Random Discussions On The Case

[GreenIce]

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,

I agree with you, it seems to me that the current employees at ARIS wanted nothing to do with the case. I am very surprised the DA's called the buyer and Rubin. By going for a grand slam, they struck out, over and over again. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with you, it seems to me that the current employees at ARIS wanted nothing to do with the case. I am very surprised the DA's called the buyer and Rubin. By going for a grand slam, they struck out, over and over again. IMO.

The sales lady that actually sold the gloves was brought to la but was not selected to testify. The DA though the buyer would support their claim more.
She tried but could not add size and color to the sales receipt.:cool:

[GreenIce]

The sales lady that actually sold the gloves was brought to la but was not selected to testify. The DA though the buyer would support their claim more.
She tried but could not add size and color to the sales receipt.:cool:

Martin,

I wish the defense would have hit it a little bit harder how Brenda V was doing the DA's job and by her doing, any information she gathered did not have to be turned over to the defense.

IMO, I think the DA's did this with a lot of witnesses.

Do you remember the tech who found the blood on the socks? Do you remember a name?

[GreenIce]

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,

Don't forget about the woman who was there when the couple who actually called the police about the bodies.

I have always thought that phone call was either made by Faye Resnick or by Dr. Ameli to the station.

IMO, I think Dr. Ameli would have blown the DA's case sky high and that is why she was used.

[martin II]

GI

Another small issue about the gloves. The Bloomingdales lady said the gloves were only available at Bloomingdalse. That may have been true for that xmas sale. But when Bloomongdales sent those thousands of gloves that did not sell back to Aris, Aris then sold them to national discounters.So after that xmas those gloves could have been purchased anyplace by anyone. The sales lady gave the impression that the gloves were never available at any store but Bloomingdales.Not true. imo

[martin II]

Martin,

Don't forget about the woman who was there when the couple who actually called the police about the bodies.

I have always thought that phone call was either made by Faye Resnick or by Dr. Ameli to the station.

IMO, I think Dr. Ameli would have blown the DA's case sky high and that is why she was used.

I think the chance of a person calling the police asking about two dead bodies
at a time when two people had just been killed is too impossible for le to ignore it.

Also the skate board guy that saw a man hiding in the bushes in front of nicoles house a short time before the murders did not get much attention by le.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

Don't forget about the woman who was there when the couple who actually called the police about the bodies.

I have always thought that phone call was either made by Faye Resnick or by Dr. Ameli to the station.

IMO, I think Dr. Ameli would have blown the DA's case sky high and that is why she was used.

Do you remember who this woman was?

I was reading Dr Lees testimony. He said the blood drops looked as if they were dropped by a person standing still. (round i guess) Not as if the person was running or walking fast.(with a tail)

[GreenIce]

GI

Another small issue about the gloves. The Bloomingdales lady said the gloves were only available at Bloomingdalse. That may have been true for that xmas sale. But when Bloomongdales sent those thousands of gloves that did not sell back to Aris, Aris then sold them to national discounters.So after that xmas those gloves could have been purchased anyplace by anyone. The sales lady gave the impression that the gloves were never available at any store but Bloomingdales.Not true. imo

Martin,

That is what I mean, they went for a Grand Slam and there has to be a reason why they did this. I found it interesting that in VB's book, he slammed the DA's for waiting until their rebuttal case before introducing the photos, he felt the DA's risked losing them.

In the defense books, they all mentioned they were surprised they didn't introduce the pictures in their case in chief. I think they were waiting to see if the defense would introduce the gloves given to Tom McCollum.

Also, I find it telling that gloves were taken and looked at from inside Simpson's home but just left there. Only one reason for doing this, they were the not the same size. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Do you remember who this woman was?

I was reading Dr Lees testimony. He said the blood drops looked as if they were dropped by a person standing still. (round i guess) Not as if the person was running or walking fast.(with a tail)

Martin,

The guy said they saw a woman standing by her car and apparently she saw the body. They asked her to call for help but knew she wouldn't so that is when they went across the street. That was the last of I ever heard of this.
I don't know what his wife said about this if she said anything about this.

IIRC, she was just staring and I don't think he ever said this but I got the impression he thought this woman had a cell phone because why else would he say that he knew she wasn't going to call.

[GreenIce]

I think the chance of a person calling the police asking about two dead bodies
at a time when two people had just been killed is too impossible for le to ignore it.

Also the skate board guy that saw a man hiding in the bushes in front of nicoles house a short time before the murders did not get much attention by le.imo

Martin,

I agree with you. While LE said they did follow up, you could tell they didn't try very hard. First off, the person saying she was a reporter is just too unbelieveable to believe--and they knew it.

I do find interesting that after this call was made about 20 minutes later Steven Swab happened to see a cruiser.

[GreenIce]

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,

For the life of me, I can't figure out why he did this. There had to be a reason he did this and I agree with you, the jurors had to be asking questions about this.

What really bothers me is that I truly believe a lot of this evidence was collected and it was tested and the evidence pointed away from Simpson. Too much happened to the evidence that just makes no sense, IMO.

[weezer]

". . .That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . ."

[martin II]

Martin,

That is what I mean, they went for a Grand Slam and there has to be a reason why they did this. I found it interesting that in VB's book, he slammed the DA's for waiting until their rebuttal case before introducing the photos, he felt the DA's risked losing them.

In the defense books, they all mentioned they were surprised they didn't introduce the pictures in their case in chief. I think they were waiting to see if the defense would introduce the gloves given to Tom McCollum.

Also, I find it telling that gloves were taken and looked at from inside Simpson's home but just left there. Only one reason for doing this, they were the not the same size. IMO.


OJS gloves were xxx large so they left them and tried to say he wors size x large.

[GreenIce]

OJS gloves were xxx large so they left them and tried to say he wors size x large.

Martin,

I agree with you. But I think the glove demonstration really helped clear this issue up. I have always wondered why neither someone from Aris and Ford never took the stand.

[martin II]

". . .That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . ."

How many times have you posted this?

Did furhman take the stand with itos approval??

[GreenIce]

How many times have you posted this?

Did furhman take the stand with itos approval??

Martin,

It doesn't matter how many times they post it, it doesn't change the facts. But let them have their fun. :)

Besides, we can always start posting what Judge Ito's special instruction he wanted to give the jury regarding Mark Fuhrman.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with you. But I think the glove demonstration really helped clear this issue up. I have always wondered why neither someone from Aris and Ford never took the stand.


Yes it did.
Remember the sky cap and the pilot commented on how surprised they were at the sixze of ojs hands. That is something the jury would remember.

Obviously Aris did research and found their xlarge glove would not fit oj. So they did not want to send a currebt executive to court to support the DA claim. I think Ford knew that the carpet in ojs Bronco was used in many many broncos. It is not possible that that carpet was made for only one car.
Not everyone would agree to be used by the DA. imo

During testimony jurors listen to the testimony.When they hear testimony that sounds untrue or when that witness is caught lying on cross, they like any other person, make a mental note or store this info away. As these instances pile up over a period of time, the jury can see a trend or began to link these different instances togeather. This happened a lot with Rubins testimony as he, without knowing, linked his testrimony to things the defense had said about his glove at bundy.

That i believe is what the jurors meant when they said they had been listening to testimony for 9m0 and did not need to read all the testimony again in deliberations. imo:cool:

[GreenIce]

Yes it did.
Remember the sky cap and the pilot commented on how surprised they were at the sixze of ojs hands. That is something the jury would remember.

Obviously Aris did research and found their xlarge glove would not fit oj. So they did not want to send a currebt executive to court to support the DA claim. I think Ford knew that the carpet in ojs Bronco was used in many many broncos. It is not possible that that carpet was made for only one car.
Not everyone would agree to be used by the DA. imo

During testimony jurors listen to the testimony.When they hear testimony that sounds untrue or when that witness is caught lying on cross, they like any other person, make a mental note or store this info away. As these instances pile up over a period of time, the jury can see a trend or began to link these different instances togeather. This happened a lot with Rubins testimony as he, without knowing, linked his testrimony to things the defense had said about his glove at bundy.

That i believe is what the jurors meant when they said they had been listening to testimony for 9m0 and did not need to read all the testimony again in deliberations. imo:cool:

Martin,

I just want to add something about the jurors---they can tell when a witness, especially an expert witness, says a whole lot of nothing--or is delibertely clouding their own testimony---as with Roger Martz.

I also think when they overshoot their job description hurts them as well. Like Dr. Cotton, her job was not to make any finding regarding DNA counts or whatever, it was her job to determine who's blood it was, period. IMO.

Rubin is also a prime example on this. Saying the gloves shrunk 15%?

[martin II]

Martin,

It doesn't matter how many times they post it, it doesn't change the facts. But let them have their fun. :)

Besides, we can always start posting what Judge Ito's special instruction he wanted to give the jury regarding Mark Fuhrman.

Why post something 10 times when another poster has posted itos final decision maby 11 times. Thats funny or not to smart. i don't know which.

The jury said they knew who furthman was and what he did. Based on the judges instruction that may be why they did not discuss him. imo:cool:

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=martin II;9231879]Yes it did.
Remember the sky cap and the pilot commented on how surprised they were at the sixze of ojs hands. That is something the jury would remember.

Martin,

I just thought of something. The DA's knew what these witnesses were going to say about the size of Simpson's hands. They knew these people did more then just glance at Simpson's hands.

You would think they would have done every thing possible to see if Aris made a larger glove--IMO, there is no way they should have been surprised by the size of Simpson's hands. They would have known that his palm was one size while his fingers were another.

[GreenIce]

Why post something 10 times when another poster has posted itos final decision maby 11 times. Thats funny or not to smart. i don't know which.

The jury said they knew who furthman was and what he did. Based on the judges instruction that may be why they did not discuss him. imo:cool:

Martin,

I think it is a refusal to deal with the reality of the situation. Thats my best guess yet.

Judge Ito was not allowed to give that instruction but I am pretty sure the jurors figured out when they heard the tapes and MF never took the stand again.

From what I read, it was the female white juror who told the group that they already knew MF was a liar so they didn't even need to discuss him. I still think Vanatter played a much bigger role in the jury room then Fuhrman. IMO.

Also, MF had more then one motive to plant the glove.

[martin II]

Martin,

I just want to add something about the jurors---they can tell when a witness, especially an expert witness, says a whole lot of nothing--or is delibertely clouding their own testimony---as with Roger Martz.

I also think when they overshoot their job description hurts them as well. Like Dr. Cotton, her job was not to make any finding regarding DNA counts or whatever, it was her job to determine who's blood it was, period. IMO.

Rubin is also a prime example on this. Saying the gloves shrunk 15%?

When the glove didn't fit. The prosecution asked him why in the after court meeting. He came up with the glove must have shrunk story and they let him go with it the next day not understanding he would not be able to prove it.

Cochran, smart as he was, asked Rubin a lot of questions about the description of his gloves and Rubin gave the EXPENSIVE, TIGHT FITTING SPECIAL SKIN TIGHT DESCRIPTIONS. Then Cochran sprung the trap by asking Rubin a simple question . If 3cc of liquid would cause his EXPENSIVE, TIGHT FITTING GLOVES TO SHRINK. Rubin said NO.i couldn't believe it. I guess the jury must have looked at each other with wide eyes.:cool:

[GreenIce]

When the glove didn't fit. The prosecution asked him why in the after court meeting. He came up with the glove must have shrunk story and they let him go with it the next day not understanding he would not be able to prove it.

Cochran, smart as he was, asked Rubin a lot of questions about the description of his gloves and Rubin gave the EXPENSIVE, TIGHT FITTING SPECIAL SKIN TIGHT DESCRIPTIONS. Then Cochran sprung the trap by asking Rubin a simple question . If 3cc of liquid would cause his EXPENSIVE, TIGHT FITTING GLOVES TO SHRINK. Rubin said NO.i couldn't believe it. I guess the jury must have looked at each other with wide eyes.:cool:

Martin,

I think the bottom line is that the DA's should have known exactly if the gloves shrank before Rubin even took the stand. If the blood causes a glove to shrink, they should have known that before the glove demo. They should have known what effect, if any, would the freezing and unfreezing of the glove would have.

