the evidence was in fact fair? That had they done their jobs, as they were trained to do and used all the necessary tools that were on hand, that these questions never would have been raised?

[GreenIce]

Based on where ron was attacked and where Nicole was attacked. Based on the number and kind of wounds both suffered. Based on the time some say it took to kill both, i believe there were two killers.I don't believe the number of wounds inflicted on both could have been done in 1 minute.

I believe it started with one attacking nicole and one attacking ron. When ron started fighting back, the killer that had cut nicole came over to help rons killer finish him off. imo

Martin,

Maybe there is another reason why Nicole was killed so easily and professionally, she wasn't the main target. Maybe Nicole did not have the information or stuff they were looking for and that they thought Ron had at least some answers.

It makes no sense to me why if Nicole was the target, the envelope with the glasses would have been opened. It makes no sense to me that Nicole was not given much of chance to fight back, but Ron was.

Maybe the killers only thought they knew why Ron was there only to find out that he wasn't.

If the stories about all the break ins are true, at Shapiro's office and Dr. Ameli, if Nicole was the main target, then why still Ron's file? Why offer to buy Ron's file? Why so much fear if this was a DV homicide?

[GreenIce]

Very interesting link:

http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/essays/oregonian-feb25.html

Another interesting fact---Dr. Walker's testimony in the civil trial was never about Nicole Simpson at all, it was about Paula and a phone message.

Why didn't Petrocelli use Walker to argue the DV case?

Another link:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-29/news/mn-25821_1_battered-women?pg=4

[martin II]

tv
your description of oj as a player is flat wrong. oj left football because of knee injuries.he never hit anyone. he was the one being hit/ he did not stay in shape after playing. oj couldn't even jog on a daily basis.A doctor testified that if he put oj standing on a chair he could not jump down to the floor. imo

[tv]

tv
your description of oj as a player is flat wrong. oj left football because of knee injuries.he never hit anyone. he was the one being hit/ he did not stay in shape after playing. oj couldn't even jog on a daily basis.A doctor testified that if he put oj standing on a chair he could not jump down to the floor. imo

Let's see what AC has to say about that --

Q: Let me ask you, when Mr. Simpson was playing with Buffalo, did you ever see him run right over large linemen, like 300 pound linemen?

A: I mean, some - on some incidents you have no choice. I mean, he's gotten - he has taken some licks.

Q: Yeah. Have you ever seen him give some licks, too?

A: Yeah, you got to. You know, you got to be able to defend yourself.

Q: I am asking, did you ever see him run right over a defensive lineman?

A: O.J. was more elusive than bowl over somebody. That wasn't his style.

Q: Did you ever see him do it, though?

A: I've seen goal-line situations, short-yard situations where you only need two or three yards, where he'll go up the middle. It wasn't too many people that could take him on one-on-one in the open field.

Q: Did you ever see him shed linebackers or cornerbacks that got hold of him?

A: If they don't got a good hold onto him, he could break their tackle.

Q: Okay. Do you recall, other than his knee injury at the end of his Buffalo career, where he ever missed a game due to an injury?

A: I only played three years with him in Buffalo, so I don't know prior to - I mean after that what happened. I knew in my three year - the three years I was there, he suffered a knee injury that put him out for the rest of the season.

Q: Other than that knee injury, do you remember him missing any other game due to an injury?

A: Like I say, I was only there for three years, so I don't know what happened after that.

Q: But I'm saying, during those three years, other than that knee injury, do you remember any other time he missed a game due to an injury?

A: I don't remember.

Q: Okay. Simpson didn't baby himself at all during football, did he?

A: "Baby," what do you mean by that?

Q: Baby himself. Like would he play through the pain, or would he take himself out if he was hurting at all?

A: O.J. was very strong, very - had great endurance.

Q: Would it be -

A: Carried the ball a lot. Couldn't have been a baby if he carried the ball a lot.

Q: Would he generally carry it 30 or more times a game?

A: I don't know the exact number, but he carried the ball a lot.

Q: Okay. And your general impression was he wouldn't just pull himself out whenever he was hurt a little bit or not feeling good?

A: During the course of a battle, you know, you don't have time to think, so you do what you have to do. That's your job.

Q: Playing on adrenaline?

A: Yeah.

[martin II]

Let's see what AC has to say about that --

Q: Let me ask you, when Mr. Simpson was playing with Buffalo, did you ever see him run right over large linemen, like 300 pound linemen?

A: I mean, some - on some incidents you have no choice. I mean, he's gotten - he has taken some licks.

Q: Yeah. Have you ever seen him give some licks, too?

A: Yeah, you got to. You know, you got to be able to defend yourself.

Q: I am asking, did you ever see him run right over a defensive lineman?

A: O.J. was more elusive than bowl over somebody. That wasn't his style.

Q: Did you ever see him do it, though?

A: I've seen goal-line situations, short-yard situations where you only need two or three yards, where he'll go up the middle. It wasn't too many people that could take him on one-on-one in the open field.

Q: Did you ever see him shed linebackers or cornerbacks that got hold of him?

A: If they don't got a good hold onto him, he could break their tackle.

Q: Okay. Do you recall, other than his knee injury at the end of his Buffalo career, where he ever missed a game due to an injury?

A: I only played three years with him in Buffalo, so I don't know prior to - I mean after that what happened. I knew in my three year - the three years I was there, he suffered a knee injury that put him out for the rest of the season.

Q: Other than that knee injury, do you remember him missing any other game due to an injury?

A: Like I say, I was only there for three years, so I don't know what happened after that.

Q: But I'm saying, during those three years, other than that knee injury, do you remember any other time he missed a game due to an injury?

A: I don't remember.

Q: Okay. Simpson didn't baby himself at all during football, did he?

A: "Baby," what do you mean by that?

Q: Baby himself. Like would he play through the pain, or would he take himself out if he was hurting at all?

A: O.J. was very strong, very - had great endurance.

Q: Would it be -

A: Carried the ball a lot. Couldn't have been a baby if he carried the ball a lot.

Q: Would he generally carry it 30 or more times a game?

A: I don't know the exact number, but he carried the ball a lot.

Q: Okay. And your general impression was he wouldn't just pull himself out whenever he was hurt a little bit or not feeling good?

A: During the course of a battle, you know, you don't have time to think, so you do what you have to do. That's your job.

Q: Playing on adrenaline?

A: Yeah.

This does not conflict with what i said about oj. obviously you don't understand the position of running back.

[martin II]

GI

A few days agp i read the comments of some civil jurors
one was she was prepared to stay there for ever to be able tp vote liable for oj


anotherr said she didn't care how the glove got to the walkway.

All sounded like they were on a mission to me.imo

[weezer]

What about Kardashian and Cowlings? Do you think they took the 5th just for the fun of it? They didn't want to be implicated in helping out after the murders.

I understand why someone (Fuhrman) would plead the 5th after being charged with perjury. I'm trying to reconcile they 'why' of kardashian and ac pleading the 5th. what were they afraid of? maybe orenthal running his big mouth in those hours/days after he butchered two human beings? :shrug:

[William Anthony]

William,

What exactly does "State of Mind" mean? Apparently, it doesn't have anything to do with the truth of the matter. Can you explain it to me please?

You are correct that it has nothing to do with truth and is normally used to explain some sort of conduct engaged in by the declarant after forming a mental thought pattern induced by some other event but I am not sure I am explaining it clearly so,

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/state+of+mind

In the instant case, it shows that Ms. NBS felt she was abused, after reading a book, but does not mean that she actually was and it may explain her conduct after reading the book.

[William Anthony]

William,

The problem for Petrocelli was that Nicole was being followed, but not by OJ Simpson. Judy Brown probably would have been confronted by the defense attorneys on this.

GreenIce,

Perhaps, the poster was mistaken and did not mean to say that Ms. Brown so testified.

[William Anthony]

I understand why someone (Fuhrman) would plead the 5th after being charged with perjury. I'm trying to reconcile they 'why' of kardashian and ac pleading the 5th. what were they afraid of? maybe orenthal running his big mouth in those hours/days after he butchered two human beings? :shrug:

I do not believe that MF had been charged with anything on the date of September 6th, 1995 when he took the 5th. In any event, we do not have to speculate as to what questions MF took the 5th, one being did he plant evidence in the murder case. Without knowing the exact questions to which the others took the 5th, the jury was not allowed, as with MF, to speculate as to why the witness took the 5th other than to protect themselves from self-incrimination. Therefore, we know that MF took the 5th in order to protect himself against self-incrimination as it pertained to whether or not he planted evidence in the murder case.

[Its just me]

ITM,

You are wrong, not all people are allowed to serve on juries. There is a very long and drawn out process. It is obvious that our justice system has evolved enough to know that you can't just take the first 12 people who answer the call to be on a jury. Both sides do their best to maniupulate the jury pool to their favor. Both sides want to have jurors who they feel will see the case through their eyes. Jurors were dismissed in this case because one side or the other felt they were a threat to their case. However, in most of these dismissals, the judge did have just cause to do so.

Yes, you are right, there are different levels of intelligence. However, that also applies to the lawyers and the judges and the LE departs and SID departments.

DNA only tells us who's blood it is or who's blood it isn't. However, to accurate results, the rules of collection is mandated. It is not fair to blame the jury for questioning results that make no sense. It is not fair to ask the jury to assume the DA's account of why the low vs high DNA counts were a result of state experts not being intelligent to know that if you don't put these samples in the fridge, the heat will eat up the DNA and make it very difficult to determine who's blood it is or isn't.

DNA does not tell us how or when it got there. Too many times the most damning blood evidence was found days, weeks and months later. How much intelligence do you need before a juror knows something isn't right here?

IMO, I think many people who were or are critical of the jury have almost demanded the jury forget about the judge instructions and they should have cherry picked the evidence as well as the testimony and they should have convicted Simpson.

I don't know how many times the talking heads gave the clear impression that if the jury had problems with the glove, they should have dropped it and moved on to the socks, if they had a problem with the socks and the glove, then they should have moved on the blood drops at Bundy. If they had a problem with the drops on the back gate, with the socks, with the glove, with the cooked DNA, lack of integerity of the evidence, they still should have voted guilty.

Justice is as only as good as the trust the jurors have in the evidence, the lawyers, LE and SID and even the judge. In this case, it is easy to see why the jurors could not trust them.

In regards to Nicole matching Simpson's abuse is a fair assumption. Unless you are saying that emotional abuse is worse when it comes from a man's lips then a woman's. When some one strikes another human being, is it the amount of pain it inflicts or is the act itself? IMO, if a person, any person takes a swing at another human being and they miss, they still took a swing and it doesn't matter if it landed or not. Again, IMO.

However, I think it is fair to say that in most cases, a man does have an upper hand when it comes to divorce, child support and alimony. I think it is fair to say that when divorce happens between a famous person and their non-famous spouse, this is even more obvious and money is used as a weapon against the non-famous spouse.

.Yes there is a long drawn out process but giving an IQ test happens not to be part of that long process and trust me some are allowed to serve on a jury that are grammar school level. Just a fact. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. Then you have the educated fools to deal with...and not to leave out the know it alls. Then you have those anti DA etc....no matter what the circumstance or what kind of evidence is presented the defendant will be innocent because in their eyes nothing is wrong or there is some kind of excuse to use to justify the defense.
The fact is Simpson's blood didn't turn into some other person's blood and contrary to what some believe it was not all planted....and neither were the famous shoe prints from those ugly a** shoes….etc etc etc.
One can question anything and put up a pretty good argument....even down to where I came from. Well I have enough sense to know evolution did not get to the human being and stop....and I've yet see anything in the process of getting to be human. It just doesn’t work that way and there should be common sense in all things.
In the Simpson criminal case the blood evidence didn't work the way the defense presented it....it was a good argument but in simple form it just wasn't the truth and it's in simple form because I actually don't care enough to argue. If you want to believe the defense that's your right....but I come to the opinion OJ is guilty….if JC and team were not good enough to convince me OJ was not guilty… there certainly is no one here that can. Sorry.
The jury came to their verdict of not guilty for what ever reason...but I see them lacking in knowledge about blood evidence (as most people are...including myself) and the short time of deliberating shows they were not interesting in trying to learn anything. I also believe some lacked the ability to know that all police, DA's and judges are not crooks and every person that testifies does not lie….so they jumped on the defense's turnip truck real fast and forgot about common sense.

FWIW....What I'm saying about OJ physically abusing Nicole....Nicole Simpson
was not a match against OJ Simpson and for anyone to say or think she was is either full of nonsense or just plain stupid but there could possibly be other reasons for one's mind to work that way.
I don't know but I question if she could hold her ground against his big mouth either. He's known to be awfully loud.
OJ was found not guilty and it doesn’t matter what I think or believe….that verdict stands but when all has been done and said….OJ kept right on until justice finally caught up with him. He is exactly where he “needs” to be. If he mistreats anyone else it will most likely be someone just like him….a jail bird who did some kind of crime to be there and OJ may not be the winner if that were to happen. At least it won’t be a woman not able to defend herself. If there are any women near him they are carrying a gun....and OJ is not going to mess with that.

[GreenIce]

Let's see what AC has to say about that --

Q: Let me ask you, when Mr. Simpson was playing with Buffalo, did you ever see him run right over large linemen, like 300 pound linemen?

A: I mean, some - on some incidents you have no choice. I mean, he's gotten - he has taken some licks.

Q: Yeah. Have you ever seen him give some licks, too?

A: Yeah, you got to. You know, you got to be able to defend yourself.

Q: I am asking, did you ever see him run right over a defensive lineman?

A: O.J. was more elusive than bowl over somebody. That wasn't his style.

Q: Did you ever see him do it, though?

A: I've seen goal-line situations, short-yard situations where you only need two or three yards, where he'll go up the middle. It wasn't too many people that could take him on one-on-one in the open field.

Q: Did you ever see him shed linebackers or cornerbacks that got hold of him?

A: If they don't got a good hold onto him, he could break their tackle.

Q: Okay. Do you recall, other than his knee injury at the end of his Buffalo career, where he ever missed a game due to an injury?

A: I only played three years with him in Buffalo, so I don't know prior to - I mean after that what happened. I knew in my three year - the three years I was there, he suffered a knee injury that put him out for the rest of the season.