They should have been prepared to put those gloves on his hands and explain to the jury before he tried them about shrinkage. I also find it hard to believe Darden would have done the demo if he already knew the DA's had opted against it.

I really wonder why the DA's ever even put MF on the stand. It makes no sense. Why not let the defense call him?

IMO, it is obvious by the questions JC asked, he knew the shrinkage of the glove would be minimal. He knew about Dr. MacDonald's experiment.

One juror who wore gloves on his job knew the gloves would not shrink that much. The DA's should have been prepared for this as well. IMO.

[tv]

Why post something 10 times when another poster has posted itos final decision maby 11 times. Thats funny or not to smart. i don't know which.

The jury said they knew who furthman was and what he did. Based on the judges instruction that may be why they did not discuss him. imo:cool:Since you enjoy this ruling so much I'd thought I'd post it again. ;)

". . .That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . ."

[martin II]

Martin,

I think the bottom line is that the DA's should have known exactly if the gloves shrank before Rubin even took the stand. If the blood causes a glove to shrink, they should have known that before the glove demo. They should have known what effect, if any, would the freezing and unfreezing of the glove would have.

They should have been prepared to put those gloves on his hands and explain to the jury before he tried them about shrinkage. I also find it hard to believe Darden would have done the demo if he already knew the DA's had opted against it.

I really wonder why the DA's ever even put MF on the stand. It makes no sense. Why not let the defense call him?

IMO, it is obvious by the questions JC asked, he knew the shrinkage of the glove would be minimal. He knew about Dr. MacDonald's experiment.

One juror who wore gloves on his job knew the gloves would not shrink that much. The DA's should have been prepared for this as well. IMO.

Remember even Rubin said the gloves were made to RECOVER to their original size shape. I think the differance between each glove size in 1/2 inch in the fingers and palm. If the gloves shrunk 15- 20% as claimed by Rubin then the gloves in court would be about a medium or smaller.Knowing this, Darden should not have even tried the demo.

I think Shaperio tried on the size xl the night before and knew they would not fit oj as Shaperio also had large hands. I think the demo demostrates that the prosecution feared they were loosing or all was not going as well as planned and they needed something dramatic to turn the tide.The demo put them further in the hole imo:cool:

[martin II]

Since you enjoy this ruling so much I'd thought I'd post it again. ;)

". . .That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . ."

I never said i enjoyed it at all. You are saying that. my point is we all know based on williams later post that ito changed his mind and did allow Furhman to take the stand and he did allow the planting question to be asked. So your post became, null and void at that point. Considering the above it seems your motive could be to post something that you know was not the judges final decision for those that may not have paid attention to what the judge actually did. It is like posting wrong info on the subject. imo

I think your reposting that stuff shows a refusal to deal with the reality of the situation on your part. imo

[weezer]

Jurors say they would rule against Simpson in civil trial
10/18/96 - 07:39 PM ET

LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday.

"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case.

Simpson faces civil trial in April in wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. The plaintiffs want a judge to force Simpson to pay monetary damages.

In the civil case, the verdict is decided on the preponderance of evidence standard, which is less onerous than prosecutors' guilt-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt hurdle in a criminal case.

Cooley was forewoman of the long-sequestered Simpson jury. Jurors deliberated less than four hours before clearing Simpson of two counts of murder. . .

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .

[Kayleighjo]

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

I'm talking about the wife beater part, not the murderer part.

[Kayleighjo]

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

If they called him first what were they going to say "we need to come over to notify you in person that your ex-wife has been killed"? Defeats the purpose of an in person notification.

[martin II]

Jurors say they would rule against Simpson in civil trial
10/18/96 - 07:39 PM ET

LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday.

"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case.

Simpson faces civil trial in April in wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. The plaintiffs want a judge to force Simpson to pay monetary damages.

In the civil case, the verdict is decided on the preponderance of evidence standard, which is less onerous than prosecutors' guilt-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt hurdle in a criminal case.

Cooley was forewoman of the long-sequestered Simpson jury. Jurors deliberated less than four hours before clearing Simpson of two counts of murder. . .

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .


The jury made their decision based on all the testimony not one issue like the gloves. What 1-2 jury members thought about the gloves had no impact when they considered everything.
The prosecution need more that fittiong gloves to win their case. most know that.imo

[Kayleighjo]

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.

Thank you.

That's my point, there are a whole lot of people who don't do anything. They just turn the other cheek and pretend they didn't see. I don't wish those people who watched and didn't help me anything bad. I only hope if they're ever in a situation like that that someone will help them so they don't have to go through what I did.

It's those things that make an isolated feel even more so. My husband wasn't famous and I still feared that no one would stand up for me because most of the time no one did. That's what makes me that Nicole gave up.

[martin II]

If they called him first what were they going to say "we need to come over to notify you in person that your ex-wife has been killed"? Defeats the purpose of an in person notification.

Westec gave le ojs home number before they entered his property they called it and got a message 'THIS IS OJ I AM NOT HOME LEAVE A MESSAGE ETC " They entered his property anyway.

[martin II]

Jurors say they would rule against Simpson in civil trial
10/18/96 - 07:39 PM ET

LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday.

"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case.

Simpson faces civil trial in April in wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. The plaintiffs want a judge to force Simpson to pay monetary damages.

In the civil case, the verdict is decided on the preponderance of evidence standard, which is less onerous than prosecutors' guilt-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt hurdle in a criminal case.

Cooley was forewoman of the long-sequestered Simpson jury. Jurors deliberated less than four hours before clearing Simpson of two counts of murder. . .

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .

Weezer
you have previously stated that the jury was to ignorant, uneducated and biased and had a agenda in favor of oj.

Your above post proves you were wrong in case you don't realize it.imo

[Kayleighjo]

Westec gave le ojs home number before they entered his property they called it and got a message 'THIS IS OJ I AM NOT HOME LEAVE A MESSAGE ETC " They entered his property anyway.

Because Westec also told them that there was a full time maid who should be home and they were getting no answer and Fuhrman had found what looked like blood.

That's the kicker, had Simpson really been inside the home bleeding to death because someone tried to kill him too and the police didn't do anything you'd all be screaming about why the hell didn't they enter the property under those suspicious circumstances!!!

[martin II]

Because Westec also told them that there was a full time maid who should be home and they were getting no answer and Fuhrman had found what looked like blood.

That's the kicker, had Simpson really been inside the home bleeding to death because someone tried to kill him too and the police didn't do anything you'd all be screaming about why the hell didn't they enter the property under those suspicious circumstances!!!

Thats the story vannatter made up to cover the illegal entry. The same excuse they used when the lead detectives left the major crime scene to go to try catch oj doing something.

Usually only two low level cops are used to make a notification. There was no need for four.imo

[William Anthony]

I'm talking about the wife beater part, not the murderer part.

I don't understand. The prosecution did not put on a six month trial to prove that Simpson was a wife beater, correct?

[William Anthony]

If they called him first what were they going to say "we need to come over to notify you in person that your ex-wife has been killed"? Defeats the purpose of an in person notification.

I think the proper thing to do, if they had called and spoke to him but needed to give an "in person" notification, would be to say Mr. Simpson we need to come to your home and speak to you about something, regarding your ex-wife and we will see you in approximately 5 minutes, if that is alright. However, had they have called, they may have received a message that he was out of town and they would not have had to go over there, unless they could, IMHO, invent some other reason, such as not knowing whether he was a victim or a suspect.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by weezer View Post
Jurors say they would rule against Simpson in civil trial
10/18/96 - 07:39 PM ET

LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday.

"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case.

Simpson faces civil trial in April in wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. The plaintiffs want a judge to force Simpson to pay monetary damages.

In the civil case, the verdict is decided on the preponderance of evidence standard, which is less onerous than prosecutors' guilt-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt hurdle in a criminal case.

Cooley was forewoman of the long-sequestered Simpson jury. Jurors deliberated less than four hours before clearing Simpson of two counts of murder. . .

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .

You see the jury is saying that there was reasonable doubt and the prosecution met the preponderance of the evidence standard but not the requisite beyond a reasonable doubt standard to convict a person of a crime.

[martin II]

Because Westec also told them that there was a full time maid who should be home and they were getting no answer and Fuhrman had found what looked like blood.

That's the kicker, had Simpson really been inside the home bleeding to death because someone tried to kill him too and the police didn't do anything you'd all be screaming about why the hell didn't they enter the property under those suspicious circumstances!!!

If the maid was working and in the house she would have answered the phone when le called. Since she didn't she was not there.

[William Anthony]

Listen up, as soon as robbery/homicide arrives, and, since you and your partner, both detectives, are no longer assigned to the case, I want the two of you to go to Simpson's estate and make personal notification to Simpson of his wife's death and to assist him in getting his children from the police station.

[martin II]

You see the jury is saying that there was reasonable doubt and the prosecution met the preponderance of the evidence standard but not the requisite beyond a reasonable doubt standard to convict a person of a crime.

It is silly to ask a juror how they would vote if the standard was not what it was. Thats like saying would you love your husband if he was not who he is.
gees

[William Anthony]

It is silly to ask a juror how they would vote if the standard was not what it was. Thats like saying would you love your husband if he was not who he is.
gees

I don't know about silly but frightening, as the wife might answer, yes. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Listen up, as soon as robbery/homicide arrives, and, since you and your partner, both detectives, are no longer assigned to the case, I want the two of you to go to Simpson's estate and make personal notification to Simpson of his wife's death and to assist him in getting his children from the police station.

Yep

So WTH was vannater and lang doing leaving the two dead bodies in the open for a ride to ojs house so they cauld commit a illegal act? No one told them to do that.

[William Anthony]

Yep

So WTH was vannater and lang doing leaving the two dead bodies in the open for a ride to ojs house so they cauld commit a illegal act? No one told them to do that.

That to me is the definition of silly.

[Hipcheck]

Judge Ito knew that there was no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockigham.

". . .That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . .

[Hipcheck]

Jurors say they would rule against Simpson in civil trial
10/18/96 - 07:39 PM ET

LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday.

"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case.

Simpson faces civil trial in April in wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. The plaintiffs want a judge to force Simpson to pay monetary damages.

In the civil case, the verdict is decided on the preponderance of evidence standard, which is less onerous than prosecutors' guilt-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt hurdle in a criminal case.

Cooley was forewoman of the long-sequestered Simpson jury. Jurors deliberated less than four hours before clearing Simpson of two counts of murder. . .

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .

Great post. Those two jurors knew what most of us knew all along that the glove did fit.

The criminal trial lasted months and they deliberated for less than four hours tells me that they didn't go over much of the evidence.

At least those two jurors have admitted that they would have voted guilty in the civil trial after seeing more evidence like O.J. wearing those Bruno Magli shoes.

Once again great post. I love it.

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito knew that there was no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockigham.

". . .That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . .

What judge Ito did not know when he made the ruling was that MF would be further impeached by Singer, Mckinney and Mr. Hodge and, after such impeachment was made this part of the defense argument was stated,

September 6th,

MR. UELMEN: And I think an appropriate place to begin is with the legal standard to be applied in terms of the impact of newly discovered evidence. And we believe that the leading case on this question is People versus Ramsey cited in our brief at page 7, which quite clearly holds:

.... The additional evidence that we wish to introduce relates directly to the credibility of Detective Mark Fuhrman. .... Now, the Prosecution has contended that what we are offering with this additional proffer is simply evidence going to his general credibility. And I want to point out to the court the very clear relationship between the portions of the McKinny transcripts and tapes that we are proffering as new evidence on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman and the testimony that he presented on the motion to suppress. And I think it's fair to call the court's attention to the fact that there were only two detectives who testified on the motion to suppress, Detective Vannatter and Detective Fuhrman. And your Honor will recall that in the context of a number of misrepresentations made by Detective Vannatter in the affidavit for the search warrant, this court made a finding that Detective Vannatter had a reckless disregard for the truth, so that the credibility of Detective Fuhrman becomes a very, very important aspect of the determination of the Defendant's motion to suppress. Do we or should we put any faith in the testimony of Detective Fuhrman with respect to the circumstances that led up to the warrantless search of the Defendant's premises on the morning of June 13th? Now, we have essentially--well, let me identify each of the issues where we believe the credibility of Detective Fuhrman is in issue. First of all, with respect to the justification for the entry to the premises, as your Honor will recall, the explanation offered by the detectives for their trip from Bundy to Rockingham was that it was for purpose of making a notification. Mr. Simpson was not a suspect. Their reason for going to his residence was to notify him of the death of his former wife and to make arrangements for the care of his minor children who had been found in an upstairs bedroom at the Bundy scene.

"It was only after they arrived at the premises and a speck was found on the door of the Bronco above the handle to the driver's side door that the circumstances were transformed, and the officers determined that they had some sort of emergency that justified an immediate entry to the premises without a warrant. And of course, the discovery of that speck on the door was a discovery by Detective Fuhrman. It was Detective Fuhrman who testified he went by himself from where the officers were gathered at the gate to enter Mr. Simpson's premises, that he noticed that the Bronco was parked in a very haphazard manner as he put it, that he went over and he made the discovery of the speck on the door. Now, in that context, it is significant that this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in the context of the McKinny tapes and transcripts offers the following comments. This is Miss McKinny, and I'm reading from her transcript no. 1, pages 24 to 25. "So if you ripped up his identification, you're not going to mention that you ripped it up, are you?" And he answers: "Never, but that doesn't mean I didn't say I didn't. Nobody asked." And the interviewer, Miss McKinny asks: "How about if somebody asks?" And Fuhrman says:

"Well, then I won't. That's an investigation of a police report. When you say falsification of an arrest report, that's when somebody's walking down the street and I see him throw something, but I don't see what he throws. Then I go back where he threw something and there's a gun. "Now, if you want to let that guy go, if you're a citizen, do you want that guy on the street or in jail? Obviously you want him in jail unless you're a jerk too. So the only way to put him in jail is for the policeman to say, `I saw him throw that gun.'" interviewer Miss McKinny: "Oh, identifying the action with the object?" "Fuhrman: Of course he threw it. What are the odds of going to a place where he threw something and having that be a gun? 10 million to 1. 30 million to 1. I don't know what the odds would be, but it's got to be astronomical. So if that's considered falsifying a report.

"And if some hype, you know, says, uh, you know, whatever I shot two days ago and you find a mark that looks like three days ago, pick the scab, squeeze it, looks like serum's coming out as if it were hours old, it's a hard fine. You just can't find the mark because he's down. His eyes don't lie. That's not falsifying a report. That's putting a criminal in jail. That's being a policeman." Now, obviously, Detective Fuhrman's definition of being a policeman as including making up the facts that are necessary to put someone in jail once you've determined that person should be in jail is highly relevant to his testimony of finding the one iota of evidence that will justify or be offered as justification to make an immediate entry to Mr. Simpson's premises, and we believe it is highly relevant that in this example, he is discussing the manufacture of blood evidence. He is discussing scratching a scab to make fresh blood to provide an officer with probable cause to make an arrest, and he's saying that's not falsifying a report, that's being a good cop. The second instance where the justification for the conduct of the officers on the morning of June 13th is questioned relates to the limited purpose for which they made entry to the premises. This supposed emergency that was created by the discovery of this speck on the car door meant that in addition to the purpose of locating Mr. Simpson and notifying him of the death of his former wife, making arrangements for the care of their children, we now add this new justification that there may be a victim on the premises or there may be a perpetrator lurking on the premises. That is not a justification that includes searching for evidence. And what does Mr. Fuhrman do? Mr. Fuhrman goes to Kato Kaelin's room, enters the room, interrogates Mr. Kaelin, searches the room, searches Mr. Kaelin's clothes, looks at the soles of Mr. Kaelin's shoes and does not ask him any questions about whether there are any potential victims on the premises. He simply asks about the thumps that Mr. Kaelin reports hearing on the wall the night before. There's no follow-up questioning at all in terms of expressing any concern with respect to whether there's any victims or perpetrators lurking about. And in this context, I think it's important to remember that this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in the context of his conversations with Miss McKinny says--and now I'm quoting from pages 33 and 34 of that same transcript no. 1. "So under what did you arrest him," the interviewer asks.

"Fuhrman: I didn't arrest him under anything. Just took him to the station, ran him for prints, gave them to the detectives to compare with what they've got in the area. I'll probably arrest a criminal that way."

[William Anthony]

Great post. Those two jurors knew what most of us knew all along that the glove did fit.

The criminal trial lasted months and they deliberated for less than four hours tells me that they didn't go over much of the evidence.

At least those two jurors have admitted that they would have voted guilty in the civil trial after seeing more evidence like O.J. wearing those Bruno Magli shoes.

Once again great post. I love it.

I don't see where you are getting some of your statements. Can you explain? I would like to see where the jurors said "more evidence", as opposed to saying this,

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday."

You have the statements form two of the twelve jurors and those two collaborated on a money making scheme, writing a book, but, even then the phrase that "based on the amount of evidence" does not automatically mean more evidence and could simply mean less evidence, since the judge in the socio political production did not allow in the evidence against MF. I try not to read into what others say what I would like for them to say but try to analyze what was said.

[martin II]

I don't see where you are getting some of your statements. Can you explain? I would like to see where the jurors said "more evidence", as opposed to saying this,

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday."

You have the statements form two of the twelve jurors and those two collaborated on a money making scheme, writing a book, but, even then the phrase that "based on the amount of evidence" does not automatically mean more evidence and could simply mean less evidence, since the judge in the socio political production did not allow in the evidence against MF. I try not to read into what others say what I would like for them to say but try to analyze what was said.

Thanks for clearing that misunderstanding up.

The facts are the criminal jury was not the civil jury. All 12 VOTED NOT GUILTY BASED ON THE TRIAL THEY HEARD. Those two may have said what they think they would have done if they were on another case but did say we voted not guilty on the case we were on because the prosecution made certain charges and thjey did not prove them. Those are the facts for those interested in facts. imo

[martin II]

I don't see where you are getting some of your statements. Can you explain? I would like to see where the jurors said "more evidence", as opposed to saying this,

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday."

You have the statements form two of the twelve jurors and those two collaborated on a money making scheme, writing a book, but, even then the phrase that "based on the amount of evidence" does not automatically mean more evidence and could simply mean less evidence, since the judge in the socio political production did not allow in the evidence against MF. I try not to read into what others say what I would like for them to say but try to analyze what was said.

I don't know where some of this comes from either.

FACT: The civil jury received LESS EVIDENCE not More.

[martin II]

It is strange and amazing that some still don't know that NO JURY is required by law to read all the court testimony in deliberations.

[martin II]

What judge Ito did not know when he made the ruling was that MF would be further impeached by Singer, Mckinney and Mr. Hodge and, after such impeachment was made this part of the defense argument was stated,

September 6th,

MR. UELMEN: And I think an appropriate place to begin is with the legal standard to be applied in terms of the impact of newly discovered evidence. And we believe that the leading case on this question is People versus Ramsey cited in our brief at page 7, which quite clearly holds:

.... The additional evidence that we wish to introduce relates directly to the credibility of Detective Mark Fuhrman. .... Now, the Prosecution has contended that what we are offering with this additional proffer is simply evidence going to his general credibility. And I want to point out to the court the very clear relationship between the portions of the McKinny transcripts and tapes that we are proffering as new evidence on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman and the testimony that he presented on the motion to suppress. And I think it's fair to call the court's attention to the fact that there were only two detectives who testified on the motion to suppress, Detective Vannatter and Detective Fuhrman. And your Honor will recall that in the context of a number of misrepresentations made by Detective Vannatter in the affidavit for the search warrant, this court made a finding that Detective Vannatter had a reckless disregard for the truth, so that the credibility of Detective Fuhrman becomes a very, very important aspect of the determination of the Defendant's motion to suppress. Do we or should we put any faith in the testimony of Detective Fuhrman with respect to the circumstances that led up to the warrantless search of the Defendant's premises on the morning of June 13th? Now, we have essentially--well, let me identify each of the issues where we believe the credibility of Detective Fuhrman is in issue. First of all, with respect to the justification for the entry to the premises, as your Honor will recall, the explanation offered by the detectives for their trip from Bundy to Rockingham was that it was for purpose of making a notification. Mr. Simpson was not a suspect. Their reason for going to his residence was to notify him of the death of his former wife and to make arrangements for the care of his minor children who had been found in an upstairs bedroom at the Bundy scene.

"It was only after they arrived at the premises and a speck was found on the door of the Bronco above the handle to the driver's side door that the circumstances were transformed, and the officers determined that they had some sort of emergency that justified an immediate entry to the premises without a warrant. And of course, the discovery of that speck on the door was a discovery by Detective Fuhrman. It was Detective Fuhrman who testified he went by himself from where the officers were gathered at the gate to enter Mr. Simpson's premises, that he noticed that the Bronco was parked in a very haphazard manner as he put it, that he went over and he made the discovery of the speck on the door. Now, in that context, it is significant that this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in the context of the McKinny tapes and transcripts offers the following comments. This is Miss McKinny, and I'm reading from her transcript no. 1, pages 24 to 25. "So if you ripped up his identification, you're not going to mention that you ripped it up, are you?" And he answers: "Never, but that doesn't mean I didn't say I didn't. Nobody asked." And the interviewer, Miss McKinny asks: "How about if somebody asks?" And Fuhrman says:

"Well, then I won't. That's an investigation of a police report. When you say falsification of an arrest report, that's when somebody's walking down the street and I see him throw something, but I don't see what he throws. Then I go back where he threw something and there's a gun. "Now, if you want to let that guy go, if you're a citizen, do you want that guy on the street or in jail? Obviously you want him in jail unless you're a jerk too. So the only way to put him in jail is for the policeman to say, `I saw him throw that gun.'" interviewer Miss McKinny: "Oh, identifying the action with the object?" "Fuhrman: Of course he threw it. What are the odds of going to a place where he threw something and having that be a gun? 10 million to 1. 30 million to 1. I don't know what the odds would be, but it's got to be astronomical. So if that's considered falsifying a report.

"And if some hype, you know, says, uh, you know, whatever I shot two days ago and you find a mark that looks like three days ago, pick the scab, squeeze it, looks like serum's coming out as if it were hours old, it's a hard fine. You just can't find the mark because he's down. His eyes don't lie. That's not falsifying a report. That's putting a criminal in jail. That's being a policeman." Now, obviously, Detective Fuhrman's definition of being a policeman as including making up the facts that are necessary to put someone in jail once you've determined that person should be in jail is highly relevant to his testimony of finding the one iota of evidence that will justify or be offered as justification to make an immediate entry to Mr. Simpson's premises, and we believe it is highly relevant that in this example, he is discussing the manufacture of blood evidence. He is discussing scratching a scab to make fresh blood to provide an officer with probable cause to make an arrest, and he's saying that's not falsifying a report, that's being a good cop. The second instance where the justification for the conduct of the officers on the morning of June 13th is questioned relates to the limited purpose for which they made entry to the premises. This supposed emergency that was created by the discovery of this speck on the car door meant that in addition to the purpose of locating Mr. Simpson and notifying him of the death of his former wife, making arrangements for the care of their children, we now add this new justification that there may be a victim on the premises or there may be a perpetrator lurking on the premises. That is not a justification that includes searching for evidence. And what does Mr. Fuhrman do? Mr. Fuhrman goes to Kato Kaelin's room, enters the room, interrogates Mr. Kaelin, searches the room, searches Mr. Kaelin's clothes, looks at the soles of Mr. Kaelin's shoes and does not ask him any questions about whether there are any potential victims on the premises. He simply asks about the thumps that Mr. Kaelin reports hearing on the wall the night before. There's no follow-up questioning at all in terms of expressing any concern with respect to whether there's any victims or perpetrators lurking about. And in this context, I think it's important to remember that this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in the context of his conversations with Miss McKinny says--and now I'm quoting from pages 33 and 34 of that same transcript no. 1. "So under what did you arrest him," the interviewer asks.

"Fuhrman: I didn't arrest him under anything. Just took him to the station, ran him for prints, gave them to the detectives to compare with what they've got in the area. I'll probably arrest a criminal that way."