Q: Other than that knee injury, do you remember him missing any other game due to an injury?

A: Like I say, I was only there for three years, so I don't know what happened after that.

Q: But I'm saying, during those three years, other than that knee injury, do you remember any other time he missed a game due to an injury?

A: I don't remember.

Q: Okay. Simpson didn't baby himself at all during football, did he?

A: "Baby," what do you mean by that?

Q: Baby himself. Like would he play through the pain, or would he take himself out if he was hurting at all?

A: O.J. was very strong, very - had great endurance.

Q: Would it be -

A: Carried the ball a lot. Couldn't have been a baby if he carried the ball a lot.

Q: Would he generally carry it 30 or more times a game?

A: I don't know the exact number, but he carried the ball a lot.

Q: Okay. And your general impression was he wouldn't just pull himself out whenever he was hurt a little bit or not feeling good?

A: During the course of a battle, you know, you don't have time to think, so you do what you have to do. That's your job.

Q: Playing on adrenaline?

A: Yeah.

TV,

In 1968, Simpson was also one of the fastest human beings on the planet. He could have easily made the Olympic team but he elected to turn pro. He would have at least made the team as a runner and would have made the relay team.

However, it is not what Simpson's phyical condition was in his playing days but what was it at that time. I have had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Simpson play several times, live at the games. I am very familar with his abilities.

[William Anthony]

.Yes there is a long drawn out process but giving an IQ test happens not to be part of that long process and trust me some are allowed to serve on a jury that are grammar school level. Just a fact. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. Then you have the educated fools to deal with...and not to leave out the know it alls. Then you have those anti DA etc....no matter what the circumstance or what kind of evidence is presented the defendant will be innocent because in their eyes nothing is wrong or there is some kind of excuse to use to justify the defense.
The fact is Simpson's blood didn't turn into some other person's blood and contrary to what some believe it was not all planted....and neither were the famous shoe prints from those ugly a** shoes….etc etc etc.


No one has claimed that Simpson's blood turned into someone's other than Simpson's but I believe that some, like myself, who believe in the concept of the presumption of innocence have questioned, if the prosecution explained to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt how and when the blood got there, as well as, not just saying that the blood was not planted and expecting all others to believe it was not planted, because members of the prosecution said it wasn't, but also, to consider and weigh the evidence in regard to whether the blood was planted or not and to consider and weigh the fact that no shoes matching the ones they claimed Simpson wore on the night of the murders were ever produced.

[William Anthony]

.
In the Simpson criminal case the blood evidence didn't work the way the defense presented it....it was a good argument but in simple form it just wasn't the truth and it's in simple form because I actually don't care enough to argue. If you want to believe the defense that's your right....but I come to the opinion OJ is guilty….if JC and team were not good enough to convince me OJ was not guilty… there certainly is no one here that can. Sorry.


The defense did not present the blood evidence. The prosecution did and the defense showed why the blood evidence as presented by the prosecution should not be trusted. The defense team and the magnificent one did not have to proof that Simpson was not guilty, only that there was a reasonable doubt that the prosecution, who had to prove Simpson was guilty, did, in fact, prove Simpson was guilty. That is how the process works and worked, IMHO. I think that I understand why no one will be able to change your mind and appreciate that you explained your point of view and why your mind is unchangeable.

[William Anthony]

.

The jury came to their verdict of not guilty for what ever reason...but I see them lacking in knowledge about blood evidence (as most people are...including myself) and the short time of deliberating shows they were not interesting in trying to learn anything. I also believe some lacked the ability to know that all police, DA's and judges are not crooks and every person that testifies does not lie….so they jumped on the defense's turnip truck real fast and forgot about common sense.


The jury came to their verdict, because the prosecution failed to prove its case to the requisite standard, IMHO. They listened to the evidence of missing blood, a blood trail that did not fit, saw evidence that did not fit, heard of a time line that did not fit, heard evidence of magical evidence and testimony from a dead prosecution expert, etc. etc. I think the sophisticated jury used a great deal of common sense, which to my understanding wasn't contingent on any level of education.

[martin II]

The defense did not present the blood evidence. The prosecution did and the defense showed why the blood evidence as presented by the prosecution should not be trusted. The defense team and the magnificent one did not have to proof that Simpson was not guilty, only that there was a reasonable doubt that the prosecution, who had to prove Simpson was guilty, did, in fact, prove Simpson was guilty. That is how the process works and worked, IMHO. I think that I understand why no one will be able to change your mind and appreciate that you explained your point of view and why your mind is unchangeable.

The problem for some is that they don't understand blood evidence yet that use blood as a reason to KNOW oj was guilty. If that is not funny i don't know what it is.

With all the known problems in the lapd lab some just stick their heads in the sand and ignore those facts hoping that it will go away.

The facts are that the jury listened and observed both the prosecutions and the defense cross and made the absolute correct verdict decision.

Another issue issue is. No jury is required to review all THE TESTIMONY GIVEN IN A TRIAL. The are not given a TIME TO DELIBERATE.

This jury discussed every single question the members had of ALL witnesses and evidence. After that they decided to vote.since there was nothing else to deliverate about.

There are reasons why the jury is attacked. It is nonsense to suggest that they sat in court for 9 mos and did not listen or see the witnesses. The judge made sure everyone was listening. The were just as educated and street smart as the jury before then and the one after them.

Making false claims agaiinst the jury has no basis in fact or reality but it shows a inability to understand how trials work, the importance of the judges instructions and a inability to understand both the prosecutions direct and the DEFENSE CROSS of witnesses. imo

[martin II]

William
Thats exactly what i mean.

What blood evidence did the defense present in court in either trial that did not go as they planned?

[martin II]

The defense did not present the blood evidence. The prosecution did and the defense showed why the blood evidence as presented by the prosecution should not be trusted. The defense team and the magnificent one did not have to proof that Simpson was not guilty, only that there was a reasonable doubt that the prosecution, who had to prove Simpson was guilty, did, in fact, prove Simpson was guilty. That is how the process works and worked, IMHO. I think that I understand why no one will be able to change your mind and appreciate that you explained your point of view and why your mind is unchangeable.


Some times people get the wrong impression of why people post here.

I am just posting facts about the issue of oj and nicole. Not trying to change any persons minds. imo

[William Anthony]

The problem for some is that they don't understand blood evidence yet that use blood as a reason to KNOW oj was guilty. If that is not funny i don't know what it is.

With all the known problems in the lapd lab some just stick their heads in the sand and ignore those facts hoping that it will go away.

The facts are that the jury listened and observed both the prosecutions and the defense cross and made the absolute correct verdict decision.

Another issue issue is. No jury is required to review all THE TESTIMONY GIVEN IN A TRIAL. The are not given a TIME TO DELIBERATE.

This jury discussed every single question the members had of ALL witnesses and evidence. After that they decided to vote.since there was nothing else to deliverate about.

There are reasons why the jury is attacked. It is nonsense to suggest that they sat in court for 9 mos and did not listen or see the witnesses. The judge made sure everyone was listening. The were just as educated and street smart as the jury before then and the one after them.

Making false claims agaiinst the jury has no basis in fact or reality but it shows a inability to understand how trials work, the importance of the judges instructions and a inability to understand both the prosecutions direct and the DEFENSE CROSS of witnesses. imo

I do not see any benefit in wasting the court's time and taxpayer dollars in lengthy deliberations when the jury had determined as evidenced by their verdict that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.

[William Anthony]

William
Thats exactly what i mean.

What blood evidence did the defense present in court in either trial that did not go as they planned?

I have stated my reasons for joining this discussion group and, because it was first affiliated with court tv, I thought that there would be those here interested in discussing legal concepts and the law as it applied in the case but soon found that there was far more interest in blaming the jury and discussing people involved in the trial rather than anything legal or any exogenous causes in the differences in how the jury, the verdict and the people involved in the case were perceived.

[socaldiva]

I understand why someone (Fuhrman) would plead the 5th after being charged with perjury. I'm trying to reconcile they 'why' of kardashian and ac pleading the 5th. what were they afraid of? maybe orenthal running his big mouth in those hours/days after he butchered two human beings? :shrug:

:beer::beer::beer:

[martin II]

William
Thats exactly what i mean.

What blood evidence did the defense present in court in either trial that did not go as they planned?

If one does not understand who collected, held and presented the evidence in court, how can one understand the blood or any other evidence.imo

[martin II]

:beer::beer::beer:

Was furhman charged with perjury before he pleaded the 5th??

[William Anthony]

William
Thats exactly what i mean.

What blood evidence did the defense present in court in either trial that did not go as they planned?

If one does not understand who collected, held and presented the evidence in court, how can one understand the blood or any other evidence.imo

There are so many inaccuracies and speculations that go against legal concepts, IMHO, such as MF taking the 5th after being charged with perjury and speculations as to why RK an AC took the 5th, when we know the questions to which MF took the 5th. In reading Ac's deposition he took the 5th in regard to conversations and his knowledge of who picked Simpson up from the airport. I stopped reading as there did not seem to be anything definite about why he took the 5th and it would have led to much unwarranted speculation as to why on my part. The point is that neither RK or AC were subsequently charged with a crime but MF was. Hence, I find it futile to compare the individuals.

[martin II]

I have stated my reasons for joining this discussion group and, because it was first affiliated with court tv, I thought that there would be those here interested in discussing legal concepts and the law as it applied in the case but soon found that there was far more interest in blaming the jury and discussing people involved in the trial rather than anything legal or any exogenous causes in the differences in how the jury, the verdict and the people involved in the case were perceived.

I agree

Most may not understand the legal aspects of a trial and how testimony and evidence impacts on that.So attacks on the jury and personal negative false claims against oj, the defense lawyers and the judge is all that is left. Some times attacks are made against the person that has legal knowledge.imo

[William Anthony]

William
Thats exactly what i mean.

What blood evidence did the defense present in court in either trial that did not go as they planned?

If one does not understand who collected, held and presented the evidence in court, how can one understand the blood or any other evidence.imo

I find it human nature to say to blame others when we remain convinced that the conclusion that one reaches is the only possibly correct conclusion.

[martin II]

There are so many inaccuracies and speculations that go against legal concepts, IMHO, such as MF taking the 5th after being charged with perjury and speculations as to why RK an AC took the 5th, when we know the questions to which MF took the 5th. In reading Ac's deposition he took the 5th in regard to conversations and his knowledge of who picked Simpson up from the airport. I stopped reading as there did not seem to be anything definite about why he took the 5th and it would have led to much unwarranted speculation as to why on my part. The point is that neither RK or AC were subsequently charged with a crime but MF was. Hence, I find it futile to compare the individuals.

over and over post about what is claimed two jurors said about one issue in a book indicates a need to divert attention to the serious issues of why the prosecution was not able to prove the claimes they made against the defendant. imo

[William Anthony]

I agree

Most may not understand the legal aspects of a trial and how testimony and evidence impacts on that.So attacks on the jury and personal negative false claims against oj, the defense lawyers and the judge is all that is left. Some times attacks are made against the person that has legal knowledge.imo

Martin,

Many abstract or poorly defined words are used, which leads to misunderstandings and hard feelings and justice is, IMHO, one of those words. I have found that justice is likely to be that, which those have the power to announce what it is, those with that power say it is. However, in certain cases, those in power feel compelled to go against the majority view of those in power, such as with the Warren Court. In that sense the minority but still those who held the power proclaimed what justice was.

[William Anthony]

over and over post about what is claimed two jurors said about one issue in a book indicates a need to divert attention to the serious issues of why the prosecution was not able to prove the claimes they made against the defendant. imo

The prosecution lacked reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove its case, IMHO, and it is just that simple.

[martin II]

The prosecution lacked reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove its case, IMHO, and it is just that simple.

Well my pet concern in how some read and post prosecution questions of a witness and claim those are the facts of the issue.

The defense questions of the same witness on cross is of no interest.

[martin II]

The jury came to their verdict, because the prosecution failed to prove its case to the requisite standard, IMHO. They listened to the evidence of missing blood, a blood trail that did not fit, saw evidence that did not fit, heard of a time line that did not fit, heard evidence of magical evidence and testimony from a dead prosecution expert, etc. etc. I think the sophisticated jury used a great deal of common sense, which to my understanding wasn't contingent on any level of education.

The jury LEARNED everything about the case during the 9 months they sat and heard all the testimony and the presentation of the evidence. There was nothing they could LEARN new during deliberations. Deliberations is not a learning process. It is a process where questions about testimony/evidence talkes place and jurors vote on whether the prosecution proved their case or not. So i am not sure why one would think the jury deliberated to learn something they already knew.imo

[tv]

.Yes there is a long drawn out process but giving an IQ test happens not to be part of that long process and trust me some are allowed to serve on a jury that are grammar school level. Just a fact. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. Then you have the educated fools to deal with...and not to leave out the know it alls. Then you have those anti DA etc....no matter what the circumstance or what kind of evidence is presented the defendant will be innocent because in their eyes nothing is wrong or there is some kind of excuse to use to justify the defense.
The fact is Simpson's blood didn't turn into some other person's blood and contrary to what some believe it was not all planted....and neither were the famous shoe prints from those ugly a** shoes….etc etc etc.
One can question anything and put up a pretty good argument....even down to where I came from. Well I have enough sense to know evolution did not get to the human being and stop....and I've yet see anything in the process of getting to be human. It just doesn’t work that way and there should be common sense in all things.
In the Simpson criminal case the blood evidence didn't work the way the defense presented it....it was a good argument but in simple form it just wasn't the truth and it's in simple form because I actually don't care enough to argue. If you want to believe the defense that's your right....but I come to the opinion OJ is guilty….if JC and team were not good enough to convince me OJ was not guilty… there certainly is no one here that can. Sorry.
The jury came to their verdict of not guilty for what ever reason...but I see them lacking in knowledge about blood evidence (as most people are...including myself) and the short time of deliberating shows they were not interesting in trying to learn anything. I also believe some lacked the ability to know that all police, DA's and judges are not crooks and every person that testifies does not lie….so they jumped on the defense's turnip truck real fast and forgot about common sense.