Warning

If one lives in west la and a family member or a person you know has been killed and le knows your address you had better make sure your car parked in front of your house has no brown spots on it as this can cause le to break down your front door looking for a killer that killed some one on the other side on town. imo

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito knew that there was no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockigham.

". . .That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . .

September 6th,

More from one of LA's finest,

"The next example of the relevance of these newly discovered tapes relates to the question of the scope of the search activity that Detective Fuhrman then engaged in. Your Honor will recall that after Kato Kaelin told him about the thumps on the wall, Detective Fuhrman told no one else about that. He didn't mention that to any of the other detectives. He simply said to Detective Vannatter, "You ought to talk to this guy," and then went off by himself to the rear of the premises where he was for approximately 15 minutes according to his own testimony. And what's he doing back there? He says, "I'm looking for a victim. I'm looking for the body of somebody that may have been injured." No basis whatsoever to assume that there would be any victim back there other than the thumps on the wall, and yet he didn't question either Kaelin or Arnelle Simpson about whether they heard cries from anyone back there, whether they heard any other noises back there. He goes back and he looks around for approximately 15 minutes and then he takes the other detectives one at a time to show them what he allegedly discovered. Well, your Honor, this is the same Mark Fuhrman who in his conversations with Laura McKinny--and I am now quoting from tape no. 3 at page 3--makes the following comments:

"Fuhrman: Well, I really love being a policeman. "McKinny: Why do you love being a policeman? "Fuhrman: When I can be a policeman. It's like my partner now. He's so hung up on the rules and stuff. I get pissed sometimes and go, `you just don't even ****'in understand. This job is not rules. This is a feeling. **** the rules. We'll make them up later.'" well, there are rules about what kind of search activity a police officer can engage in without a search warrant. The activity of Detective Fuhrman on the morning of June 13th raises serious questions about whether he followed those rules, and the attitude exhibited in this exchange that is on tape in the McKinny tapes certainly raises a question that should be asked about Detective Fuhrman's understanding of the rules and limits on the kind of activity that he could engage in. The next issue relates to the role of Detective Fuhrman in the investigation of this case after he is taken off of the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning. Your Honor will recall that almost three hours after he is removed from the case, it is Detective Fuhrman who leads the other detectives from Bundy to the Rockingham residence of the Defendant. It is Detective Fuhrman who finds the speck on the Bronco. It is Detective Fuhrman who then leads the detectives over the wall into the premises and it is Detective Fuhrman who ultimately finds the glove. And with respect to all of this investigative activity, there are no notes, there are no logs, there are no reports. His testimony is:

"I stopped making any record of what I was doing as soon as I was taken off the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning." Perfect setup. No way to double-check any of his activity in terms of what happened after he was relieved from the case. And, your Honor, this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in his exchange with Miss McKinny--and this is on the tape 6--6A. I'm reading from page 3 to page 4. "This is embarrassing." This is Detective Fuhrman speaking.

"Then you go to court and I'm the only one who knows how to testify. You have five officers on the case, and I'm the only one there that knows how to testify. "The D.A. goes, `yeah, but you were the fourth car. But would you testify?' "'yeah.' "'but you did see--' "I saw it. Don't worry about it. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Goodbye.' "Why do I have to do everything? That's what it is coming down to. I have to fight the guy, I have to catch the guy, I have to keep the guy's mouth shut at the station because they're not going to do it for a female. I just can walk by and say, `shut up or I'm going to kick your face in.'"

Now, the relevance of that obviously is, it's a pretty good description of what was going on on the morning of June 13th. Detective Fuhrman had to do everything. And what he's saying in this exchange is, doing everything means also providing whatever testimony is necessary regardless of what happened. We believe that the prior conduct of Detective Fuhrman is highly relevant to the credibility on the suppression issues. We're not talking about general credibility here. We are talking about a police officer who believes that lying to justify an arrest or a search is okay, that the end justifies the means if he has concluded that the suspect is guilty anyway. And this is the same Mark Fuhrman who says to Miss McKinny--and this is transcript 9, pages 11 and 12.

"Fuhrman: Absolutely. Let me put it to you this way. In almost 12 years on the department, I have never felt guilty one day, one split second. "Miss McKinny: Why? "Fuhrman: Because all those people out there deserve exactly what they get and probably 20,000 times more. "Miss McKinny: So you feel that you make judgment calls in a way that ensures those people to get what they deserve and so, therefore, there is no reason for you to feel guilty about anything you do?" And Fuhrman responds: "Well, yeah. It's the same thing, if you're in a rice paddy in southeast Asia and a guy in black pajamas is running across a rice paddy with an AK47, are you going to shoot him or wonder if he's really a communist or if he just stole those clothes from a VC soldier and he's running away? You shoot the son of a ***** and you don't worry about what he was. You don't worry what he could have been, just what he appeared to be and that's good enough."

[martin II]

Question

After the four cops illegally entered ojs property and found no maid dead or Oj there, What right did Furhman have to enter Katos apartment, search Katos apartment, his clothes, shoes and give him some drug test?

A answer from anyone will do.

[William Anthony]

Warning

If one lives in west la and a family member or a person you know has been killed and le knows your address you had better make sure your car parked in front of your house has no brown spots on it as this can cause le to break down your front door looking for a killer that killed some one on the other side on town. imo

Please, do not have your car parked askew or let there be a piece of wood lying near it.

[martin II]

September 6th,

More from one of LA's finest,

"The next example of the relevance of these newly discovered tapes relates to the question of the scope of the search activity that Detective Fuhrman then engaged in. Your Honor will recall that after Kato Kaelin told him about the thumps on the wall, Detective Fuhrman told no one else about that. He didn't mention that to any of the other detectives. He simply said to Detective Vannatter, "You ought to talk to this guy," and then went off by himself to the rear of the premises where he was for approximately 15 minutes according to his own testimony. And what's he doing back there? He says, "I'm looking for a victim. I'm looking for the body of somebody that may have been injured." No basis whatsoever to assume that there would be any victim back there other than the thumps on the wall, and yet he didn't question either Kaelin or Arnelle Simpson about whether they heard cries from anyone back there, whether they heard any other noises back there. He goes back and he looks around for approximately 15 minutes and then he takes the other detectives one at a time to show them what he allegedly discovered. Well, your Honor, this is the same Mark Fuhrman who in his conversations with Laura McKinny--and I am now quoting from tape no. 3 at page 3--makes the following comments:

"Fuhrman: Well, I really love being a policeman. "McKinny: Why do you love being a policeman? "Fuhrman: When I can be a policeman. It's like my partner now. He's so hung up on the rules and stuff. I get pissed sometimes and go, `you just don't even ****'in understand. This job is not rules. This is a feeling. **** the rules. We'll make them up later.'" well, there are rules about what kind of search activity a police officer can engage in without a search warrant. The activity of Detective Fuhrman on the morning of June 13th raises serious questions about whether he followed those rules, and the attitude exhibited in this exchange that is on tape in the McKinny tapes certainly raises a question that should be asked about Detective Fuhrman's understanding of the rules and limits on the kind of activity that he could engage in. The next issue relates to the role of Detective Fuhrman in the investigation of this case after he is taken off of the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning. Your Honor will recall that almost three hours after he is removed from the case, it is Detective Fuhrman who leads the other detectives from Bundy to the Rockingham residence of the Defendant. It is Detective Fuhrman who finds the speck on the Bronco. It is Detective Fuhrman who then leads the detectives over the wall into the premises and it is Detective Fuhrman who ultimately finds the glove. And with respect to all of this investigative activity, there are no notes, there are no logs, there are no reports. His testimony is:

"I stopped making any record of what I was doing as soon as I was taken off the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning." Perfect setup. No way to double-check any of his activity in terms of what happened after he was relieved from the case. And, your Honor, this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in his exchange with Miss McKinny--and this is on the tape 6--6A. I'm reading from page 3 to page 4. "This is embarrassing." This is Detective Fuhrman speaking.

"Then you go to court and I'm the only one who knows how to testify. You have five officers on the case, and I'm the only one there that knows how to testify. "The D.A. goes, `yeah, but you were the fourth car. But would you testify?' "'yeah.' "'but you did see--' "I saw it. Don't worry about it. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Goodbye.' "Why do I have to do everything? That's what it is coming down to. I have to fight the guy, I have to catch the guy, I have to keep the guy's mouth shut at the station because they're not going to do it for a female. I just can walk by and say, `shut up or I'm going to kick your face in.'"

Now, the relevance of that obviously is, it's a pretty good description of what was going on on the morning of June 13th. Detective Fuhrman had to do everything. And what he's saying in this exchange is, doing everything means also providing whatever testimony is necessary regardless of what happened. We believe that the prior conduct of Detective Fuhrman is highly relevant to the credibility on the suppression issues. We're not talking about general credibility here. We are talking about a police officer who believes that lying to justify an arrest or a search is okay, that the end justifies the means if he has concluded that the suspect is guilty anyway. And this is the same Mark Fuhrman who says to Miss McKinny--and this is transcript 9, pages 11 and 12.

"Fuhrman: Absolutely. Let me put it to you this way. In almost 12 years on the department, I have never felt guilty one day, one split second. "Miss McKinny: Why? "Fuhrman: Because all those people out there deserve exactly what they get and probably 20,000 times more. "Miss McKinny: So you feel that you make judgment calls in a way that ensures those people to get what they deserve and so, therefore, there is no reason for you to feel guilty about anything you do?" And Fuhrman responds: "Well, yeah. It's the same thing, if you're in a rice paddy in southeast Asia and a guy in black pajamas is running across a rice paddy with an AK47, are you going to shoot him or wonder if he's really a communist or if he just stole those clothes from a VC soldier and he's running away? You shoot the son of a ***** and you don't worry about what he was. You don't worry what he could have been, just what he appeared to be and that's good enough."

And can you believe there are people here that defend this nut everytime his name is brought up. "SOMETHING WRONG"

[William Anthony]

At what point did Simpson first become a suspect, according to LE? I will look to see.

[William Anthony]

And can you believe there are people here that defend this nut everytime his name is brought up. "SOMETHING WRONG"

How do they defend this, "You shoot the son of a ***** and you don't worry about what he was. You don't worry what he could have been, just what he appeared to be and that's good enough."

[William Anthony]

March 16th,

An interesting bit of testilying, IMHO.

"Q: WELL, YOU TOLD US A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU WANTED TO INTERVIEW MR. SIMPSON AT SOME POINT.

A: AT SOME POINT, YES.

Q: OKAY. WELL, DID YOU CONSIDER HIM A SUSPECT AT THAT TIME?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY NOTION AT ALL AT THAT TIME THAT --

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHO THE SUSPECT WAS. ANYBODY COULD HAVE BEEN THE SUSPECT AT THAT POINT. "

How could anyone have been a suspect but not Simpson, unless Vannatter was calling Simpson a nobody?

[martin II]

Please, do not have your car parked askew or let there be a piece of wood lying near it.

I guess one way MABY to protect ones home is to put a sign on the front door.
TO POLICE
"whatever it is i don't want to know."
joe jones

[William Anthony]

And can you believe there are people here that defend this nut everytime his name is brought up. "SOMETHING WRONG"

I know that some have called Simpson a psychopath and a sociopath.

"You shoot the son of a ***** and you don't worry about what he was. You don't worry what he could have been, just what he appeared to be and that's good enough."

[martin II]

March 16th,

An interesting bit of testilying, IMHO.

"Q: WELL, YOU TOLD US A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU WANTED TO INTERVIEW MR. SIMPSON AT SOME POINT.

A: AT SOME POINT, YES.

Q: OKAY. WELL, DID YOU CONSIDER HIM A SUSPECT AT THAT TIME?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY NOTION AT ALL AT THAT TIME THAT --

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHO THE SUSPECT WAS. ANYBODY COULD HAVE BEEN THE SUSPECT AT THAT POINT. "

How could anyone have been a suspect but not Simpson, unless Vannatter was calling Simpson a nobody?

Larry Fiaeto the mofia guy testified that Vannater told him YES oj was a suspect.So it seems Vannatter lied again in his testimony. Jury members said vannatter was untruthful in his testimony. So it seems they were listening contrary to what some have claimed. imo

[William Anthony]

I guess one way MABY to protect ones home is to put a sign on the front door.
TO POLICE
"whatever it is i don't want to know."
joe jones

Some police may claim the sign looked suspicious, so along with other things they had exigent circumstances to bypass getting a warrant.