FWIW....What I'm saying about OJ physically abusing Nicole....Nicole Simpson
was not a match against OJ Simpson and for anyone to say or think she was is either full of nonsense or just plain stupid but there could possibly be other reasons for one's mind to work that way.
I don't know but I question if she could hold her ground against his big mouth either. He's known to be awfully loud.
OJ was found not guilty and it doesn’t matter what I think or believe….that verdict stands but when all has been done and said….OJ kept right on until justice finally caught up with him. He is exactly where he “needs” to be. If he mistreats anyone else it will most likely be someone just like him….a jail bird who did some kind of crime to be there and OJ may not be the winner if that were to happen. At least it won’t be a woman not able to defend herself. If there are any women near him they are carrying a gun....and OJ is not going to mess with that.

Great post, IJM. Thanks for telling it like it is. :beer:

[GreenIce]

.Yes there is a long drawn out process but giving an IQ test happens not to be part of that long process and trust me some are allowed to serve on a jury that are grammar school level. Just a fact. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. Then you have the educated fools to deal with...and not to leave out the know it alls. Then you have those anti DA etc....no matter what the circumstance or what kind of evidence is presented the defendant will be innocent because in their eyes nothing is wrong or there is some kind of excuse to use to justify the defense.
The fact is Simpson's blood didn't turn into some other person's blood and contrary to what some believe it was not all planted....and neither were the famous shoe prints from those ugly a** shoes….etc etc etc.
One can question anything and put up a pretty good argument....even down to where I came from. Well I have enough sense to know evolution did not get to the human being and stop....and I've yet see anything in the process of getting to be human. It just doesn’t work that way and there should be common sense in all things.
In the Simpson criminal case the blood evidence didn't work the way the defense presented it....it was a good argument but in simple form it just wasn't the truth and it's in simple form because I actually don't care enough to argue. If you want to believe the defense that's your right....but I come to the opinion OJ is guilty….if JC and team were not good enough to convince me OJ was not guilty… there certainly is no one here that can. Sorry.
The jury came to their verdict of not guilty for what ever reason...but I see them lacking in knowledge about blood evidence (as most people are...including myself) and the short time of deliberating shows they were not interesting in trying to learn anything. I also believe some lacked the ability to know that all police, DA's and judges are not crooks and every person that testifies does not lie….so they jumped on the defense's turnip truck real fast and forgot about common sense.

FWIW....What I'm saying about OJ physically abusing Nicole....Nicole Simpson
was not a match against OJ Simpson and for anyone to say or think she was is either full of nonsense or just plain stupid but there could possibly be other reasons for one's mind to work that way.
I don't know but I question if she could hold her ground against his big mouth either. He's known to be awfully loud.
OJ was found not guilty and it doesn’t matter what I think or believe….that verdict stands but when all has been done and said….OJ kept right on until justice finally caught up with him. He is exactly where he “needs” to be. If he mistreats anyone else it will most likely be someone just like him….a jail bird who did some kind of crime to be there and OJ may not be the winner if that were to happen. At least it won’t be a woman not able to defend herself. If there are any women near him they are carrying a gun....and OJ is not going to mess with that.

IJM,

The defense never made the claim that Simpson's blood turned into someone else's or someone else's turned into Simpson's. The DA's that tossed out these snide comments insulted the jury as well as questioning them on how well they knew their own case! IMO.

Our conviction rate in this country, especially in CA is way, way to high to support your anti "DA" claims. If DA's are not trusted by an individual it is because they have done something to earn this distrust. The main reasons for any person to distrust DA's are simple, they put on witnesses who's stories just don't hold up, they want to win just as bad as any defense lawyer and they are not strangers to that fine line and have stepped over more times then any defense lawyer would ever dream of doing.

Because they have they have the "dead guys" on their side, they are given way, way too much credibility simply because they make the false claim they are the only one's who can speak for the said "dead guys". That is not their job, they are not the Dead Guys avengers, they are not God's appointed persecutors.

Not even a juror who had only a grammer school school education would have believed the police in this case. It all starts and ends with the detectives and the LE departments. They are the cornerstone of our legal system. If their credibility is crushed and destroyed during a trial, no jury should ever convict some one when they believe the police have told more lies then the truth.

You talk about common sense, that is exactly what the jurors used in this case. Common sense tells jurors that blood on dark objects very well may be invisiable to the naked eye, hence the equipment that was invented for just said purpose. And do you know, to this day, I don't know if this equipment was used in August of 1994 when the blood was seen. Either way, common sense says that the blood on the socks was planted. There is no other logical explaination. None. IMO.

Another juror felt strongly that Ron struck his killers, he believed without a doubt about how Ron's hand was injured. In order to use common sense, you have to listen to both sides of the evidence and that is exactly what these jurors did and no matter what their personal beliefs may have been, they had no choice but to render the only legal verdict possible, and that was not guilty.

[GreenIce]

No one has claimed that Simpson's blood turned into someone's other than Simpson's but I believe that some, like myself, who believe in the concept of the presumption of innocence have questioned, if the prosecution explained to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt how and when the blood got there, as well as, not just saying that the blood was not planted and expecting all others to believe it was not planted, because members of the prosecution said it wasn't, but also, to consider and weigh the evidence in regard to whether the blood was planted or not and to consider and weigh the fact that no shoes matching the ones they claimed Simpson wore on the night of the murders were ever produced.

William,

Thank you! You explained it much better then I did.

[GreenIce]

The jury LEARNED everything about the case during the 9 months they sat and heard all the testimony and the presentation of the evidence. There was nothing they could LEARN new during deliberations. Deliberations is not a learning process. It is a process where questions about testimony/evidence talkes place and jurors vote on whether the prosecution proved their case or not. So i am not sure why one would think the jury deliberated to learn something they already knew.imo

Martin,

IMO, if a juror believed the glove was planted, then what ever found on the glove really shouldn't have mattered. In Hank Goldberg's book, he takes just the opposite stance. He felt they should not have to prove how it got there, that doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what was found on the glove. However, what he doesn't say in his book is that a mixture of Simpson's, Nicole's and Ron's blood was found on it.

IMO, the only explaination for Simpson's, Ron and Nicole's blood to be found on the inside of the Rockingham glove had to have happened in the lab. I am not saying that it was done on purpose and I do think this might have happened purely by accident. What hurt the DA's, again, is Collin Y's insistence that this could not have happened.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, if a juror believed the glove was planted, then what ever found on the glove really shouldn't have mattered. In Hank Goldberg's book, he takes just the opposite stance. He felt they should not have to prove how it got there, that doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what was found on the glove. However, what he doesn't say in his book is that a mixture of Simpson's, Nicole's and Ron's blood was found on it.

IMO, the only explaination for Simpson's, Ron and Nicole's blood to be found on the inside of the Rockingham glove had to have happened in the lab. I am not saying that it was done on purpose and I do think this might have happened purely by accident. What hurt the DA's, again, is Collin Y's insistence that this could not have happened.


GI
THANKS

Some that believe all in the lapd lab was above board need to read your last paragraph again. That is where much of the wrong doing took place.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, if a juror believed the glove was planted, then what ever found on the glove really shouldn't have mattered. In Hank Goldberg's book, he takes just the opposite stance. He felt they should not have to prove how it got there, that doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what was found on the glove. However, what he doesn't say in his book is that a mixture of Simpson's, Nicole's and Ron's blood was found on it.

IMO, the only explaination for Simpson's, Ron and Nicole's blood to be found on the inside of the Rockingham glove had to have happened in the lab. I am not saying that it was done on purpose and I do think this might have happened purely by accident. What hurt the DA's, again, is Collin Y's insistence that this could not have happened.

Some jurors did believe the glove could have been planted.

[martin II]

First of all the jury is suppose to represent the diversity of the community.Formal education, non formal educated people with all kinds of work experience and family life. It is not reserved for lawyers,doctors and engineers. To attack a jury because people did not have training in blood evidence is against the theory of what a jury is supposed to look like by law.

[William Anthony]

William,

Thank you! You explained it much better then I did.

GreenIce,

No thank you. I have found that you more than adequately explain you point of views and I consider your post to be a compliment.

[William Anthony]

First of all the jury is suppose to represent the diversity of the community.Formal education, non formal educated people with all kinds of work experience and family life. It is not reserved for lawyers,doctors and engineers. To attack a jury because people did not have training in blood evidence is against the theory of what a jury is supposed to look like by law.

That is my understanding, which is unlike the jury system was originally designed, in that no one group has an entitlement, despite the feeling that their should be.

[martin II]

That is my understanding, which is unlike the jury system was originally designed, in that no one group has an entitlement, despite the feeling that their should be.

attackimg the jury may happen because it was not possible to succsfully attack how the defense attack what the prosecution claimed.

[GreenIce]

Some jurors did believe the glove could have been planted.

Martin,

I don't remember any criminal trial juror say they did not believe the glove was planted.

[GreenIce]

attackimg the jury may happen because it was not possible to succsfully attack how the defense attack what the prosecution claimed.

Martin,

IMO, in this case, when the media attacked the jury, they declared open season on the juors by any half wit.

IMO, the media was still trying the case after the verdict was rendered they were saying the DA's should have been given the benefit of the doubt. Very few talking heads had the courage to say that the jurors' verdict was a clear rejection of the state's case because it was based on lies and half truths that were laid down by the LAPD and the SID department.

[martin II]

William,

You are right, I just never heard it put that way. It appears to me that many people do feel that one group should have an entitlement.

The DA's had many lawyers working on this case? The defense had how many lawyers working on the case? I remember reading American Tragedy and Barry Scheck would use a couple of the other lawyers as his sounding boards, like if they got what he was saying, then the jury would get it.

Carl Douglas told him that he didn't know what ----- he was saying and that he Gary Sims were having their own private conversation. Scheck then adjusted his style.

In reading of the closings by both sides, Barry Scheck's closing, IMO, was more powerful then JC's because of the subjects he handled. Barry destroyed the DA's case and JC appealed to the jurors common sense. And I stand by what I have posted for years, I think an all white jury would have voted to aquitt and I believe they would have done in half the time the criminal trial jurors did. I truly believe that.
I have a link that talks about the prosecution used their closing to basically talk about abuse. The defense used their closing to go over the evidence for the jury to understand what had happened in the case.

[GreenIce]

I have a link that talks about the prosecution used their closing to basically talk about abuse. The defense used their closing to go over the evidence for the jury to understand what had happened in the case.

Martin,

I remember Darden's closing and how he talks about defense not calling Dr. Walker, I keep thinking to my self that he was the 3rd best defense lawyer Simpson had. I truly believe that.

IMO, I think it is very rare even for the legal community to see a case so crushed and destroyed even before a defense witness took the stand. I think the Simpson trial opened their eyes to how much they get away with and just how many people are willing to give the state the benefit of the doubt rather then the defendant.

[martin II]

The top part of this article talks of how the prosecution used R*** but because i am not sure how it would be received here i left it out.


The prosecutors also participated in reproducing this image of Simpson. For example, the prosecution team, led by a white woman, drew upon prevailing cultural common senses about black men as emotional and uncontrolled people, while simultaneously dismissing the incontrovertible fact of police misconduct by arguing that "Everybody knows he killed - everybody knows. The evidence is there" (Darden 1995, NYT30th September "Excerpts From Final Rebuttal Arguments by Prosecution").

My examination of the Closing Statements of this trial from which the quote in the title of this talk comes - it was said by Johnnie Cochrane, the lead defence lawyer - led me also to see that the issues highlighted by the prosecution and the defence in these statements seemed to differ in both content and style. . .

The prosecution stressed Nicole brown's domestic abuse at the hand of Mr. Simpson, the DNA evidence in a rather protracted and tedious manner, the brutality of the killings, and closed by stating that if he had beaten her, he was also capable of murdering her. While the prosecution did mention police misconduct and the racism of Mark Fuhrman, they did so only to argue that these issues were peripheral to the main DNA evidence, which they claimed proved that O.J. Simpson was the murderer. In reading those Closing Statements, one is rather struck by how much emotion the prosecution used to assert that he was the murderer. While the style of presentation was, at times, rather dry, tedious and ponderous, the content of their Closing Statements amounted to a demand for the jury to act in good faith towards the prosecution - namely, that they would never have taken this case on if they had not known he was the murderer, and inconsistencies in much of the evidence were not relevant to this central fact.

In contrast, and despite press reports to the contrary, the Defence Closing Statements focused on the evidence, and the inconsistencies within it. They explained the idea of "reasonable doubt", and linked this to the credibility of Mark Fuhrman - the racist detective who had been involved at the time of O.J. Simpson's arrest. This legal team also emphasised inconsistencies in key pieces of evidence such as the time line of the events around the murder, the glove not fitting Simpson despite it being a key element in the prosecution's case, and they also spent time in commiserating with the jury about their prolonged sequestration. In sum, although the style of speaking was rather flamboyant at times - "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit" - the Defence Closing Statements worked through all the evidentiary material, and claimed it showed there was more than a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. In other words, it was the Defence team who took the jury through step by step over the evidence, and showed the flaws in the prosecution's case.

In the LA Times and the New York Times, journalists argued the trial was about domestic abuse, police misconduct, judicial reform by bringing up the role of wealth in obtaining justice (not something that was done in the instance of WKS) and the need for non-unanimous jury verdicts, and victim's rights - that is discourses that were similar to those of the prosecution - and made almost no mention of racism.

http://www.criticalmethods.org/bodone.htm

[GreenIce]

The top part of this article tralks of how thw prosecution used R*** but because i am not sure how it would be received here i left it out.


The prosecutors also participated in reproducing this image of Simpson. For example, the prosecution team, led by a white woman, drew upon prevailing cultural common senses about black men as emotional and uncontrolled people, while simultaneously dismissing the incontrovertible fact of police misconduct by arguing that "Everybody knows he killed - everybody knows. The evidence is there" (Darden 1995, NYT30th September "Excerpts From Final Rebuttal Arguments by Prosecution").

My examination of the Closing Statements of this trial from which the quote in the title of this talk comes - it was said by Johnnie Cochrane, the lead defence lawyer - led me also to see that the issues highlighted by the prosecution and the defence in these statements seemed to differ in both content and style. . .

The prosecution stressed Nicole brown's domestic abuse at the hand of Mr. Simpson, the DNA evidence in a rather protracted and tedious manner, the brutality of the killings, and closed by stating that if he had beaten her, he was also capable of murdering her. While the prosecution did mention police misconduct and the racism of Mark Fuhrman, they did so only to argue that these issues were peripheral to the main DNA evidence, which they claimed proved that O.J. Simpson was the murderer. In reading those Closing Statements, one is rather struck by how much emotion the prosecution used to assert that he was the murderer. While the style of presentation was, at times, rather dry, tedious and ponderous, the content of their Closing Statements amounted to a demand for the jury to act in good faith towards the prosecution - namely, that they would never have taken this case on if they had not known he was the murderer, and inconsistencies in much of the evidence were not relevant to this central fact.

In contrast, and despite press reports to the contrary, the Defence Closing Statements focused on the evidence, and the inconsistencies within it. They explained the idea of "reasonable doubt", and linked this to the credibility of Mark Fuhrman - the racist detective who had been involved at the time of O.J. Simpson's arrest. This legal team also emphasised inconsistencies in key pieces of evidence such as the time line of the events around the murder, the glove not fitting Simpson despite it being a key element in the prosecution's case, and they also spent time in commiserating with the jury about their prolonged sequestration. In sum, although the style of speaking was rather flamboyant at times - "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit" - the Defence Closing Statements worked through all the evidentiary material, and claimed it showed there was more than a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. In other words, it was the Defence team who took the jury through step by step over the evidence, and showed the flaws in the prosecution's case.

In the LA Times and the New York Times, journalists argued the trial was about domestic abuse, police misconduct, judicial reform by bringing up the role of wealth in obtaining justice (not something that was done in the instance of WKS) and the need for non-unanimous jury verdicts, and victim's rights - that is discourses that were similar to those of the prosecution - and made almost no mention of racism.

http://www.criticalmethods.org/bodone.htm

Martin,

I think it was obvious that the DA's went for emotion and the defense used facts. It wasn't even close, IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

I remember Darden's closing and how he talks about defense not calling Dr. Walker, I keep thinking to my self that he was the 3rd best defense lawyer Simpson had. I truly believe that.

IMO, I think it is very rare even for the legal community to see a case so crushed and destroyed even before a defense witness took the stand. I think the Simpson trial opened their eyes to how much they get away with and just how many people are willing to give the state the benefit of the doubt rather then the defendant.

That may account for the 98% conviction rate for the DA. People thinking they are being good citizens willing to lie for the shabby cases the prosecution puts on.Not to mention how many cops lie for the prosecution.
If a citizen does not have the resources to hire the required lawyers he is mostly toast. IMO

[GreenIce]

That may account for the 98% conviction rate for the DA. People thinking they are being good citizens willing to lie for the shabby cases the prosecution puts on.Not to mention how many cops lie for the prosecution.
If a citizen does not have the resources to hire the required lawyers he is mostly toast. IMO

Martin,

I agree. The DA's always wear the white hat and the defense lawyers always wear the black hat.

I can't remember how many times the talking heads said how hard it is for the cops to do their jobs within the rules and how hard it is for the DA's to meet the burden of proof. I am not see this in a majority of cases.

What bothers me more then anything is how DA's never accept responsibility for any aquittal. Or when someone is wrongfully convicted. Ever notice, it is never their fault?

[martin II]

Martin,

I think it was obvious that the DA's went for emotion and the defense used facts. It wasn't even close, IMO.

Clarke read the jury wrong and constructed her case in error.She thought because there were so many women on the jury they would automatically go with the prosecution because a woman was killed. This jury came to hear believable evidence and truthful witnesses. When the prosecution gave them suspect evidence and lying cops the jury decided not to go along with that game. For 9 mo they listened to all the prosecution had to say. AND they also listened to the defense pick those witnesses apart bone by bone.It all made no sense. So they said the claims were not proven.It was just that simple.imo

I have wondered if abuse was so strong in this case why didn't the prosecution charge oj with abuse.

[GreenIce]

Clarke read the jury wrong and constructed her case in error.She thought because there were so many women on the jury they would automatically go with the prosecution because a woman was killed. This jury came to hear believable evidence and truthful witnesses. When the prosecution gave them suspect evidence and lying cops the jury decided not to go along with that game. For 9 mo they listened to all the prosecution had to say. AND they also listened to the defense pick those witnesses apart bone by bone.It all made no sense. So they said the claims were not proven.It was just that simple.imo

I have wondered if abuse was so strong in this case why didn't the prosecution charge oj with abuse.

Martin,

I totally disagree with you abut Clark reading the jury wrong. In Joe Bosco's book he has Clark being quoted as saying that she knew this case was a loser but it would make her career. This was very early on in the case. IMO, they way it played out, Clark was right which is why I believe Clark got rid of the jury consultant. She knew how it was going to play out and she wanted to make sure that she would not get blamed for the loss that she knew was coming.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree. The DA's always wear the white hat and the defense lawyers always wear the black hat.

I can't remember how many times the talking heads said how hard it is for the cops to do their jobs within the rules and how hard it is for the DA's to meet the burden of proof. I am not see this in a majority of cases.

What bothers me more then anything is how DA's never accept responsibility for any aquittal. Or when someone is wrongfully convicted. Ever notice, it is never their fault?

For too many pro prosecution types the anti defense positions last up to the point that they or a family member is arrested. They then gather the money togeather and put their future in hands of a defence lawyer. Gladly.

[GreenIce]

For too many pro prosecution types the anti defense positions last up to the point that they or a family member is arrested. They then gather the money togeather and put their future in hands of a defence lawyer. Gladly.

Martin,

I think most people believe that if a person is a arrested and his held over for trial, they must be guilty because the police would never have arrested them in the first place. I also think it is a common misconception that LE departments, SID departs work hand and hand with the DA's office, they are one big happy family.

However, it seems to be the pissing contests that go on between these agencies is appalling and no benefits from them. In read VA and Lange's, MC's and a few other books, it is obvious they don't get along.

And I do agree with you, most people are on the DA's side, until it is their butt or their loved one in the defendant's chair.

[martin II]

Martin,

I totally disagree with you abut Clark reading the jury wrong. In Joe Bosco's book he has Clark being quoted as saying that she knew this case was a loser but it would make her career. This was very early on in the case. IMO, they way it played out, Clark was right which is why I believe Clark got rid of the jury consultant. She knew how it was going to play out and she wanted to make sure that she would not get blamed for the loss that she knew was coming.

I certainly didn't know she gave up on her case that early. But she did make a bundle for loosing.

maby she was thinking about her after trial career when she changed her hair style and added lip gloss and eye lashes.

[martin II]

Martin,

I think most people believe that if a person is a arrested and his held over for trial, they must be guilty because the police would never have arrested them in the first place. I also think it is a common misconception that LE departments, SID departs work hand and hand with the DA's office, they are one big happy family.

However, it seems to be the pissing contests that go on between these agencies is appalling and no benefits from them. In read VA and Lange's, MC's and a few other books, it is obvious they don't get along.

And I do agree with you, most people are on the DA's side, until it is their butt or their loved one in the defendant's chair.

Some people dont understand that cops get promotions based on arrest. multiple arrest means they are doing their jobs for some reason. imo

[GreenIce]

I certainly didn't know she gave up on her case that early. But she did make a bundle for loosing.

maby she was thinking about her after trial career when she changed her hair style and added lip gloss and eye lashes.

Martin,

Also according to Bosco's book, the grand jury was not going to being down an indictment. The problem was the glove and the detectives' stories about entering the estate. When the grand jury was dismissed, I think what ever chance she thought she had to win this case, was over.

I can't say much about her make over because women do get judge more on their appearance then guys do. IMO.

However, I did enjoy some of the comments made about JC's suits. And I do believe that he was the only man in the world that could have worn some of them. And his ties--yikes!

[GreenIce]

Some people dont understand that cops get promotions based on arrest. multiple arrest means they are doing their jobs for some reason. imo

Martin,

As long as the busts are legal, I have no problem with this.

[GreenIce]

I certainly didn't know she gave up on her case that early. But she did make a bundle for loosing.

maby she was thinking about her after trial career when she changed her hair style and added lip gloss and eye lashes.

Martin,

I don't think she gave up on the case, I think she always knew she could not win it in the courtroom, so she took it to the media and the court of public opinion.

[GreenIce]

That may account for the 98% conviction rate for the DA. People thinking they are being good citizens willing to lie for the shabby cases the prosecution puts on.Not to mention how many cops lie for the prosecution.
If a citizen does not have the resources to hire the required lawyers he is mostly toast. IMO

Martin,

I don't think cops are willing to lie for the DA's. IMO, they could careless about the DA's. They know the power they have in the system and they know that a DA will will go millions and millions of miles to make sure they get their case into a courtroom. IMO.

[Hipcheck]

Some people dont understand that cops get promotions based on arrest. multiple arrest means they are doing their jobs for some reason. imo

That is totally not true.

Do you know the procedure most departments use for promotions? Apparently not from what you posted.

[Its just me]

That is totally not true.

Do you know the procedure most departments use for promotions? Apparently not from what you posted.

Exactly it is an absolute false. :rolleyes:

Here is a link for a few books about the subject of promotions in LE. There is a lot of internet information or a course in Criminal Justice 101 may help understand also....the simplest way I know how to put it...It takes Brains.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawenforcement/books/topic.asp?topic=007

Many LE departments has what is sometimes called the quota system in place. Each officer is required to meet the set quota for giving offensive "tickets". It has nothing to do with promotion....only to show the officer is not sitting on his back side but out doing his duty.....has nothing to do with a promotion...but helps "keep" the job. In other words if the officer doesn't work he/she shouldn't even have the job at the level the officer is working.

[GreenIce]

Exactly it is an absolute false. :rolleyes:

Here is a link for a few books about the subject of promotions in LE. There is a lot of internet information or a course in Criminal Justice 101 may help understand also....the simplest way I know how to put it...It takes Brains.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawenforcement/books/topic.asp?topic=007

Many LE departments has what is sometimes called the quota system in place. Each officer is required to meet the set quota for giving offensive "tickets". It has nothing to do with promotion....only to show the officer is not sitting on his back side but out doing his duty.....has nothing to do with a promotion...but helps "keep" the job. In other words if the officer doesn't work he/she shouldn't even have the job at the level the officer is working.

IJM,

I have never come across a police department who has ever acknowledged they had a quota system any more then they acknowledge there is a blue wall of silence.

However, I do disagree with Martin just a bit. I think it is fair to point out that tickets are given out at times more for the money they bring into the departments or state.

[GreenIce]

That is totally not true.

Do you know the procedure most departments use for promotions? Apparently not from what you posted.

Hipcheck,

You don't what is true and what isn't. What is true is that it appears the inside world of our LE departments have their own way of doing things and does alway fall in line with the their motto, "To Protect and Serve".

What is true however, that if we did any the things cops seem to be able to get away with, we would at the very least lose our jobs.

[Its just me]

IJM,

I have never come across a police department who has ever acknowledged they had a quota system any more then they acknowledge there is a blue wall of silence.

However, I do disagree with Martin just a bit. I think it is fair to point out that tickets are given out at times more for the money they bring into the departments or state.


The quota system is not even closely related to a blue wall of silence. If you were familiar with the protocol of LE departments you would know about and understand the quota system.

ETA: Fines for tickets given for breaking a law do generate money for an entity and that is only a part of the system. People who break the law “needs” some type of punishment….Jail and/or a fine.

ETA: While I do know some LE officers I believe needs to be in jail their self....If I need help I'm gong to call 911 for LE help and most of us here will do the same.

[GreenIce]

The quota system is not even closely related to a blue wall of silence. If you were familiar with the protocol of LE departments you would know about and understand the quota system.

ETA: Fines for tickets given for breaking a law do generate money for an entity and that is only a part of the system. People who break the law “needs” some type of punishment….Jail and/or a fine.

IJM,

Please provide a link to one LE department in the US who opening states they have a quota system? Please name one LE departments who have on their performance reviews any comments about not making or exceeding quotas?

The point is, LE departments deny they have them just like they deny there is a blue wall of silence. I did not compare the quota system to the blue wall of silence as in what the represent, only their existence has been denied and will continue to be denied.

IMO, every citizen of this country should feel safe and believe they can call 911 for help. However, there is more then an abundence of evidence that not every citzen can do this, even when the police see a naked boy running and they send him to his death---and still keep their jobs!

[weezer]

The quota system is not even closely related to a blue wall of silence. If you were familiar with the protocol of LE departments you would know about and understand the quota system.

ETA: Fines for tickets given for breaking a law do generate money for an entity and that is only a part of the system. People who break the law “needs” some type of punishment….Jail and/or a fine.

ETA: While I do know some LE officers I believe needs to be in jail their self....If I need help I'm gong to call 911 for LE help and most of us here will do the same.

I think the poster may have 'productivity' confused with 'quota.' I know that as an employee I am evaluated on 'productivity' and as a manager, I evaluate my employees on 'productivity.' In fact, I can't think of any business that doesn't use productivity to evaluate job performance. :shrug:

[Its just me]

IJM,

Please provide a link to one LE department in the US who opening states they have a quota system? Please name one LE departments who have on their performance reviews any comments about not making or exceeding quotas?

The point is, LE departments deny they have them just like they deny there is a blue wall of silence. I did not compare the quota system to the blue wall of silence as in what the represent, only their existence has been denied and will continue to be denied.

Kind of like that Good Ole Boy club. Ever see any clue admit to that?:)

I'm not the one having a problem knowing about the quota system. If you choose not to believe what I "know" that is your problem....I've explained it correctly. I don't know of any LE department that put their rules and regulations on line. If you have a link that shows an LE department stating they do not have a quota system....They actually may not. I stated "most" do and they do. Just a fact.

ETA: The quota is in place because there are some employers that won't put with a sorry tail that don't work and do their job. There must be a way to show the officer is doing more than wearing their uniform....thus...the quota system.

[martin II]

Last week where i am le decided to enforce the LAW on cell phone drivers. about 8-10,000 ticklets on one day.Each over $100.00. They had fallen behind on their quota. The parking cops do have a daily quota. Some start out a day, give out their daily quote by 11 am and go home until 4 pm check out time.Cops that make the most collars benefit two ways. 1. In overtime spent in court 2. badges received after a certain amount of collars.Those that make the most collars are considered doing their jobs. those that don't are considered slackers.