[martin II]

I know that some have called Simpson a psychopath and a sociopath.

"You shoot the son of a ***** and you don't worry about what he was. You don't worry what he could have been, just what he appeared to be and that's good enough."

Using that approach Furhman must have shot many many people that did not look like him. imo

[William Anthony]

Larry Fiaeto the mofia guy testified that Vannater told him YES oj was a suspect.So it seems Vannatter lied again in his testimony. Jury members said vannatter was untruthful in his testimony. So it seems they were listening contrary to what some have claimed. imo

He was just being sarcastic, remember? The prosecution could not claim he was assisting in a screenplay.

[William Anthony]

Using that approach Furhman must have shot many many people that did not look like him. imo

We know form his statement that his attitude would be "oh well, a necessary evil, if he didn't look like a criminal, I wouldn't have shot him."

[weezer]

I know that some have called Fuhrman awful for things he said in the making of a screenplay but what about this?

. .said he wanted to "cut his [Barack Obama's] *** out". .

[William Anthony]

I think there is a vast difference in stating a desire without having any evidence to act on the desire than to have the ability to act on a desire and claiming to have acted on the desire in an excerpt allegedly in regard to a screenplay that had nothing to do with the subject matter of the screenplay and, when we place the words into use, MF may have shot Professor Gates but let Ted Bundy into a female's apartment, if Bundy said he lost his key, aside from the fact, IMHO, there was evidence that MF acted in the same manner he bragged on the tapes.

[tv]

Because Westec also told them that there was a full time maid who should be home and they were getting no answer and Fuhrman had found what looked like blood.

That's the kicker, had Simpson really been inside the home bleeding to death because someone tried to kill him too and the police didn't do anything you'd all be screaming about why the hell didn't they enter the property under those suspicious circumstances!!!

Exactly! LE can do nothing right in their eyes.

[William Anthony]

Exactly! LE can do nothing right in their eyes.

IMHO, some LE could tell the truth and that would do much to doing right in my eyes and those that do not tell the truth and commit other corrupt acts are the ones of which I speak.

[tv]

I know that some have called Fuhrman awful for things he said in the making of a screenplay but what about this?

. .said he wanted to "cut his [Barack Obama's] *** out". .

Some people can rant on unchecked even when talking about a candidate for the office of President while others are condemned for creating fictional material for a screenplay. Go figure. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I don't remember the comment about President Obama going unchecked and I remember the speaker making an apology. However, the speaker's comment was about one person and was in the context of words spoken by the person, as opposed to comments about groups of people that had nothing to do with the subject matter of the screenplay and yet, those unaffected by the vile, reprehensible, calloused and demonic words allegedly created for a screenplay can ignore the psychopathic words uttered by, at least, IMHO, a sociopath.

[William Anthony]

Some people weren't witnesses in a trial and had not taken an oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Some people did not have access to evidence in this case nor did any of their statements about the future President have any bearing on this case nor did they take the 5th when asked did they plant evidence in this case.

[weezer]

Some people can rant on unchecked even when talking about a candidate for the office of President while others are condemned for creating fictional material for a screenplay. Go figure. :shrug:

you are right. I only posted that to show that it's 'all in the eyes of the beholder.' I don't want to get into a debate/discussion over the alledged/presumed victimization by LE. it has proven to be fruitless and adds nothing to orenthal's case.

[martin II]

Exactly! LE can do nothing right in their eyes.

Did furhman have a right to enter Katos apartment and search it, his clothes shoes and give him a drug test???

[William Anthony]

I think victimization was a part of the Simpson murder case and the evidence was that a reasonable inference could be drawn that Simpson was victimized by LE and to want to ignore that fact ignores the evidence presented by the defense, which seems to be what I and others have been saying.

[Hipcheck]

I know that some have called Fuhrman awful for things he said in the making of a screenplay but what about this?

. .said he wanted to "cut his [Barack Obama's] *** out". .

I find it totally digusting the names the "NG's" call Mark Fuhrman because of the fictional screenplay he wrote which they want us to believe was true. Some "NG's" also want us to believe that Mark planted a knife on someone and was sued because of it but they have no evidence that this ever occured.

[martin II]

I know that some have called Fuhrman awful for things he said in the making of a screenplay but what about this?

. .said he wanted to "cut his [Barack Obama's] *** out". .

Whether LHM used the material for a stage play, movie or book was up to her. Furhman just told her his experiences as a cop in la.
Actually she asked him about MAW and he decided to tell her how he treated minorities while on duty.

[William Anthony]

I find it totally digusting the names the "NG's" call Mark Fuhrman because of the fictional screenplay he wrote which they want us to believe was true. Some "NG's" also want us to believe that Mark planted a knife on someone and was sued because of it but they have no evidence that this ever occured.

I have asked you for the link to the screenplay MF wrote and you have never supplied it. Will and can you now so do? What I find totally disgusting are the words and the context in which MF used them. There was a multitude of presented and posted evidence to allow the inference that MF planted the glove.

[tv]

I find it totally digusting the names the "NG's" call Mark Fuhrman because of the fictional screenplay he wrote which they want us to believe was true. Some "NG's" also want us to believe that Mark planted a knife on someone and was sued because of it but they have no evidence that this ever occured.

They refuse to see the reality of the situation -- OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole but was found not guilty in the criminal trial which was not a finding of factual innocence. The verdict was from a jury that snoozed through the presentation of much of the most important testimony. It's very telling that they think Mark Fuhrman is worse than OJ Simpson for words he created for the screenplay. There have been four investigations of Det. Fuhrman and not one has ever come up with any wrong doing on his part. That's a fact.

[William Anthony]

There is another fact, which is that Ms. Mckinney asked MF, if she could use one of the incidents he described in the screenplay and he said, no, because the statute of limitations had not expired. I have posted the results of one of the investigations into MF's conduct, where the investigator said, that they are not saying that MF did nothing wrong but that he could not be prosecuted, because of the expiration of the statute of limitations. That is a fact.

[William Anthony]

They refuse to see the reality of the situation -- OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole but was found not guilty in the criminal trial which was not a finding of factual innocence. The verdict was from a jury that snoozed through the presentation of much of the most important testimony. It's very telling that they think Mark Fuhrman is worse than OJ Simpson for words he created for the screenplay. There have been four investigations of Det. Fuhrman and not one has ever come up with any wrong doing on his part. That's a fact.

No one has been found innocent after a trial. Why blame the jury, because they, whose duty it was, weighed and gave credibility to the evidence and decided there was reasonable doubt?

[Hipcheck]

They refuse to see the reality of the situation -- OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole but was found not guilty in the criminal trial which was not a finding of factual innocence. The verdict was from a jury that snoozed through the presentation of much of the most important testimony. It's very telling that they think Mark Fuhrman is worse than OJ Simpson for words he created for the screenplay. There have been four investigations of Det. Fuhrman and not one has ever come up with any wrong doing on his part. That's a fact.

Can you believe there are some here that still defend this nut?

O.J. beats Nicoe during and after their marriage.

O.J. admitts topeeping into Nicole's condo.

O.J. ends up murdering Nicole and Ron.

O.J. later takes a very young girl to live with and he beats her and she believes he murdered Nicole and Ron from what he has said about those murders.

O.J. ends up involved in an armed robbery and because of that sits in prison where he will die.

Thank god he'll never heard anyone again.

And can you believe that some here still defends this nut ever time his name is brought up?

[William Anthony]

September 28th,

"Now, let's go back to where we were when we broke last night. We had started talking about the messengers in this case. We talked briefly about Vannatter and about all of his big lies. Lies become very important because he is the co-lead investigator in this case. From the very beginning he was lying to you. And it was interesting--and I thought about this last night after I left you. Just about ten days ago, a week or ten days ago, Vannatter took that stand again, and you saw him, you had a chance to again observe his demeanor, and you are smart, you know when somebody is lying and not telling you the truth. I don't have to go into that. You don't need the jury instruction. You have got this visceral experience and you have got your experiences in life and you know when somebody is lying. And he said something really interesting. It was really preposterous when you think about it. He said, "Mr. Shapiro, Mr. O.J. Simpson was no more a suspect than you were." Now, who in here believed that? Did he really think he was going to come back in here and we were going to believe that that O.J. Simpson was no more a suspect than Robert Shapiro? That is what he told you. Big lies. You can't trust him. You can't believe anything he says because it goes to the core of this case. When you are lying at the beginning, you will be lying at the end. The book of Luke talks about that. Talks about if you are untruthful in small things, you should be disbelieved in big things. There is no question about that. We have known that all along. So this man with his big lies--and then we have Fuhrman coming right on the heels and the two of them need to be paired together because they are twins of deception. Fuhrman and Vannatter, twins of deception who bring you a message that you cannot trust, that you cannot trust. Let's continue on where we left off then with this man Fuhrman who says some very interesting things in the course of his testimony, and as we talked about Vannatter's big lies, we have Fuhrman's big lies. Vannatter, the man who carried the blood; Fuhrman, the man who found the glove. You will recall that he was asked, as I read to you yesterday briefly, the question well-phrased by lee bailey, "Have you ever used this `n' word in ten years?" Went right back to `85. And he picked that `85 date. You know why? Because of the Kathleen Bell letter. Just like they knew about it, picked that date, so he knew he was lying. Honed in on it. Liars can be tricky. And so he was at that point trying to pin it down for you, ten years, `85 to `95. This was like in February of this year. He says also he never met Kathleen Bell at this marine center. He tells you that Rokahr, the photographer, took this photograph after seven o'clock in the morning. Remember that? Go back through your notes. And the reason he tells you that is because he wants that photograph of him pointing at the glove taken after he supposedly finds the glove at Rockingham. Now, you may not have caught that right at the beginning when this was happening. He says he took the photograph at Rockingham after seven o'clock A.M., after they returned from Rockingham. You know they all go over to Bundy after five o'clock. Strike that. At Bundy. They all go over to Rockingham at five o'clock, from 5:00 to 7:00, and so it becomes very, very important, as we look at this photograph in a few minutes. Rokahr then comes here near the end of the case, and there has been nobody called to refute him in rebuttal, and says these photographs on this contact sheet are all taken while it is dark. He says he could tell the difference in a photograph taken an hour and a half before sun rise, 5:41, 5:42, and an hour and a half afterwards, so then why then is this big liar in the crime scene with access to the glove and the hat? Why is he down there pointing at this glove where he is walking all in the blood and everything when he wants you to believe it is seven o'clock? Now, we know it is not seven o'clock. You see that photograph up there? That is Mark Fuhrman pointing. You see the envelope. Pointing under this neatly arranged cap. Glove supposedly just happened to fall right under that bush in that fashion. That is what you are asked to believe. There he is pointing at it. Well, now let me tell you why you recognize it. You recognize Fuhrman, personification of evil. When he is doing is that he is trying to tell you this is an important piece of evidence here and I just came back from Rockingham and this matches the glove found over there. That is what he tells you. But he is lying again. He is lying and that is why he is central to this case, because he hadn't even been to Rockingham at that point and he is tracking in that blood at that point and that becomes very important because you remember he slips up and says "In the Bronco" at some point. You get "In that Bronco." He put a bloody footprint in that Bronco. Are his shoes size 12? He talks about "In the Bronco." He talks about them. Remember there is a question he was asked about gloves and lee bailey asked him about. Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says, "Them." He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves? He said, "I saw them." Is that two gloves? Why would you say "Them"? He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning. Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time. First of all, you knew that was a lie at the beginning. Why would they necessarily be watching him. They were always covering for him anyway. But we know that wasn't true because remember Rokahr got there shortly after three o'clock. Rokahr goes to that back alley and he sees Riske who is back there then. Remember Rokahr sees Riske in the back alley. Rokahr doesn't even see Fuhrman for like a half hour after he gets there, he says, and all of a sudden Fuhrman shows up. Where has he been? What has he been doing? And then Riske is out in the front of Bundy there and Riske testifies about the taking of this photograph. He wants to place the time later, but he said it is before the sun comes up, before daylight. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before 5:41. So inadvertently he corroborates Rokahr, but Rokahr knows because he took these photographs. Why then, ladies and gentlemen, is he pointing at this glove when he hasn't even been over there? Why then would they try to tell you he doesn't have time at Bundy when he is by himself for this period of time? He is not with Spangler; he is walking around by him. Why then is he walking in that crime scene and why does he lie to you and said he didn't have access to the crime scene? These are the facts. These are the facts. I haven't made them up. This is what you heard in this case. This is what we have proved. Some of it came in late; some of it came in early, but our job here is to piece this together so that you can then see this, so when he refers to the gloves as "Them," that has never been cleared up for you and he can't.