LE is expected to contribute to the city income just like the Sanitation and tax departments.imo

[martin II]

I think the poster may have 'productivity' confused with 'quota.' I know that as an employee I am evaluated on 'productivity' and as a manager, I evaluate my employees on 'productivity.' In fact, I can't think of any business that doesn't use productivity to evaluate job performance. :shrug:

You are speaking of two different issues.

[martin II]

Each le departments operates differently based on the income needs of the city. NO ONE HERE ABSOLUTELY KNOWS how all le systems work. That is a fact.

[martin II]

Another issus is a great many parking tickets are tossed by the judge for wrong time and place written on tickets by le.

[martin II]

I think quotas are illegal but le use them internally to generate income. They say they are just doing their jobs but everyone knows that is bs.

[Its just me]

I think the poster may have 'productivity' confused with 'quota.' I know that as an employee I am evaluated on 'productivity' and as a manager, I evaluate my employees on 'productivity.' In fact, I can't think of any business that doesn't use productivity to evaluate job performance. :shrug:

LOL...Right there is nothing sinister about "quota" in LE. It's called good management and if anyone can't understand that they are lacking. The quota system is an excellent way to weed out a lazy a** getting paid to do nothing by tax payers dollars..... And America seem to be full of people wanting a free ride. Naturally there can’t be a quota requirement in all LE departments….Homicide, robbery and such can’t be based on quota so there is NOT a quota system in place and the officer would be evaluated on profession job performance. If there is no murder or robbery….there is nothing to investigate or no reason to file a charge and/or make an arrest.

[weezer]

LOL...Right there is nothing sinister about "quota" in LE. It's called good management. Naturally there can’t be a quota requirement in all LE departments….Homicide, robbery and such can’t be based on quota so there is NOT a quota system in place and the officer would be evaluated on profession job performance. If there is no murder or robbery….there is nothing to investigate or no reason to file a charge and/or make an arrest.

so I guess the NG argument is that orenthal was the 'quota' for 'double homicide' for June 12, 1994? poor, old orenthal just can't catch a break. oh dear :eek:

[Its just me]

so I guess the NG argument is that orenthal was the 'quota' for 'double homicide' for June 12, 1994? poor, old orenthal just can't catch a break. oh dear :eek:

LOL I don't know but I call it "investigating" a double murder and arresting and charging the person (OJ Simpson) because there was evidence to show he was very one responsible.

[martin II]

The problem with quotas is to meet them le has to shave the law.Not all arrest made to meet the quota are for upholding the law. The law should be upheld daily in the same way. To require a cop to make arrest simply to make his quota leads to unlawful arrest and is a injustice to citizens. It is unfair for the city to reach into citizens packetbooks in this manner.

[Hipcheck]

Another issus is a great many parking tickets are tossed by the judge for wrong time and place written on tickets by le.

How would you know this and why would the wrong place and time be put on so many of these tickets?

[Hipcheck]

Last week where i am le decided to enforce the LAW on cell phone drivers. about 8-10,000 ticklets on one day.Each over $100.00. They had fallen behind on their quota. The parking cops do have a daily quota. Some start out a day, give out their daily quote by 11 am and go home until 4 pm check out time.Cops that make the most collars benefit two ways. 1. In overtime spent in court 2. badges received after a certain amount of collars.Those that make the most collars are considered doing their jobs. those that don't are considered slackers.

LE is expected to contribute to the city income just like the Sanitation and tax departments.imo

You want us to believe that 10,000 peole were given tickets in one day for using their cell phone in this one city. New York city might be able to do that.

Do you live in New York Martin?

[GreenIce]

I'm not the one having a problem knowing about the quota system. If you choose not to believe what I "know" that is your problem....I've explained it correctly. I don't know of any LE department that put their rules and regulations on line. If you have a link that shows an LE department stating they do not have a quota system....They actually may not. I stated "most" do and they do. Just a fact.

ETA: The quota is in place because there are some employers that won't put with a sorry tail that don't work and do their job. There must be a way to show the officer is doing more than wearing their uniform....thus...the quota system.

IJM,

In a response to Martin, I made it clear I have no problem with any bust as long as it is a legal one. I have no problem with knowing about the quota systems, the problem is LE departments deny they exist, just like the blue wall of silence.

Just like profiling, they deny they do that as well but there enough evidence to support that they do in fact do this. I do believe profiling in regards to serial killers, kidnappers, etc., is very important and a key to solving many of these types of crimes. However, I have an issue when they use it to pull over somebody because they don't appear to "fit" into that neighbor hood their appearance doesn't look like they should be driving such a nice car.

If someone speeds, they take a chance of getting a ticket. Bottom line, you do it and get caught, then you pay the fine or whatever. Should it matter if you are going only 1 mile over? I don't think so but that is not my call, it is the cop's.

[Hipcheck]

IJM,

In a response to Martin, I made it clear I have no problem with any bust as long as it is a legal one. I have no problem with knowing about the quota systems, the problem is LE departments deny they exist, just like the blue wall of silence.

Just like profiling, they deny they do that as well but there enough evidence to support that they do in fact do this. I do believe profiling in regards to serial killers, kidnappers, etc., is very important and a key to solving many of these types of crimes. However, I have an issue when they use it to pull over somebody because they don't appear to "fit" into that neighbor hood their appearance doesn't look like they should be driving such a nice car.

If someone speeds, they take a chance of getting a ticket. Bottom line, you do it and get caught, then you pay the fine or whatever. Should it matter if you are going only 1 mile over? I don't think so but that is not my call, it is the cop's.

I have never seen a speeding ticket writen for someone going 1 mph over the speed limt.

[martin II]

Police tells lies to get warrants to meet quotas.


Policy Updates
Are there Arrest Quotas in Atlanta
Written by APB Staff
The president of the Atlanta police union is making the claim that Chief Richard Pennington has implemented a policy of “arrest quotas” where officers fear they will be disciplined if they do not make a certain number of arrests over specific periods of time.

Sgt. Scott Kreher, who serves as president of the Atlanta chapter of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, appeared before the City Council with documents he said supported the contention that officers felt they would be disciplined if they did not make the required number of arrests or serve a minimum number of warrants.

In one e-mail sent last summer to several officers in southwest Atlanta, the major in charge at the time said any officer who did not make any cases "for that day . . . will be on a foot beat until further notice."

Some of the officers claim that pressures mounting from the quota demands was one of the reasons they lied to get warrants, such as the one that allowed them to break down Kathryn Johnston's door the evening of Nov. 21 - a botched drug raid that left the 92-year-old woman dead. A Fulton County grand jury has indicted three officers in that case — Jason R. Smith, Gregg Junnier and Arthur Tesler. Smith and Junnier have plead guilty to the voluntary manslaughter of Kathryn Johnston and guilty in federal court of conspiracy to violate her civil rights. Tesler is fighting lesser state charges and has been suspended without pay. .

http://www.apbweb.com/policy-updates-news-menu-25/502-are-there-arrest-quotas-in-atlanta.html

[William Anthony]

so I guess the NG argument is that orenthal was the 'quota' for 'double homicide' for June 12, 1994? poor, old orenthal just can't catch a break. oh dear :eek:

I think the proper argument is that, while not called a quota, but called a successful prosecution rate, they are looked at in the same way by those who have the power to make or break an individual's career.

[William Anthony]

LOL I don't know but I call it "investigating" a double murder and arresting and charging the person (OJ Simpson) because there was evidence to show he was very one responsible.

There was evidence to sustain a prima facie case but, when put to the test, as evidenced by the verdict, that evidence failed to prove him guilty of anything.

[Its just me]

IJM,

In a response to Martin, I made it clear I have no problem with any bust as long as it is a legal one. I have no problem with knowing about the quota systems, the problem is LE departments deny they exist, just like the blue wall of silence.

Just like profiling, they deny they do that as well but there enough evidence to support that they do in fact do this. I do believe profiling in regards to serial killers, kidnappers, etc., is very important and a key to solving many of these types of crimes. However, I have an issue when they use it to pull over somebody because they don't appear to "fit" into that neighbor hood their appearance doesn't look like they should be driving such a nice car.

If someone speeds, they take a chance of getting a ticket. Bottom line, you do it and get caught, then you pay the fine or whatever. Should it matter if you are going only 1 mile over? I don't think so but that is not my call, it is the cop's.

I will never be pulled over for driving a nice car....I'm not a car person and have better sense than to spend all I make to try and impress anyone...but if that were the case and I got pulled over in my nice car and had NOT done anything wrong I would not get a ticket. The same thing if I look out of place...I might in a really skinny neighbor hood :eek: If I had not done anything wrong I would not get a ticket. Police officers have designated locations to protect and serve...they are usually familiar with what should be in that neighborhood. If something seems out of place they should pay attention....I live in the sticks and don't have LE patrol but if I see a strange car/truck messings around....I've been known to stop them and ask a few questions. It's called looking out for myself....None I ever checked on had a problem and we actually caught a thief. The thief knew he was wrong and he didn't have a problem and didn't go off crying with a belly ache.

[martin II]

..

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 8, 2004; Page C01


It's not unusual for patrol officers in the city of Falls Church to hand a motorist two, three or even four tickets during one traffic stop. Drivers sometimes ask Officer Scott Rhodes whether he's trying to fill some sort of quota.

"I answer the citizens honestly," said Rhodes, who is president of the Falls Church Coalition of Police union. "Did I write them because of a quota? Yes, sir, I did."

Falls Church police require patrol officers to write an average of three tickets, or make three arrests, every 12-hour shift, and to accumulate a minimum total of 400 tickets and arrests per year. In terms of quotas, writing a ticket for a broken taillight carries the same weight as an arrest for armed robbery.

Failure to meet the quotas results in an automatic 90-day probationary period with no pay raise and a possible demotion or dismissal if ticket or arrest numbers aren't immediately raised to acceptable levels. Vacation time, extended leave or military duty doesn't reduce the quota, union officials said -- patrol officers still are required to meet the annual ticket or arrest numbers, meaning they must write more tickets when they return to the streets to compensate for their time away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48618-2004Aug7.html

[tv]

How would you know this and why would the wrong place and time be put on so many of these tickets?

Come on, Hipcheck...didn't you know that there is a vast conspiracy by all LE to frame, plant, lie and do anything they can to implicate innocent people in crimes? You need to get out more often. ;)

[Hipcheck]

Some are written with wrong speeds to make quotas.But it is no surprise what you may not know.

I know a lot more about LE than you will ever know.

[William Anthony]

I will never be pulled over for driving a nice car....I'm not a car person and have better sense than to spend all I make to try and impress anyone...but if that were the case and I got pulled over in my nice car and had NOT done anything wrong I would not get a ticket. The same thing if I look out of place...I might in a really skinny neighbor hood :eek: If I had not done anything wrong I would not get a ticket. Police officers have designated locations to protect and serve...they are usually familiar with what should be in that neighborhood. If something seems out of place they should pay attention....I live in the sticks and don't have LE patrol but if I see a strange car/truck messings around....I've been known to stop them and ask a few questions. It's called looking out for myself....None I ever checked on had a problem and we actually caught a thief. The thief knew he was wrong and he didn't have a problem and didn't go off crying with a belly ache.

There are those people, from all walks of life, able to spend to what some may call a fortune on a nice car, but to that person is only a drop in the bucket. However, even if it was not just a drop in the bucket to the driver, the driver should be able to own and drive whatever he/she desires, if they are willing to make that sacrifice, without being illegally hassled, because our Constitution provides for the pursuit of happiness to each and every citizen and what another citizen eats does not make me full.

[William Anthony]

Come on, Hipcheck...didn't you know that there is a vast conspiracy by all LE to frame, plant, lie and do anything they can to implicate innocent people in crimes? You need to get out more often. ;)

I know that I was following close behind a car that was moving under the speed limit and I was annoyed, because I would be late for work, because I could not speed up or pass the driver. I saw the police sitting on the side of the road and saw him when he pulled out after I had passed. He pulled me over, telling me I was speeding but, when I told him I could not have been due to the car in front of me, he said I came up on the car too fast. After asking me what year my Town Car was, he went on to explain that he had one in his garage. After giving me the ticket, he looked at me and said, "nice Car". I know he felt the contempt in eyes and heard it in my voice when I said thanks officer.

[Its just me]

There are those people, from all walks of life, able to spend to what some may call a fortune on a nice car, but to that person is only a drop in the bucket. However, even if it was not just a drop in the bucket to the driver, the driver should be able to own and drive whatever he/she desires, if they are willing to make that sacrifice, without being illegally hassled, because our Constitution provides for the pursuit of happiness to each and every citizen and what another citizen eats does not make me full.

Yes and the people with enough of an honest fortune to own a nice car are not roaming around strange neighborhoods. Just a fact ETA: and if they happen to be and get stopped they don't consider it harrassement. They have the sense to make a fortune and have the common sense to know police aint' picking on them because they have the fortune.

[martin II]

There are those people, from all walks of life, able to spend to what some may call a fortune on a nice car, but to that person is only a drop in the bucket. However, even if it was not just a drop in the bucket to the driver, the driver should be able to own and drive whatever he/she desires, if they are willing to make that sacrifice, without being illegally hassled, because our Constitution provides for the pursuit of happiness to each and every citizen and what another citizen eats does not make me full.


Every person is legally allowed to drive a car in any place on any public street witrout being harrassed by ANYONE. Whether in the sticks or a big city.

I don't understand how or what right does A PERSON have to stop someone driving in a area on city streets simply because they don't know them. How can someone NOT BELONG in a place while on public space. That sounds like a person doing profiling of another and that is illegal. It also sound like something else. imo

[weezer]

can someone please tell me whether or not LE has quotas has to do with orenthal murdering two human beings? I'm at a loss here --

[tv]

Yes and the people with enough of an honest fortune to own a nice car are not roaming around strange neighborhoods. Just a fact ETA: and if they happen to be and get stopped they don't consider it harrassement. They have the sense to make a fortune and have the common sense to know police aint' picking on them because they have the fortune.

If a person is wandering around in an unfamiliar neighborhood and the residents feel he/she is out of place and may have no valid business there they have the right to inquire the person's business there. The person then has the option to reply or not. That's one reason for Neighborhood Watch groups and why parents walk their children to school and to their bus stop and strangers in a neighborhood are sometimes reported to the police. For someone to claim that it's wrong for a potential law breaker to be stopped and questioned is naive.

[tv]

can someone please tell me whether or not LE has quotas has to do with orenthal murdering two human beings? I'm at a loss here --

It has absolutely nothing to do with it except to put LE in a bad light...diversionary tactics. :rolleyes:

[martin II]

can someone please tell me whether or not LE has quotas has to do with orenthal murdering two human beings? I'm at a loss here --


tv
Some times the conversation does drift off to something that people feel a need to post on.Especially when it is about le and their actions. It is just like when a poster made several post on some missing young girl from Georgia.You didn't ask your current question then.Am i right?
We are just talking about le using quotas another thing they do that is wrong. imo

[martin II]

If a person is wandering around in an unfamiliar neighborhood and the residents feel he/she is out of place and may have no valid business there they have the right to inquire the person's business there. The person then has the option to reply or not. That's one reason for Neighborhood Watch groups and why parents walk their children to school and to their bus stop and strangers in a neighborhood are sometimes reported to the police. For someone to claim that it's wrong for a potential law breaker to be stopped and questioned is naive.

TV
WHAT IS A POTENTIAL LAW BREAKER?
Unitil a person actually breaks the law he/she has a right to ALL public space.
It is the job of le to stop anyone that appears to them to be breaking the law. Not citizens.Citizen have a right to notify LE and let them stop people.Citizens are not authorized to act as le.
One of these people that look out of place may actually be a armed criminal
and the citizen can end up in the hospital.

There is no law against a person driving a car in a place they don't live.imo

[tv]

TV
WHAT IS A POTENTIAL LAW BREAKER?
Unitil a person actually breaks the law he/she has a right to ALL public space.
It is the job of le to stop anyone that appears to them to be breaking the law. Not citizens.Citizen have a right to notify LE and let them stop people.Citizens are not authorized to act as le.
One of these people that look out of place may actually be a armed criminal
and the citizen can end up in the hospital.

There is no law against a person driving a car in a place they don't live.imo

You've completely taken everything that IJM and I have said about this subject and twisted it into something unrecognizable. Not interested in playing this game - it's a waste of my time.

[martin II]

If a person is wandering around in an unfamiliar neighborhood and the residents feel he/she is out of place and may have no valid business there they have the right to inquire the person's business there. The person then has the option to reply or not. That's one reason for Neighborhood Watch groups and why parents walk their children to school and to their bus stop and strangers in a neighborhood are sometimes reported to the police. For someone to claim that it's wrong for a potential law breaker to be stopped and questioned is naive.

What if a person is unfamilure with the neighborhood of a friend and is driving around looking for the correct street. Does a person have a right to stop him and ask questions simply because they don't know the person? Citizens don't have a right to stop other citizens while on public space.imo

[tv]

What if a person is unfamilure with the neighborhood of a friend and is driving around looking for the correct street. Does a person have a right to stop him and ask questions simply because they don't know the person? Citizens don't have a right to stop other citizens while on public space.imo

:seeya:

[William Anthony]

Yes and the people with enough of an honest fortune to own a nice car are not roaming around strange neighborhoods. Just a fact ETA: and if they happen to be and get stopped they don't consider it harrassement. They have the sense to make a fortune and have the common sense to know police aint' picking on them because they have the fortune.

Our ancestors realized long ago that every American should be able to travel the nations highways, streets, communities and neighborhoods without fear of being harassed, under the guise or, if you will, the feeling that they looked out of place or are in a strange neighborhood. Every American should have the ability to travel any street in any neighborhood without fear and or harassment and until that is met America will never live up to its potential, IMHO. I just hope that the majority of Americans realize that this is their privilege.

[martin II]

Overseers to probe alleged arrest quotas, ‘extra jobs’ at APD
October 16, 2009 --
Atlanta’s police oversight board will study charges that officers implicated in the 2006 Kathryn Johnston shooting, and other officers, had arrest quotas and worked extra jobs while on duty.

The Citizen Review Board, created two years ago in response to the Johnston case, will also dig deeper into FBI files that suggest other unindicted officers broke the law or departmental rules.

Johnston, 92, died as she was defending herself in a November 2006 drug raid on her home. Officers admitted lying to obtain the necessary search warrant and, after the fact, pressuring an informant to lie and say he had told them about drug sales at Johnston’s residence. They said pressure to make arrests, and a time crunch resulting from working private jobs while on duty, led them to take short cuts.

The board voted unanimously last week to open the inquiry, based on an Oct. 2 memo from executive director Cristina Beamud’s on a voluminous FBI report on its findings. Atlanta police and the review board have declined to make the report public while APD conducts its own internal investigation.

[William Anthony]

Every person is legally allowed to drive a car in any place on any public street witrout being harrassed by ANYONE. Whether in the sticks or a big city.

I don't understand how or what right does A PERSON have to stop someone driving in a area on city streets simply because they don't know them. How can someone NOT BELONG in a place while on public space. That sounds like a person doing profiling of another and that is illegal. It also sound like something else. imo

The fact is that America's highways and streets are open to public travel and one does not have to explain to anyone why one is traveling on them.

[martin II]

I don't think it is anyones business how a stranger got the expensive car he/she is seen driving in THEIR neighborhood and use that as a excuse to act like they are le.

[martin II]

You've completely taken everything that IJM and I have said about this subject and twisted it into something unrecognizable. Not interested in playing this game - it's a waste of my time.

Wrong

I have posted that all people have a right to drive and be on public space. Regardless of where they are.ijm seems to believe that a person has a right to stop a stranger and harrass them simply because she does not know them.

I say this is illegal and looks like profiling by someone that is not authorized to do so. Public space does not belong to people that live there so it is none of their business who uses this space.IMO

[William Anthony]

MF made a statement on the tapes about someone, looking out of place, and you would probably stop a criminal that way. IMHO, this is MF's law and not American law.

[martin II]

You've completely taken everything that IJM and I have said about this subject and twisted it into something unrecognizable. Not interested in playing this game - it's a waste of my time.

OK
I will make it simple.

What does a potential lawbreaker look like.A person driving a car on public streets in your comunity that you don't know?

[martin II]

If a person is wandering around in an unfamiliar neighborhood and the residents feel he/she is out of place and may have no valid business there they have the right to inquire the person's business there. What law gives the citizen the right to Stop a person and ask question of a driver not breaking the law?? name that law.The person then has the option to reply or not. That's one reason for Neighborhood Watch groups and why parents walk their children to school and to their bus stop and strangers in a neighborhood are sometimes reported to the police. For someone to claim that it's wrong for a potential law breaker to be stopped and questioned is naive.

OR on what authority is this done.

[William Anthony]

OK
I will make it simple.

What does a potential lawbreaker look like.A person driving a car on public streets in your comunity that you don't know?

Like Maddoff, President Nixon, MF and Simpson. :);):cool:

[Hipcheck]

Wrong

I have posted that all people have a right to drive and be on public space. Regardless of where they are.ijm seems to believe that a person has a right to stop a stranger and harrass them simply because she does not know them.


Let's get this straight. All people do not have the right to drive.

[weezer]

You've completely taken everything that IJM and I have said about this subject and twisted it into something unrecognizable. Not interested in playing this game - it's a waste of my time.

My hat is off to people who care enough to watch out for their neighbors -- hooray Neighborhood Watch! :beer::patriot::beer:

[William Anthony]

Let's get this straight. All people do not have the right to drive.

Let's get it fully clear. No one has the right to drive but once they have lawfully acquired the privilege, no one has the right to harass, threaten or intimidate them, because they look out of place in a particular vicinity.

[William Anthony]

I see nothing wrong with neighborhood watches but I do see something wrong with unlawful stops by neighborhood members.

[martin II]

Let's get this straight. All people do not have the right to drive.

It is assumed that we are talking about all people with a valid drivers license.But maby you thought we were talking about something else.

[martin II]

I see nothing wrong with neighborhood watches but I do see something wrong with unlawful stops by neighborhood members.

It is my understanding that le instructs neighborhood watchers to call them. not take action on their own by stopping people.

[weezer]

[edit] United States
Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.[30]

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[31] Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.[32] Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.

[William Anthony]

Let's get this straight. All people do not have the right to drive.

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/port.htm

“In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, at 314 U.S. 36, 62 S.Ct. 26-27:

FN2. Virtually every state addressing this issue concludes that the license to drive an automobile is a privilege which may be extended to individuals under certain circumstances. E.g., State v. Svendrowski, 692 S.W.2d 348, 349 (Mo.App.1985); Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Schaejbe, 687 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Tex.1985); State v. Coyle, 14 Ohio App.3d 185, 470 N.E.2d 457, 458 (1984); Hanson v. State, 673 P.2d 657, 658 (Wyo.1983); Mackler v. Alexis, 130 Cal.App.3d 44, 181 Cal.Rptr. 613, 622-23 (1982); State ex rel. Hjelle v. A Motor Vehicle etc., 299 N.W.2d 557, 562 (N.D.1980); Smith v. Cox, 609 P.2d 1332, 1333 (Utah 1980); cf., Gordon v. State, 108 Idaho 178, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193 (Ct.App.) appeal dismissed, --- U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 35, 88 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985), reh'g denied, --- U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 874, 88 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986) (whether termed right or privilege, one's ability to travel on public highways is subject to reasonable regulation by the state).”

[weezer]

Some American states specify the crimes for which a citizens arrest is allowed (eg. public drunkenness).

[William Anthony]

[edit] United States
Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.[30]

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[31] Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.[32] Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.

I have taken the initiative to place in bold all that is different from stopping a person in a neighborhood, because the person looks out of place or strange or is a stranger and the penalty for so doing if the requirements for detention or arrest are not met. I do not believe that being a stranger in a neighborhood or looking strange has ever amounted to probable cause.

[William Anthony]

Some American states specify the crimes for which a citizens arrest is allowed (eg. public drunkenness).

Why have you not included the link? An arrest requires probable cause and, according to you link, probable cause is required by a citizen to make a detention in North Carolina.

[weezer]

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/port.htm

“In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, at 314 U.S. 36, 62 S.Ct. 26-27:

FN2. Virtually every state addressing this issue concludes that the license to drive an automobile is a privilege which may be extended to individuals under certain circumstances. E.g., State v. Svendrowski, 692 S.W.2d 348, 349 (Mo.App.1985); Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Schaejbe, 687 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Tex.1985); State v. Coyle, 14 Ohio App.3d 185, 470 N.E.2d 457, 458 (1984); Hanson v. State, 673 P.2d 657, 658 (Wyo.1983); Mackler v. Alexis, 130 Cal.App.3d 44, 181 Cal.Rptr. 613, 622-23 (1982); State ex rel. Hjelle v. A Motor Vehicle etc., 299 N.W.2d 557, 562 (N.D.1980); Smith v. Cox, 609 P.2d 1332, 1333 (Utah 1980); cf., Gordon v. State, 108 Idaho 178, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193 (Ct.App.) appeal dismissed, --- U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 35, 88 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985), reh'g denied, --- U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 874, 88 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986) (whether termed right or privilege, one's ability to travel on public highways is subject to reasonable regulation by the state).”

I have taken the initiative to place in bold the pertinent portion of the above post.

[William Anthony]

I have taken the initiative to place in bold the pertinent portion of the above post.

Thank you, although I had done that in an effort to show the other poster that driving is not a right but, as I said, a privilege, with which no citizen or LE can lawfully interfere without following the legal mandates, as the right to travel on the nation's highways and streets is secured by the Constitution, whereas the privilege to drive upon them is not .

For clarity on the situation,

"Originally Posted by Hipcheck View Post
Let's get this straight. All people do not have the right to drive."

"Let's get it fully clear. No one has the right to drive but once they have lawfully acquired the privilege, no one has the right to harass, threaten or intimidate them, because they look out of place in a particular vicinity." By William Anthony

[GreenIce]

I have never seen a speeding ticket writen for someone going 1 mph over the speed limt.

Hipcheck,

You do not live in every single town across the country. A mile over is still speeding.

[weezer]

I am sick and tired of your smart a s s answers to posters.

I am requesting that you not respond to any of my posts.

There is no need to be rude and crude.

I know how frustrating and discouraging this can be and I apologize for the way you are being treated. the best advice is to 'ignore' --

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

You do not live in every single town across the country. A mile over is still speeding.

I have and have seen many speeding tickets written in a 25 year period and not one was for 1 mph over the speed limit.

[GreenIce]

I will never be pulled over for driving a nice car....I'm not a car person and have better sense than to spend all I make to try and impress anyone...but if that were the case and I got pulled over in my nice car and had NOT done anything wrong I would not get a ticket. The same thing if I look out of place...I might in a really skinny neighbor hood :eek: If I had not done anything wrong I would not get a ticket. Police officers have designated locations to protect and serve...they are usually familiar with what should be in that neighborhood. If something seems out of place they should pay attention....I live in the sticks and don't have LE patrol but if I see a strange car/truck messings around....I've been known to stop them and ask a few questions. It's called looking out for myself....None I ever checked on had a problem and we actually caught a thief. The thief knew he was wrong and he didn't have a problem and didn't go off crying with a belly ache.

IJM,

Just because it has never happened to you or you say it would never happen to you does not mean that it has not happened to others.

We live in a free country, IMO, any body and every body who has a legal license and is not breaking the law or trespassing has a right to drive on what ever stree they want to.

[Hipcheck]

I know how frustrating and discouraging this can be and I apologize for the way you are being treated. the best advice is to 'ignore' --

I thank you for your kind words and I will take your advice.

It's very frustrating and discouraging the way some posters act.

[GreenIce]

I have and have seen many speeding tickets written in a 25 year period and not one was for 1 mph over the speed limit.

Hipcheck,

I made it clear, 1 mile over the speed limit is speeding. I also made it clear that it is the cop's call.

[William Anthony]

I have and have seen many speeding tickets written in a 25 year period and not one was for 1 mph over the speed limit.

To what was the first "I have" of your response in response?