[William Anthony]

"That is a Freudian slip when he talks about "In the Bronco." And there was a dispute. Well, did he really say that? Remember the tape was played at the preliminary hearing and his voice was heard saying "In the Bronco." You can see all these things. He is strolling down to Rockingham, the big man, figuring a way to do this, to carry out this plan, this spot he has in his mind since 1985, to make the big score, and so Rokahr severely impeaches Fuhrman about these photographs, and once again, these photographs speak a thousand words. Concluding about Riske, he said on cross-examination that the photograph pointing at the glove was taken at least forty minutes before daylight, the sun rose at 5:41, maybe a little bit late, but it was before daylight and so we know that. That is now clear. Why did they then all try to cover for this man Fuhrman? Why would this man who is not only Los Angeles' worst nightmare, but America's worse nightmare, why would they all turn their heads and try to cover for them? Why would you do that if you are sworn to uphold the law? There is something about corruption. There is something about a rotten apple that will ultimately infect the entire barrel, because if the others don't have the courage that we have asked you to have in this case, people sit sadly by. We live in a society where many people are apathetic, they don't want to get involved, and that is why all of us, to a person, in this courtroom, have thanked you from the bottom of our hearts. Because you know what? You haven't been apathetic. You are the ones who made a commitment, a commitment toward justice, and it is a painful commitment, but you've got to see it through. Your commitment, your courage, is much greater than these police officers. This man could have been off the force long ago if they had done their job, but they didn't do their job. People looked the other way. People didn't have the courage. One of the things that has made this country so great is people's willingness to stand up and say that is wrong. I'm not going to be part of it. I'm not going to be part of the cover-up. That is what I'm asking you to do. Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don't stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.'s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn't it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don't take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don't take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out--that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren't always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here. Credibility doesn't attach to a title or position; it attaches to the person, so the person who may have a job where he makes two dollars an hour can have more integrity than the highest person. It is something from within. It is in your heart. It is what the lord has put there. That is what we are talking about in this case. And so why don't they speak out? Why do they take him to their breast? Compare how our prosecutors treat Fuhrman as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they treated mark partridge as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they embraced him. And now they want to distance themselves. These same people say, oh, he is not important, but the Rokahr photograph puts the lie to that. He is very important. And what becomes so important when we talk about these two twin demons of evil, Vannatter and Fuhrman, "

[Hotwater]

It appears this topic can't be discussed in a civil manner so now it's off limits for discussion. Failure to abide will result in a 7 day time out.

HW


Why post something 10 times when another poster has posted itos final decision maby 11 times. Thats funny or not to smart. i don't know which.

The jury said they knew who furthman was and what he did. Based on the judges instruction that may be why they did not discuss him. imo:cool:

Martin,

It doesn't matter how many times they post it, it doesn't change the facts. But let them have their fun. :)

Besides, we can always start posting what Judge Ito's special instruction he wanted to give the jury regarding Mark Fuhrman.

Since you enjoy this ruling so much I'd thought I'd post it again. ;)

". . .That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . ."

[Hipcheck]

They refuse to see the reality of the situation -- OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole but was found not guilty in the criminal trial which was not a finding of factual innocence. The verdict was from a jury that snoozed through the presentation of much of the most important testimony. It's very telling that they think Mark Fuhrman is worse than OJ Simpson for words he created for the screenplay. There have been four investigations of Det. Fuhrman and not one has ever come up with any wrong doing on his part. That's a fact.

I must say another great post.

Mark Fuhrman wrote a fictional screenplay which the "NG's" want to believe was true.

The investigations conducted proved that Mark Fuhrman did nothing wrong ever. He contiues to be a great private investigator where as O.J. is sitting in a small cell in prison.

[Hipcheck]

It appears this topic can't be discussed in a civil manner so now it's off limits for discussion. Failure to abide will result in a 7 day time out.

HW

I will abide by this.

Things haven't been discussed in a civil manner for a while now.

[William Anthony]

Can you believe there are some here that still defend this nut?

O.J. beats Nicoe during and after their marriage.

O.J. admitts topeeping into Nicole's condo.

O.J. ends up murdering Nicole and Ron.

O.J. later takes a very young girl to live with and he beats her and she believes he murdered Nicole and Ron from what he has said about those murders.

O.J. ends up involved in an armed robbery and because of that sits in prison where he will die.

Thank god he'll never heard anyone again.

And can you believe that some here still defends this nut ever time his name is brought up?

I think Americans have the right to defend, who they desire, as evidence by your defense of MF and, when called to carpet on their defenses, should be able to explain them.

There is a verdict that Simpson committed battery and oppression on his estranged wife.

I don't know about Simpson admitting to this but have seen the posts stating he was asked to check on her.

There has been no verdict that Simpson murdered anyone.

I don't know what you are saying, as he was not charged or convicted of kidnapping.:) I am aware that a woman, Ms. Prody, with an alcohol and drug problem moved in with him and is currently writing a book about her alleged experiences.

He has appealed the case and we wait to see how that will play out and, even if the appeal is denied, it might not be the final chapter.

[William Anthony]

It appears this topic can't be discussed in a civil manner so now it's off limits for discussion. Failure to abide will result in a 7 day time out.

HW

I am asking a clarification as to what is off limits, judge Ito's alleged final ruling?

[William Anthony]

I must say another great post.

Mark Fuhrman wrote a fictional screenplay which the "NG's" want to believe was true.

The investigations conducted proved that Mark Fuhrman did nothing wrong ever. He contiues to be a great private investigator where as O.J. is sitting in a small cell in prison.

What screenplay did MF write or is this another one of his lies?

[Its just me]

They refuse to see the reality of the situation -- OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole but was found not guilty in the criminal trial which was not a finding of factual innocence. The verdict was from a jury that snoozed through the presentation of much of the most important testimony. It's very telling that they think Mark Fuhrman is worse than OJ Simpson for words he created for the screenplay. There have been four investigations of Det. Fuhrman and not one has ever come up with any wrong doing on his part. That's a fact.

Well actions speaks louder than their words....OJ is in jail because of his after the fact doings. Mark F. moved on and is widely recognized for his work in criminal cases as the Drew Peterson and Casey Anthony cases etc etc. I don't think fox news would be affiliated with the person MF is made out to be by some on this board….but I guess the conspiracy to frame OJ reaches across the globe. LOL

[tv]

Well actions speaks louder than their words....OJ is in jail because of his after the fact doings. Mark F. moved on and is widely recognized for his work in criminal cases as the Drew Peterson and Casey Anthony cases etc etc. I don't think fox news would be affiliated with the person MF is made out to be by some on this board….but I guess the conspiracy to frame OJ reaches across the globe. LOL

Mark Fuhrman is a best selling author who has actually published well-written and informative books about true crime. He had a very good one about the death penalty. On the other hand, this is what OJ Simpson chooses to write in IF I DID IT:

"...I looked down and saw her on the ground in front of me, curled up in a fetal position at the base of the stairs, not moving. Goldman was only a few feet away, slumped against the bars of the fence. He wasn't moving either. Both he and Nicole were lying in giant pools of blood. I had never seen so much blood in my life..."

"I again looked down at myself, at my blood-soaked clothes, and noticed the knife in my hand. The knife was covered in blood, as were my hand and wrist and half of my right forearm... "

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9231879]Yes it did.
Remember the sky cap and the pilot commented on how surprised they were at the sixze of ojs hands. That is something the jury would remember.

Martin,

I just thought of something. The DA's knew what these witnesses were going to say about the size of Simpson's hands. They knew these people did more then just glance at Simpson's hands.

You would think they would have done every thing possible to see if Aris made a larger glove--IMO, there is no way they should have been surprised by the size of Simpson's hands. They would have known that his palm was one size while his fingers were another.

Many days the media camera focused on oj writing on a yellow pad at the defense table. One could not miss the size of his hands. The jury sat closer than we did on tv and had to notice the size of his hands before the demo and after when attention was drawn to them by the demo.

Why the DA did not do some investigating into this issue i don't know. OJs hands could be called a set of clubs. You are correct , his palms were very thick and wide which made it impossible for him to get his fingers into the finger slots.

I think when the demo was announced some thought, ok, now the DA got him. When the glove did not fit great dissapointment sat in and had lasted until today. imo

[weezer]

Well actions speaks louder than their words....OJ is in jail because of his after the fact doings. Mark F. moved on and is widely recognized for his work in criminal cases as the Drew Peterson and Casey Anthony cases etc etc. I don't think fox news would be affiliated with the person MF is made out to be by some on this board….but I guess the conspiracy to frame OJ reaches across the globe. LOL

I'm telling you -- according to the NG's, the conspiracy started even before the murders. :eek: and, like you, I believe the character of the man follows him. soooooo -- now, orenthal sits in prison.

[William Anthony]

Well actions speaks louder than their words....OJ is in jail because of his after the fact doings. Mark F. moved on and is widely recognized for his work in criminal cases as the Drew Peterson and Casey Anthony cases etc etc. I don't think fox news would be affiliated with the person MF is made out to be by some on this board….but I guess the conspiracy to frame OJ reaches across the globe. LOL

I think Fox news has a reputation and some Fox Newscasters claim to be President Obama's targeted group to censure. I think there may be some validity to some of the accusations against some of the Fox News programs based on the comments of the hosts and how they treat certain guests.

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman is a best selling author who has actually published well-written and informative books about true crime. He had a very good one about the death penalty. On the other hand, this is what OJ Simpson chooses to write in IF I DID IT:

"...I looked down and saw her on the ground in front of me, curled up in a fetal position at the base of the stairs, not moving. Goldman was only a few feet away, slumped against the bars of the fence. He wasn't moving either. Both he and Nicole were lying in giant pools of blood. I had never seen so much blood in my life..."

"I again looked down at myself, at my blood-soaked clothes, and noticed the knife in my hand. The knife was covered in blood, as were my hand and wrist and half of my right forearm... "

I think that what MF is, like what Simpson is, is a subjective thing.

[weezer]

It appears this topic can't be discussed in a civil manner so now it's off limits for discussion. Failure to abide will result in a 7 day time out.

HW

I will honor your decision but could the debate be settled by the poster giving a link to a ruling by Judge Ito that he says overruled the one posed? not just an interpretation, but an actual ruling?

[William Anthony]

I'm telling you -- according to the NG's, the conspiracy started even before the murders. :eek: and, like you, I believe the character of the man follows him. soooooo -- now, orenthal sits in prison.

Character is often donated to others by others, depending on what they think good and bad character is, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

I will honor your decision but could the debate be settled by the poster giving a link to a ruling by Judge Ito that he says overruled the one posed? not just an interpretation, but an actual ruling?

I have it but will await the moderator's decision/ruling, smile.

[Hotwater]

I will honor your decision but could the debate be settled by the poster giving a link to a ruling by Judge Ito that he says overruled the one posed? not just an interpretation, but an actual ruling?

I have it but will await the moderator's decision/ruling, smile.

(My Bold) You may post the link.

HW

[William Anthony]

The court has read the ones that--all of them, plus the ones that were not available to hear on tape. So the court already is intimately familiar with it. It's time for the court to have to make the difficult decision and to have to struggle with making a ruling on this case. But that's not going to be--that burden is not going to be lightened and would just be dragged out and likely the court's--the complexity of the ruling would be magnified by having additional unknown factor thrown in at this point in time, your Honor.

THE COURT: But if I don't do that, don't I have an incomplete record?

MS. LEWIS: Oh, absolutely not, your Honor. Please, the court can see this is collateral evidence. It does not and never had to allow cross-examination on this evidence at all. The Defense in their new proffer is talking about misconduct things. They recognize it apparently because they left it out. They even leave out the "N" word stuff.