[William Anthony]

Hipcheck,

I made it clear, 1 mile over the speed limit is speeding. I also made it clear that it is the cop's call.

GreenIce,

I know where I live, if you are clocked going 5 miles over the speed limit, it will result in a ticket, as the radar is considered to be askew by 5 miles per hour.

[Hipcheck]

To what was the first "I have" of your response in response?

I should have been a little clearer on my post.

I myself have written many, many speeding tickets and have seen other speeding tickets that were written and not one was for 1 mph over the speed limit.

I once had an instuctor who told us this story.

He said he pulled over this very good looking woman who was going way over the speed limit.

He said he asked her, Where's the fire?

Her response was, I'm sitting on it, do you have a hose to put it out?

He said he never asked that queston again.

[William Anthony]

I should have been a little clearer on my post.

I myself have written many, many speeding tickets and have seen other speeding tickets that were written and not one was for 1 mph over the speed limit.

Thanks, as I did not think you meant that you lived in every city in America, or I would have said, "Take, the road less traveled.". :)

[William Anthony]

I thank you for your kind words and I will take your advice.

It's very frustrating and discouraging the way some posters act.

I hope you have the ability to hang in, as I and, IMHO, a couple others have done, despite the slings and arrows shot at us.

[William Anthony]

I should have been a little clearer on my post.

I myself have written many, many speeding tickets and have seen other speeding tickets that were written and not one was for 1 mph over the speed limit.

I once had an instuctor who told us this story.

He said he pulled over this very good looking woman who was going way over the speed limit.

He said he asked her, Where's the fire?

Her response was, I'm sitting on it, do you have a hose to put it out?

He said he never asked that queston again.

Very funny but did he not ask the question because he was unsure of the equipment. :) He should have told her to go through the closest automatic car wash with the windows down and sun roof open.

[martin II]

[edit] United States
Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.[30]

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[31] Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.[32] Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.

That may be true but we are discussing a person being stopped by a citizen for driving in a place on public streets simply because a neighbor did not know him. Not a person suspected of commiting a crime.

Driving on a public street in a car does not make one a suspect of anything other than driving on a public street and that is no crime. imo

[weezer]

I think this is a debate better suited to another thread. we know that orenthal wasn't stopped by a citizen or LE as he drove home after butchering Ron and Nicole. so, maybe we can get back to something that resembles that discussion?

[William Anthony]

I think this is a debate better suited to another thread. we know that orenthal wasn't stopped by a citizen or LE as he drove home after butchering Ron and Nicole. so, maybe we can get back to something that resembles that discussion?

What we also know is that in neither suit did they produce anyone, who saw Simpson driving anywhere after the murders were committed. Therefore, there was no evidence that Simpson drove the Bronco anywhere but the was allegedly blood found on and in the Bronco and it looked as though it was parked out of place or, if you will, strangely parked.

[William Anthony]

Since the subject has been brought up.

There must be some reason why when some are stopped, good looking woman
or some other description, for speeding, the cop will give a warning to one and a ticket to another. imo

I know I am going to make my quota, good looking or not, unless they all looked like MS. Arnelle. :);):cool: (just joking).

[martin II]

GreenIce,

I know where I live, if you are clocked going 5 miles over the speed limit, it will result in a ticket, as the radar is considered to be askew by 5 miles per hour.

i once had 5 wrong side of the street parking tickets. I went to court to pay. Because three tcikets were written 2-3-4 minutes before and after the time for the car was supposed to be moved the judge threw 3 out and cut the fine for the remaining two in half. Saved me $400.00.

[martin II]

I know I am going to make my quota, good looking or not, unless they all looked like MS. Arnelle. :);):cool: (just joking).

When i am stopped i know i am going to help the cop make his quota and no excuse will prevent that. So i just accept the ticket and move on.

[martin II]

IJM,

Just because it has never happened to you or you say it would never happen to you does not mean that it has not happened to others.

We live in a free country, IMO, any body and every body who has a legal license and is not breaking the law or trespassing has a right to drive on what ever stree they want to.

What specific neighborhhod do police PROTECT AND SERVE IN as opposed to others.. I thought they was suppose to PROTECT AND SERVE IN all neighborhoods.

[martin II]

william should i assume you are a Phillies kind of guy?

[William Anthony]

i once had 5 wrong side of the street parking tickets. I went to court to pay. Because three tcikets were written 2-3-4 minutes before and after the time for the car was supposed to be moved the judge threw 3 out and cut the fine for the remaining two in half. Saved me $400.00.

The judge seemed as though he understood what was going on.

[William Anthony]

william should i assume you are a Phillies kind of guy?

Without a doubt, I love the Phillies.

[martin II]

Without a doubt, I love the Phillies.

Get your kleenex box ready because CC is in the house. haha

[Hotwater]

Since the subject has been brought up.

There must be some reason why when some are stopped, good looking woman
or some other description, for speeding, the cop will give a warning to one and a ticket to another. imo


What does this have to do with OJ Simpson? Get back on topic please.

[Its just me]

If a person is wandering around in an unfamiliar neighborhood and the residents feel he/she is out of place and may have no valid business there they have the right to inquire the person's business there. The person then has the option to reply or not. That's one reason for Neighborhood Watch groups and why parents walk their children to school and to their bus stop and strangers in a neighborhood are sometimes reported to the police. For someone to claim that it's wrong for a potential law breaker to be stopped and questioned is naive.

I guess I may be different that the majority....I live in the middle of our farm...No neighbors in sight. There are a few scattered ever few miles down the main highway...so yep if I see a strange car easing around I'll chase them down and ask some questions. When we caught a feller backed up to our barn on the main highway we talked to him..got his tag number and called the LE which is about 12 miles away. We have worked hard for what we own and not about to sit by and let some sorry thief carry it off and we are not alone....Other folks around here feel the same.
-----------
Hotwater I saw your post about staying on topic before I made this one....After reading back I felt it was important to explain my personal situation. IJM

[GreenIce]

What we also know is that in neither suit did they produce anyone, who saw Simpson driving anywhere after the murders were committed. Therefore, there was no evidence that Simpson drove the Bronco anywhere but the was allegedly blood found on and in the Bronco and it looked as though it was parked out of place or, if you will, strangely parked.

William,

Did the DA's say where they believed Simpson to be parked? I find it interesting that the civil trial, I think, suggested he parked out of the ally and across the street, or something like that?

[martin II]

do not respond to my posts. Do you not have the brains to read english. I've asked you and hotwater told you.

Sorry
my mistake.

[GreenIce]

Sorry
my mistake.

Martin,

Don't worry about it. I will be taken care of.

Do you remember where they said Simpson parked? Criminal trial?

[martin II]

Martin,

Don't worry about it. I will be taken care of.

Do you remember where they said Simpson parked? Criminal trial?

Thanks
I am not worried. I just forgot for a moment as i thought i should correct some wrong comments.

If you are talking about Bundy the prosecution suggested he parked in the alley behindf nicoles condo. The problem was no one saw his car. Mrs Steins
back window was right next to the back of nicoles house and she did not report hearing a car arrive or leave.

As a matter of fact as William posted there was no testimony of anyone seeing oj drive any car just before or after the murders. imo

[martin II]

GI

What is odd is if oj killed someone,ran to his car and sped off. one would expect to see some tire marks in the back of nicoles garage area. There was no talk of that.

[martin II]

GI

What i have decided is that when people look around in a book for quotes by 1-2 jurors about gloves or blood. Or when they claim that the jury did not listen, it indicates that they know that all of the testimony and evidence was destroyed by the defense. If you cannot win on the facts you try on nonsense. Like abuse.IMO

[GreenIce]

GI

What is odd is if oj killed someone,ran to his car and sped off. one would expect to see some tire marks in the back of nicoles garage area. There was no talk of that.

Martin,

That was one reason why Judge Fujsaki would not allow the plaintiff's to talk about the carpet fibers.

MF said that he thinks the blood on the car sills were from his shoes. That makes no sense at all. None at all.

[martin II]

Martin,

That was one reason why Judge Fujsaki would not allow the plaintiff's to talk about the carpet fibers.

MF said that he thinks the blood on the car sills were from his shoes. That makes no sense at all. None at all.

GI
I think the criminal defense proved that furhman could not see any blood on the car sills unless he had opened the door. MF said he had NOT opened a door or been in the bronco.

looking into a car with the doors closed, it is not possible to see the sills.So if furhman said he saw blood on the sills, he had opened the door or was in the bronco which he said he did not do.imo

[GreenIce]

GI

What i have decided is that when people look around in a book for quotes by 1-2 jurors about gloves or blood. Or when they claim that the jury did not listen, it indicates that they know that all of the testimony and evidence was destroyed by the defense. If you cannot win on the facts you try on nonsense. Like abuse.IMO

Martin,

IMO, if the jurors missed something deemed so important, it is not their fault, it is the fault of the DA's. What most people are forgetting is that Clark had to back off that glove once the tapes came into play. The more she highlighted it, the more questions it raised and she could not answer any of those questions. IMO.

[GreenIce]

GI
I think the criminal defense proved that furhman could not see any blood on the car sills unless he had opened the door. MF said he had NOT opened a door or been in the bronco.

looking into a car with the doors closed, it is not possible to see the sills.So if furhman said he saw blood on the sills, he had opened the door or was in the bronco which he said he did not do.imo

Martin,

I think both Lange and Vanatter said they knew nothing about this until MF testified about this, I think in the prelim hearing.

That whole scenairo told by the detectives makes no sense and IMO, leaves no other logical belief then MF did open the door and see it. However, that does not mean he was the only one who did open the door.

I don't think it was ever established what Simpson's custom was about locking the doors on the Bronco.

[GreenIce]

GI

What is odd is if oj killed someone,ran to his car and sped off. one would expect to see some tire marks in the back of nicoles garage area. There was no talk of that.

Martin,

I can't remember which book, I think Lange and VA's, said they felt the coins found by Nicole's jeep were from the killer going into his pocket to take out his keys and that is how the money fell out. However, there is a controversy regarding the coins and how many were actually there. Only Lange and Va give a different account.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, if the jurors missed something deemed so important, it is not their fault, it is the fault of the DA's. What most people are forgetting is that Clark had to back off that glove once the tapes came into play. The more she highlighted it, the more questions it raised and she could not answer any of those questions. IMO.

I agree and will add that clarke had more reason to back off of the glove not fitting after Dardens little demo and Rubins faulty testimony. If that is the glove issue you are speaking of.She could also never explain how the glove got to the walkway. imo

[GreenIce]

I agree and will add that clarke had more reason to back off of the glove not fitting after Dardens little demo and Rubins faulty testimony. If that is the glove issue you are speaking of.She could also never explain how the glove got to the walkway. imo

Martin,

What is interesting is that in Hank Goldberg's book, he says that it was already agreed upon that the DA's would ask Simpson to try on the gloves. He was surprised that there was such an uproar about Darden doing this.

In VB's book, he says that it was Clark who did give Darden permission to try on the gloves.

What I don't understand is that the DA's should have been prepared for this demonstration and at the very least, should have told their team they were not going to ask Simpson to try on the glove.

There is no way Darden would have asked for this demo if he knew it was already agreed up that they were not going to ask Simpson to try on the gloves.

I also think another mistake they made was trying to prove that Nicole bought those gloves and they were the same one's. They had tons of pictures, why narrow it down when they didn't have to--even after knowing they were the wrong size.

I think the DA's did keep each other in the dark on several issues and that find with MC and GG, because Darden took the blame. IMO.

I think in Toobin's book, he said that the DA's who handled Rubin, I want to say Darden but I am not sure it was him, took Rubin on cold. That not enough times was spent with him and they didn't know what he was going to testify to.

[martin II]

Martin,

I can't remember which book, I think Lange and VA's, said they felt the coins found by Nicole's jeep were from the killer going into his pocket to take out his keys and that is how the money fell out. However, there is a controversy regarding the coins and how many were actually there. Only Lange and Va give a different account.

I bet the jury did not go for that lame excuse. who did they say dropped that piece of jewelry that lang collected and keep in his desk drawer that he did not turn in.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

What is interesting is that in Hank Goldberg's book, he says that it was already agreed upon that the DA's would ask Simpson to try on the gloves. He was surprised that there was such an uproar about Darden doing this.

In VB's book, he says that it was Clark who did give Darden permission to try on the gloves.

What I don't understand is that the DA's should have been prepared for this demonstration and at the very least, should have told their team they were not going to ask Simpson to try on the glove.

There is no way Darden would have asked for this demo if he knew it was already agreed up that they were not going to ask Simpson to try on the gloves.

I also think another mistake they made was trying to prove that Nicole bought those gloves and they were the same one's. They had tons of pictures, why narrow it down when they didn't have to--even after knowing they were the wrong size.

I think the DA's did keep each other in the dark on several issues and that find with MC and GG, because Darden took the blame. IMO.

I think in Toobin's book, he said that the DA's who handled Rubin, I want to say Darden but I am not sure it was him, took Rubin on cold. That not enough times was spent with him and they didn't know what he was going to testify to.

I think on the glove the da thought they would strike gold at bloomingdales but the sales receipt tripped them up.They could never prove what size glove nicole had baught. Then there was the issue of nicole giving gloves to a friend of ojs and hers. Rubin was so bent of assisting the prosecution claims that he made many many mistakes.His bias was obvious for the jury to see.
He bragged so much on his TIGHT FITTING THIN GLOVES as if they were the best glove in the world. Cochran asked him if his TIGH FITTING THIN EXPENSIVE thin glove would just come of a persons hand easily if they fit so tight. Without thinking he said NO. They would only come off if pulled off one finger at a time. Not realizing that he was telling the jury that it was impossible for the glove to come off the killers hand unless pulled off one finger at a time at bundy.

After the glove didn't fit. He came back and said the glove shurnk 15% and he talked about this for a while. Then Cochran got him again when he asked Rubin if 3 cc of liquid would make his expensive thin gloves shrink and rubin not beling too smart answered NO. That killed the idea of the glove shrunk.
That i am sure the jury heard and fully understood. As a matter of fact the jury listened and head all of it. imo

Ps Darden was the fall guy for the glove.