I mean, the court has heard all this stuff. The court has heard the context in which it was played. The court--and in fact, if Detective Fuhrman gets up here and takes the 5th, the court--I think the state of the law would be, the court cannot consider him having taken the 5th in terms of deciding the earlier ruling because the jury is not allowed to hear that somebody took the 5th. And I'm sure the same law would apply, that the court could not consider that fact because you would be impinging on his right against self-incrimination. It gets unduly complicated, your Honor, and it's not necessary. The record is complete. I know you as a very thorough--meticulously thorough Judge, but I'm telling your Honor, as a meticulous and thorough attorney, this record is complete on this issue.

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

MR. MOUNGER: Good afternoon, your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Well, in any event, I need to give the court reporter a brief recess. So we'll take a brief recess. Counsel, if you'll provide Mr. Mounger with a copy of that, he can peruse that, and we'll discuss it, continue this discussion in about 15 or 20 minutes.

MR. MOUNGER: Thank you, your Honor."

There we have the reason and the fact that it is misconduct on MF's part being discussed in the motion.

[martin II]

I think Fox news has a reputation and some Fox Newscasters claim to be President Obama's targeted group to censure. I think there may be some validity to some of the accusations against some of the Fox News programs based on the comments of the hosts and how they treat certain guests.

I cannot believe that anyone would look to Fox news for accuracy,fairness and non bias reporting. Their reputation is quite clear to most Americans.It may be one cut above the National Enquirer or the Globe but on par with RL.
IMO

[Its just me]

I think Fox news has a reputation and some Fox Newscasters claim to be President Obama's targeted group to censure. I think there may be some validity to some of the accusations against some of the Fox News programs based on the comments of the hosts and how they treat certain guests.
Are you now claiming Greta has done something to mistreat someone. I don't think so. You know and I know Greta is the one MF works with. I think I'll just leave Obama out of it....He might think CL is after him.
Fox News has the highest ratings of all the news channels...by far.

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Let's have it quiet, please. Where did Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Cochran disappear to?

MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Cochran is in lockup.

MR. NEUFELD: The two we need.

(The Defendant is now present.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present, including counsel Kent Spaulding. The court has acted upon the application pro hac vice and approved that. Good afternoon, counsel.

MR. SPAULDING: Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Over the--during the brief recess, counsel had the opportunity to informally discuss scheduling matters and based upon the Brady issue that the court still needs to deal with this afternoon. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: One thing, your Honor, on the Brady matter. I had indicated to the court that with regard to Brady, Messers. Scheck and Shapiro along with Miss Shawn Snider Chapman will be down at 4 o'clock. They're in the process of interviewing witnesses. They did indicate to me that there may be--they may not be ready to proceed completely today on that and may ask to start that tomorrow morning, and I told them to come by 4 o'clock so they could let the court know that. That's the only holdup, what we talked about earlier.

THE COURT: All right. And I see Mr. Mounger stepped out briefly.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, may I take this opportunity very briefly just to mention something that I neglected--it's my fault--I neglected to mention to the court earlier?

THE COURT: No, I don't think so, Miss Lewis. We've--you've filed your points and authorities. I've heard rather extensive argument--

MS. LEWIS: Well, there was a supplemental memorandum filed by the Defense yesterday afternoon after they had already filed their two other memos in the same thing that I did not pay careful attention to. So I--just briefly for the record, please. Please. I can see your--we have time. We are waiting for Mr. Mounger. Very quickly. Very quickly. It might help the court in its ruling.

THE COURT: The moment he walks in the court.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor. First of all, on page no. 4 of their Defense--

THE COURT: But then I have to listen to Mr. Uelmen as well.

MS. LEWIS: Okay. Offer of proof of newly discovered evidence for motion to suppress, the first--they have three things. Very briefly, your Honor. The first thing is that they say the decision to make entry by climbing the wall. Detective Fuhrman was the D2. We know that the others out there were all D3's.

THE COURT: Counsel, I recollect the testimony.

MS. LEWIS: I'm sure. It was their decision. The second offer had to do with Mark Fuhrman searching Kato's room, but that--their cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman would add nothing to the--Mark Fuhrman's credibility on that because Kato testified at the preliminary hearing during the motion to suppress and testified to the thumps--

THE COURT: He indicated he gave consent, he gave consent to the search. Next question.

MS. LEWIS: Yes. And also indicating the thumps on the wall. So that makes Detective Fuhrman's testimony that Kato told him he heard thumps on the wall--I mean, there's no credibility issue there whatsoever. And the third one was that, given the statements that Kato made to Detective Fuhrman, which we know were made, that was obviously why Detective Fuhrman went behind the walkway. So how is the Defense going to hurt his credibility in terms of why he went to the walkway when we know Kato testified during the preliminary hearing as to those three thumps behind there. That's all I wanted to say, your Honor. I just wanted to point out that their intended cross-examination would not shed light on the issues they list in their supplemental brief.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Uelmen, do you feel compelled to respond to that?

MR. UELMEN: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

As you can see the prosecution tried to indicate there was no credibility issue as to why MF went to the walkway, which was not in question. The question was what he did when he was back there. Pay close attention to the word ruling.

[William Anthony]

(Brief pause.)

"THE COURT: All right. We've been rejoined now by counsel Darryl Mounger who represents Mark Fuhrman. Good afternoon again, counsel.

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

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, for the purposes of the record, will you accept that representation?

MR. UELMEN: No, your Honor. We believe it's necessary for him to assert the privilege from the witness stand in response to a question.

THE COURT: All right. Since there's an unwillingness to accept and stipulate to that, it will be necessary for Mr. Fuhrman to resume the witness stand for the purpose of this motion and to assert the privilege."

We now have MF being called and I have previously stated and posted that he was specifically asked did he plant evidence in this case but let's not stop there as to what the judge's ruling was.

[William Anthony]

"THE COURT: No. Counsel, I just want to make sure we preserve the jurisdiction of the court in case there are any other issues that come up.

MS. CLARK: I understand that. But what I'm saying is, will this assertion suffice for the trial testimony as well? I can see no purpose being served other than a further waste of time to have Detective Fuhrman recalled to reassert the 5th amendment privilege again, and I'm asking that if counsel intends to do so, that we allow that record to be made at this time.

THE COURT: That record's been made at this point.

MS. CLARK: For the purpose of trial testimony?

THE COURT: Based upon the representations of counsel that he's not going to answer any further questions regarding this case.

MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, since he lives without the state, is he free to travel home?

MR. COCHRAN: Will the court allow us to approach for a moment?

THE COURT: Sure. All right. With Mr. Mounger, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, the problem we have is that I'm not sure we argued this particular aspect. I wanted some clarification. We're the ones that paid to have him brought here. So it would fall on us whether he stays over. But we obviously would want him to be able to briefly argue what our rights are in this regard. Now that he's claimed the 5th amendment, they can't just try to hide that from the jury. We are going to propose either a jury instruction or whatever, some way--we are being disqualified from further cross-examination of this man, and we propose a particular remedy. And so I mean--sure, they'd like to rush him away quietly. It's not that easy. We will accommodate Mr. Mounger's schedule. We have total respect for him, but we have--I think the court wants some assistance, some argument from us, points and authorities about what our remedy is in regard to this. This is not something you want to do by the seat of your pants.

THE COURT: I assumed you all had thought about this.

MR. COCHRAN: We did. We thought about it and we'd like an opportunity--

THE COURT: And my recollection is that the Prosecution indicated they had a memorandum, points and authorities ready to go.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Darden said that. We haven't seen it.

MS. CLARK: We have it. We've researched this issue, we're prepared to argue it. They have no right to have him invoke in front of the jury.

MR. COCHRAN: Nasty attitude. We're not--

MS. CLARK: Just an assertion.

MR. COCHRAN: All we're saying, your Honor, we would like an opportunity to respond, to give you our brief in that regard and we don't want him to leave until that point. It would just be a day or so. So I think it's the same problem as with McKinny. We don't want to let her go before we resolve the issue and we would like to talk about it tomorrow.

THE COURT: Mr. Mounger, what I'm inclined to do is allow counsel the opportunity to brief the issue and have your client on call for tomorrow.

MR. MOUNGER: And if it doesn't materialize by tomorrow, are we free to--

THE COURT: Then he will be released subject to recall and I'd say within 72 hours' notice. But I assume we'll resolve this issue tomorrow.

MR. MOUNGER: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Do you accept the responsibility to convey that order to your client?"

[William Anthony]

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

You now have the court's ruling, which only excluded the 5 excerpts but allowed questions on planting after hearing the impeaching testimony of Singer, Hodge and Mckinney and the defense was allowed to argue the glove was planted before the jury in summation. I don't think anything could actually be any plainer.

[William Anthony]

(My Bold) You may post the link.

HW

Thanks. I understand as to why arguments with responsive arguments may need to be explained as to the judge's ruling and the legal points be addressed within those arguments and I appreciate the opportunity.

[William Anthony]

Are you now claiming Greta has done something to mistreat someone. I don't think so. You know and I know Greta is the one MF works with. I think I'll just leave Obama out of it....He might think CL is after him.
Fox News has the highest ratings of all the news channels...by far.

It is interesting that you chose to employ the word mistreat. I said newscasters and did not mention anyone by name and MF has been on more shows than Greta. I call some of Fox News programs favored and biased.

[martin II]

It is interesting that you chose to employ the word mistreat. I said newscasters and did not mention anyone by name and MF has been on more shows than Greta. I call some of Fox News programs favored and biased.

Ratings has to do with the number of viewers not the accuracy of the program info. Accurate news is one thing, entertainment is another.People listen to entertainment shows like fox before straight News. imo

[tv]

Are you now claiming Greta has done something to mistreat someone. I don't think so. You know and I know Greta is the one MF works with. I think I'll just leave Obama out of it....He might think CL is after him.
Fox News has the highest ratings of all the news channels...by far.

The poster that is criticizing Fox News the most is the same one that has stated he watches Fox News all the time. He's made numerous references to show content and upcoming broadcasts in the past so his critcism of the network rings hollow. Besides, I've seen Mark Fuhrman on other networks besides Fox -- Larry King on CNN comes to mind.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by weezer View Post
I will honor your decision but could the debate be settled by the poster giving a link to a ruling by Judge Ito that he says overruled the one posed? not just an interpretation, but an actual ruling?

Even lawyers must sometimes ask for an interpretation of the judge's actual ruling, which, IIRC, was done in this case a couple of times.

[William Anthony]

Ratings has to do with the number of viewers not the accuracy of the program info. Accurate news is one thing, entertainment is another.People listen to entertainment shows like fox before straight News. imo

True dat.

[William Anthony]

The poster that is criticizing Fox News the most is the same one that has stated he watches Fox News all the time. He's made numerous references to show content and upcoming broadcasts in the past so his critcism of the network rings hollow. Besides, I've seen Mark Fuhrman on other networks besides Fox -- Larry King on CNN comes to mind.

I used to watch Fox News all the time and it is not, because of anything different that Fox did that caused me not to watch them. The simple truth is that I became bored and my illnesses allowed me to leave the house but I think I will be housebound again shortly. Whether or not I watch Fox is a toss up. When I did watch it, it was to hear their favored and biased opinions against our new President. I think I got bored by Hannity's rantings and disappointed When Colmes left.

[tv]

I used to watch Fox News all the time and it is not, because of anything different that Fox did that caused me not to watch them. The simple truth is that I became bored and my illnesses allowed me to leave the house but I think I will be housebound again shortly. Whether or not I watch Fox is a toss up. When I did watch it, it was to hear their favored and biased opinions against our new President. I think I got bored by Hannity's rantings and disappointed When Colmes left.

I'm sure you know what you watch and why much more than I do. Makes no difference to me -- I was just pointing out an inconsistency. It's all about freedom of speech and freedom to get your news where you choose. Bashing Fox doesn't change that. It shows me they're hitting a nerve and that can only be a good thing for America.