[martin II]

GI
The DA not handeling Rubin properly, the problem who approved the glove demo etc is just another instance of how the prosecution bumbeled through their case from start.
I believe the prosecution would have done better if they had taken that glove from furhman and burned it. It only made them look impotent to the jury. imo

[Its just me]

Martin,

Don't worry about it. I will be taken care of.

Do you remember where they said Simpson parked? Criminal trial?

FWIW It was taken care of by me and Hotwater. I immediately reported what had happened and brought her attention to my not so nice post..... disrespect doesn't deserve any better...but other members of the board do.

[martin II]

Martin,

Maybe there is another reason why Nicole was killed so easily and professionally, she wasn't the main target. Maybe Nicole did not have the information or stuff they were looking for and that they thought Ron had at least some answers.

It makes no sense to me why if Nicole was the target, the envelope with the glasses would have been opened. It makes no sense to me that Nicole was not given much of chance to fight back, but Ron was.

Maybe the killers only thought they knew why Ron was there only to find out that he wasn't.

If the stories about all the break ins are true, at Shapiro's office and Dr. Ameli, if Nicole was the main target, then why still Ron's file? Why offer to buy Ron's file? Why so much fear if this was a DV homicide?


GI
When reading about professional killings it seems the choice of weapon is based on the preferance of the killer. When a gun is the choice one killer is used. When a knife is the choice two or more are used.

I think Nicole may have been the target and a second killer was there as simple back up.

Although some reject Wagners theories because of his conclusions i think it is a mistake to ignore his experiements and specific recreations of how the attacks took place. NO one has been as detailed and complete in this areas as he was.

I believe killer one attacked nicole while killer 2 hid in the small indented space at the mailbox as backup. When Ron arrived at the gate and said heyheyhey, the killer behind him said something to him as he grabbed Ron in a headlock from behind. imo:cool:

[GreenIce]

GI
When reading about professional killings it seems the choice of weapon is based on the preferance of the killer. When a gun is the choice one killer is used. When a knife is the choice two or more are used.

I think Nicole may have been the target and a second killer was there as simple back up.

Although some reject Wagners theories because of his conclusions i think it is a mistake to ignore his experiements and specific recreations of how the attacks took place. NO one has been as detailed and complete in this areas as he was.

I believe killer one attacked nicole while killer 2 hid in the small indented space at the mailbox as backup. When Ron arrived at the gate and said heyheyhey, the killer behind him said something to him as he grabbed Ron in a headlock from behind. imo:cool:

Martin,

I agree with you about Wagner. He did a great job with the blood but I don't believe his theory of why the crime took place. However, we must remember this was in CA so I can't totally eliminate it.

I have read many books on this case and there is one that really caught my attention in regards to Ron. He feels Ron did no scream because Ron knew him and that they had a conversation together and the conversation exploded into violence.

There is no proof that it was Ron who said "hey, hey, hey". If Ron just happened to be there and he really had nothing to do with this and he was grabbed from behind, why not just slit his throat and be done with it? If the killers had no problem killing a mom of two young children while they slept, I can't imagine they would have a problem killing Ron.

As I have posted before, I do believe the wounds on Ron's neck were "control wounds" and that he was able to speak and I don't think the killers liked his answers. If they thought that Ron was a drug runner or drug dealer, when they opened up the envelope and only found glasses, I am sure not only did they feel foolish, but really, really, really, pissed off.

I think there had to be more then 2. Someone was needed to be a lookout for the kids. Which is why I believe the door was left open. I believe the 10:30 p.m. phone call to the station was to accomplish two things, have the bodies discovered before Sydney and Justin did as well as have the bodies found before Simpson left for Chicago.

If Nicole was the target, then why all the questions about Ron? Why did both familes and friends appear willing to cut off their favorite limbs rather then admit that Ron and Nicole were friends and not just two people who knew each other only to say hi?

For someone reason the DA's wanted nothing to do with either Nicole's or Ron's private life and they wanted nothing to do with a crime of passion. Instead they go with a very, very weak motive of DV. It makes no sense, IMO.

[GreenIce]

GI
The DA not handeling Rubin properly, the problem who approved the glove demo etc is just another instance of how the prosecution bumbeled through their case from start.
I believe the prosecution would have done better if they had taken that glove from furhman and burned it. It only made them look impotent to the jury. imo

Martin,

As I have posted many times before, I don't think the DA's, the LAPD or the SID "bumbled" one thing. I think they decided they had to defend the evidence at all costs, even if it meant calling the lead detectives, "Dumb and Dumber".

The lead DA's on this case, at that time, were too good not to question the glove, VA calling Clark before calling the DA on call or phoning in search warrant.

I think Clark was the only one who didn't care if she practiced law after this case. I don't think she got it as much for her talent but for her willingness to work with cops and is not afraid of a defense lawyer questioning the evidence.

I also have posted before, I wonder how many DA's refused the lead chair on this case? How many wanted nothing to do with this? Maybe Clark got it because she was already "in bed" with VA and why break up a good thing. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I think on the glove the da thought they would strike gold at bloomingdales but the sales receipt tripped them up.They could never prove what size glove nicole had baught. Then there was the issue of nicole giving gloves to a friend of ojs and hers. Rubin was so bent of assisting the prosecution claims that he made many many mistakes.His bias was obvious for the jury to see.
He bragged so much on his TIGHT FITTING THIN GLOVES as if they were the best glove in the world. Cochran asked him if his TIGH FITTING THIN EXPENSIVE thin glove would just come of a persons hand easily if they fit so tight. Without thinking he said NO. They would only come off if pulled off one finger at a time. Not realizing that he was telling the jury that it was impossible for the glove to come off the killers hand unless pulled off one finger at a time at bundy.

After the glove didn't fit. He came back and said the glove shurnk 15% and he talked about this for a while. Then Cochran got him again when he asked Rubin if 3 cc of liquid would make his expensive thin gloves shrink and rubin not beling too smart answered NO. That killed the idea of the glove shrunk.
That i am sure the jury heard and fully understood. As a matter of fact the jury listened and head all of it. imo

Ps Darden was the fall guy for the glove.

Martin,

I disagree. I think the sales slip was their "trump card". By not having the color and the size of the gloves on it, it gave the DA's the chance to use the pictures. Their mistake was insisting these were the exact same gloves, especially when they already had the gloves that Nicole gave to someone for a gift.

I agree with about Rubin, he was disaster for the DA's case. And I don't think they even needed that letter to show how bias he was. He is another one who said a whole lot of nothing. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with you about Wagner. He did a great job with the blood but I don't believe his theory of why the crime took place. However, we must remember this was in CA so I can't totally eliminate it.

I have read many books on this case and there is one that really caught my attention in regards to Ron. He feels Ron did no scream because Ron knew him and that they had a conversation together and the conversation exploded into violence.

There is no proof that it was Ron who said "hey, hey, hey". If Ron just happened to be there and he really had nothing to do with this and he was grabbed from behind, why not just slit his throat and be done with it? If the killers had no problem killing a mom of two young children while they slept, I can't imagine they would have a problem killing Ron.

As I have posted before, I do believe the wounds on Ron's neck were "control wounds" and that he was able to speak and I don't think the killers liked his answers. If they thought that Ron was a drug runner or drug dealer, when they opened up the envelope and only found glasses, I am sure not only did they feel foolish, but really, really, really, pissed off.

I think there had to be more then 2. Someone was needed to be a lookout for the kids. Which is why I believe the door was left open. I believe the 10:30 p.m. phone call to the station was to accomplish two things, have the bodies discovered before Sydney and Justin did as well as have the bodies found before Simpson left for Chicago.

If Nicole was the target, then why all the questions about Ron? Why did both familes and friends appear willing to cut off their favorite limbs rather then admit that Ron and Nicole were friends and not just two people who knew each other only to say hi?

For someone reason the DA's wanted nothing to do with either Nicole's or Ron's private life and they wanted nothing to do with a crime of passion. Instead they go with a very, very weak motive of DV. It makes no sense, IMO.

i agree that someone connected to the crime made that phone call to the police. it could have been margo.
There was a white van observed in front of nicole bundy entrance or a few feet towards Dorothy on Bundy. At the time of the killings. If there were more than two all could have left in the van.

[martin II]

Martin,

I disagree. I think the sales slip was their "trump card". By not having the color and the size of the gloves on it, it gave the DA's the chance to use the pictures. Their mistake was insisting these were the exact same gloves, especially when they already had the gloves that Nicole gave to someone for a gift.

I agree with about Rubin, he was disaster for the DA's case. And I don't think they even needed that letter to show how bias he was. He is another one who said a whole lot of nothing. IMO.

I think ARIS company then current ceo did not want his company involed in the case. That is why the da ended up with Rubin a ex emplpyee.

Having had lots of experience with fine Italian gloves i was cracking up listening to Rubins testimony and knew the jury would see through him. imo

[martin II]

Martin,

As I have posted many times before, I don't think the DA's, the LAPD or the SID "bumbled" one thing. I think they decided they had to defend the evidence at all costs, even if it meant calling the lead detectives, "Dumb and Dumber".

The lead DA's on this case, at that time, were too good not to question the glove, VA calling Clark before calling the DA on call or phoning in search warrant.

I think Clark was the only one who didn't care if she practiced law after this case. I don't think she got it as much for her talent but for her willingness to work with cops and is not afraid of a defense lawyer questioning the evidence.

I also have posted before, I wonder how many DA's refused the lead chair on this case? How many wanted nothing to do with this? Maybe Clark got it because she was already "in bed" with VA and why break up a good thing. IMO.

Clarks was always a hard one for me to figure out. But i do believe her caser was shabby in presentation.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with you about Wagner. He did a great job with the blood but I don't believe his theory of why the crime took place. However, we must remember this was in CA so I can't totally eliminate it.

I have read many books on this case and there is one that really caught my attention in regards to Ron. He feels Ron did no scream because Ron knew him and that they had a conversation together and the conversation exploded into violence.

There is no proof that it was Ron who said "hey, hey, hey". If Ron just happened to be there and he really had nothing to do with this and he was grabbed from behind, why not just slit his throat and be done with it? If the killers had no problem killing a mom of two young children while they slept, I can't imagine they would have a problem killing Ron.

As I have posted before, I do believe the wounds on Ron's neck were "control wounds" and that he was able to speak and I don't think the killers liked his answers. If they thought that Ron was a drug runner or drug dealer, when they opened up the envelope and only found glasses, I am sure not only did they feel foolish, but really, really, really, pissed off.

I think there had to be more then 2. Someone was needed to be a lookout for the kids. Which is why I believe the door was left open. I believe the 10:30 p.m. phone call to the station was to accomplish two things, have the bodies discovered before Sydney and Justin did as well as have the bodies found before Simpson left for Chicago.

If Nicole was the target, then why all the questions about Ron? Why did both familes and friends appear willing to cut off their favorite limbs rather then admit that Ron and Nicole were friends and not just two people who knew each other only to say hi?

For someone reason the DA's wanted nothing to do with either Nicole's or Ron's private life and they wanted nothing to do with a crime of passion. Instead they go with a very, very weak motive of DV. It makes no sense, IMO.

I have kept up with the current Gotti trial.
Considering how they kill people for the slighest interfearance with their money making business, Wagners motive is not that odd.

Obviously Nicole and Ron were more that casual friends. I have no idea as to why people tried to hide this.Nicole had seen many men. why not ron?

Remember Shaperio said he had much more info on Nicole than was known but either oj did not allow it or the team did not think they needed it. It was Shaperios private investigator that filed that report on Nicole and Rons activities.
The DA had to know their DV motive was weal but i think they tried it to get a emotional effect with the media and the jury to go along with the murder pictures.

Also the DA tried to paint oj as some irrational kind of person based on who he was that would loose all rational thought and do what the pictures showed but this was just a attempt to try to get the jury to be emotional and ignore how the DA was not proving their case. Or how the defense was destroying their case.:cool:

[martin II]

GI
i read your below post again and thought it contained a very strong observation.The comments of Carl Douglass and Barry Scheck.

Trial lawyers are graded on their ability to communicate with the jury and for the jury to hear and understand what they say.
If a juror was confused on what the DA said about blood then the fault is with the DA doing the talking. When it came to blood the DA could not stop talking. They never seemed to understand that less can be better. Many times they talked in circles and said something different at the end than the beginning :cool: imo

I actually felt clarke was talking to Cochran many times. Same for Darden as he had this personal thing with Cochran.


William,

You are right, I just never heard it put that way. It appears to me that many people do feel that one group should have an entitlement.

The DA's had many lawyers working on this case? The defense had how many lawyers working on the case? I remember reading American Tragedy and Barry Scheck would use a couple of the other lawyers as his sounding boards, like if they got what he was saying, then the jury would get it.

Carl Douglas told him that he didn't know what ----- he was saying and that he Gary Sims were having their own private conversation. Scheck then adjusted his style.

In reading of the closings by both sides, Barry Scheck's closing, IMO, was more powerful then JC's because of the subjects he handled. Barry destroyed the DA's case and JC appealed to the jurors common sense. And I stand by what I have posted for years, I think an all white jury would have voted to aquitt and I believe they would have done in half the time the criminal trial jurors did. I truly believe that.

[William Anthony]

William,

Did the DA's say where they believed Simpson to be parked? I find it interesting that the civil trial, I think, suggested he parked out of the ally and across the street, or something like that?

It was only, at best, a suggestion by the prosecution and they had no evidence to back it up.

[William Anthony]

GI

What is odd is if oj killed someone,ran to his car and sped off. one would expect to see some tire marks in the back of nicoles garage area. There was no talk of that.

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

[martin II]

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

Sounds like what the prosecution started and ended with.

[martin II]

It was only, at best, a suggestion by the prosecution and they had no evidence to back it up.


I believe the prosecution should have backed up for a moment and examined their case more closely and not rushed to judgement.They would have understood their case was very weak. imo :cool:

[GreenIce]

I believe the prosecution should have backed up for a moment and examined their case more closely and not rushed to judgement.They would have understood their case was very weak. imo :cool:

Martin,

IMO, I think the DA's wanted to slow it up just a tad, however, MF would not allow that. The leaks about the evidence that early in the case could have only come from the LAPD.

MF wanted to make sure he was in the loop. And it is nonsense about VA and Lange not ready MF's notes, how else was the ski mask leaked?