[Hipcheck]

Mark Fuhrman is a best selling author who has actually published well-written and informative books about true crime. He had a very good one about the death penalty. On the other hand, this is what OJ Simpson chooses to write in IF I DID IT:

"...I looked down and saw her on the ground in front of me, curled up in a fetal position at the base of the stairs, not moving. Goldman was only a few feet away, slumped against the bars of the fence. He wasn't moving either. Both he and Nicole were lying in giant pools of blood. I had never seen so much blood in my life..."

"I again looked down at myself, at my blood-soaked clothes, and noticed the knife in my hand. The knife was covered in blood, as were my hand and wrist and half of my right forearm... "

O.J. told us just how he murdered Nicole and Ron. He also told the author why he wanted mistakes left in the book so later he could say he didn't write that.

The "NG's" want us to believe that O.J. had nothing to do with the writing of the murder chapter which is laughable. The main part of the book is the murder chapter hence the title "If I did it' so you can bet all of it came from O.J..

[William Anthony]

I'm sure you know what you watch and why much more than I do. Makes no difference to me -- I was just pointing out an inconsistency. It's all about freedom of speech and freedom to get your news where you choose. Bashing Fox doesn't change that. It shows me they're hitting a nerve and that can only be a good thing for America.

You are correct and sometimes nerve wracking is just simply destructive, especially when someone calls the President and his Chief of Staff thugs and questions with whom the President ever said hello.

[William Anthony]

O.J. told us just how he murdered Nicole and Ron. He also told the author why he wanted mistakes left in the book so later he could say he didn't write that.

The "NG's" want us to believe that O.J. had nothing to do with the writing of the murder chapter which is laughable. The main part of the book is the murder chapter hence the title "If I did it' so you can bet all of it came from O.J..

Ah, Simpson was just writing a screenplay that got changed to a book.

[tv]

O.J. told us just how he murdered Nicole and Ron. He also told the author why he wanted mistakes left in the book so later he could say he didn't write that.

The "NG's" want us to believe that O.J. had nothing to do with the writing of the murder chapter which is laughable. The main part of the book is the murder chapter hence the title "If I did it' so you can bet all of it came from O.J..

Sure it came from him. We're supposed to believe that an innocent man would dream up a fictional scenario on how he killed the mother of his children and allow it to be published. That's just not believable. This is not the action of an innocent man. This is the action of a man who is not sorry that he nearly decapitated the mother of his children while his sleeping children were near by and was willing to put the horror of it into words on paper so he could collect cold hard cash.

Before the NGs jump on the Mr. Goldman bashwagon let's remember that Mr. Goldman didn't write the words he only took the book away from LBA and OJ Simpson to prevent him from making further profits.

[martin II]

fOX on air ultra conservative content is dictated by Roger Aires sp . not by Greta or any other on camera person.

Actually Gretas positions were much more centralist when she was at CNN.
She did many fair interviews of oj simpson from the CNN mike.Now for some reason she seems to be attatched to Furhman like Gerado of late. Maby by direction of her boss RA. imo

[tv]

You are correct and sometimes nerve wracking is just simply destructive, especially when someone calls the President and his Chief of Staff thugs and questions with whom the President ever said hello.

Then you've made the right decision for yourself -- you've stopped watching. At least no one employed by Fox has ever been heard or seen on air threatening to mutilate the President's body parts. This is off-topic...so this is my last comment about Fox. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Then you've made the right decision for yourself -- you've stopped watching. At least no one employed by Fox has ever been heard or seen on air threatening to mutilate the President's body parts. This is off-topic...so this is my last comment about Fox. :shrug:

I think this was a comment more about someone else than
Fox.:):cool:

[William Anthony]

Sure it came from him. We're supposed to believe that an innocent man would dream up a fictional scenario on how he killed the mother of his children and allow it to be published. That's just not believable. This is not the action of an innocent man. This is the action of a man who is not sorry that he nearly decapitated the mother of his children while his sleeping children were near by and was willing to put the horror of it into words on paper so he could collect cold hard cash.

Before the NGs jump on the Mr. Goldman bashwagon let's remember that Mr. Goldman didn't write the words he only took the book away from LBA and OJ Simpson to prevent him from making further profits.

We are supposed to believe that when MF was asked to participate in the making of a screenplay about Men Against Women he decide to go on a tangent about how he planted evidence, beat and harassed minorities and hated interracial couples. This is just not believable. These are not the actions of an innocent racist. The perjury is the action of a man who did not want to tell the truth about his comments and his taking of the 5th was to protect him from self-incrimination, although he had not yet been charged with any crime. Let's remember what is to me his most famous and truthfully prophetic statement, "If I go down, the case goes down."

[William Anthony]

I'm sure you know what you watch and why much more than I do. Makes no difference to me -- I was just pointing out an inconsistency. It's all about freedom of speech and freedom to get your news where you choose. Bashing Fox doesn't change that. It shows me they're hitting a nerve and that can only be a good thing for America.

That was how many months ago that I made that statement. Are you resistant to change?:)

[martin II]

Many cable and network stations have turned into advertising vehicles for large publishing houses books. Who on camera persons interview is dictated by the up stairs executives not Greta or any other on camera person.imo

[martin II]

The poster that is criticizing Fox News the most is the same one that has stated he watches Fox News all the time. He's made numerous references to show content and upcoming broadcasts in the past so his critcism of the network rings hollow. Besides, I've seen Mark Fuhrman on other networks besides Fox -- Larry King on CNN comes to mind.

TV

Do you agree with Clarke when she said Furhman should never have been a member of the LAPD?

[tv]

That was how many months ago that I made that statement. Are you resistant to change?:)

I'll quote myself from a few posts ago --

"I'm sure you know what you watch and why much more than I do. Makes no difference to me -- I was just pointing out an inconsistency. It's all about freedom of speech and freedom to get your news where you choose."

[martin II]

Ah, Simpson was just writing a screenplay that got changed to a book.

A poster that never read ojs book is telling us what was in it. Thats funny or sad. take your pick. imo

[tv]

TV

Do you agree with Clarke when she said Furhman should never have been a member of the LAPD?

Why are you asking me this?

[tv]

A poster that never read ojs book is telling us what was in it. Thats funny or sad. take your pick. imo

No different than you always telling us what's in Mark Fuhrman's book or Vincent Bugliosi's book.

[William Anthony]

I'll quote myself from a few posts ago --

"I'm sure you know what you watch and why much more than I do. Makes no difference to me -- I was just pointing out an inconsistency. It's all about freedom of speech and freedom to get your news where you choose."

I really have had very little interest in the news, recently but have you felt the need to change your news channel.

[William Anthony]

Why are you asking me this?

I would like to know do you dispute that part of the prosecution's summation and do you think the jury should have disputed it.

[Its just me]

It is interesting that you chose to employ the word mistreat. I said newscasters and did not mention anyone by name and MF has been on more shows than Greta. I call some of Fox News programs favored and biased.

I'm a news watcher....as with anything I don't always agree with everything said on any news station but I do find Fox to give a wider view on most subjects. I see you mentioned Hannity and Colmes....Their program was to give the views of Hannity as a Republican and Colmes as a Democrat.... both have strong political beliefs and very seldom either will waver outside of their party lines on Fox or their radio programs. Both are equally biased on their views. Colmes left so now it's just Hannity the Republican...He now has guests who represent the views of the Democrat Party. I like their motto....We report and you decide.

[tv]

I really have had very little interest in the news, recently but have you felt the need to change your news channel.

Absolutely not. I watch Nancy Grace on HLN for crime news and I watch Fox and the local news for all other news. I find them fair and balanced. They report and I decide. ;)

[martin II]

I'll quote myself from a few posts ago --

"I'm sure you know what you watch and why much more than I do. Makes no difference to me -- I was just pointing out an inconsistency. It's all about freedom of speech and freedom to get your news where you choose."

People interested in non bias news watch PBS and some network programs. Those interested in bias news strickly from a ultra conservative point of view and entertainment watch Fox. These same people listen to RL. IMO

[tv]

People interested in non bias news watch PBS and some network programs. Those interested in bias news strickly from a ultra conservative point of view and entertainment watch Fox. These same people listen to RL. IMO

Once again, it's a personal choice -- not a decision that another person can make for you.

[martin II]

Why are you asking me this?

you support furhman in the case. she flately rejected him as a cop.just wanted to know if you agree with her statement.

[martin II]

Absolutely not. I watch Nancy Grace on HLN for crime news and I watch Fox and the local news for all other news. I find them fair and balanced. They report and I decide. ;)

Nancy

After her disaster reporting on the MJ case and the story that came out about her boyfriends death i have not watched one program.

[tv]

you support furhman in the case. she flately rejected him as a cop.just wanted to know if you agree with her statement.

I support LE and their work in the case. Mark Fuhrman was a member the LAPD. I've stated this many times before and I don't think it will be necessary for me to post it again in relation to Marcia Clark.

[tv]

Nancy

After her disaster reporting on the MJ case and the story that came out about her boyfriends death i have not watched one program.

That's your choice. :shrug:

[tv]

LOL An appearance and working for a certain show as MF does for Greta are two totally things. I've not only seen MF on Fox but also on other stations. I continue to admire his effort in criminal cases. FWIW.

So do I and I've enjoyed his books a lot. I'm looking forward to the new one.

[Its just me]

That's your choice. :shrug:

If I stopped watching someone because I didn't agree with everything they said I wouldn't watch anyone. NG is to be commended for all she does to promote the missing. I'm not crazy about her personality but her good far out ways any negative I may think.

[martin II]

After exposure to countless similar stories published since January 2002, when Fox was reported to have surpassed CNN in the Nielsen ratings, one might naturally conclude that Fox has more viewers than CNN .

But it's not true. On any given day, more people typically tune to CNN than to Fox .
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005

[weezer]

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

You now have the court's ruling, which only excluded the 5 excerpts but allowed questions on planting after hearing the impeaching testimony of Singer, Hodge and Mckinney and the defense was allowed to argue the glove was planted before the jury in summation. I don't think anything could actually be any plainer.

you still did not provide a ruling on the planting -- only a ruling on the use of the 'n-word.' The part of this that is important is the judge's statement that the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. That ruling was that there was nothing to substantiate planting of evidence by Fuhrman. ;) fini

thank you Hotwater for allowing us to clear this up.

[tv]

If I stopped watching someone because I didn't agree with everything they said I wouldn't watch anyone. NG is to be commended for all she does to promote the missing. I'm not crazy about her personality but her good far out ways any negative I may think.

I'm not in love with her personality either. I find her to be too agressive many times and she seems to pick a target and go for the jugular. On the other hand she's done a lot for the families of the missing and to promote awareness of their situations. She's also a smart woman who's very knowledgable about the law. I've learned a lot from her show.

[tv]

you still did not provide a ruling on the planting -- only a ruling on the use of the 'n-word.' The part of this that is important is the judge's statement that the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. That ruling was that there was nothing to substantiate planting of evidence by Fuhrman. ;) fini

thank you Hotwater for allowing us to clear this up.

Thanks weezer, I got the same thing from it you did.

[tv]

After exposure to countless similar stories published since January 2002, when Fox was reported to have surpassed CNN in the Nielsen ratings, one might naturally conclude that Fox has more viewers than CNN .

But it's not true. On any given day, more people typically tune to CNN than to Fox .
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005

I think you're wrong but who the heck really cares? This is the OJ Simpson discussion board not the Fox News discussion board.

[Its just me]

I think you're wrong but who the heck really cares? This is the OJ Simpson discussion board not the Fox News discussion board.

Right...I don't care if somebody watches or don't watch what I watch or if what I watch is only watched by me. FWIW the link was for 2004. :rolleyes:

Extra! March/April 2004

The Ratings Mirage
Why Fox has higher ratings--when CNN has more viewers

[Its just me]

you still did not provide a ruling on the planting -- only a ruling on the use of the 'n-word.' The part of this that is important is the judge's statement that the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. That ruling was that there was nothing to substantiate planting of evidence by Fuhrman. ;) fini

thank you Hotwater for allowing us to clear this up.

Thank you and Hotwater.

[martin II]

As a former prosecutor NG has never seen a accused that is not autamatically guilty. That bothers me for a 'news' Person. But i think NG sees herself as a commentator more than a reporter. Why i don't know.

This has gone off subject. so i am out before we get a message.

[martin II]

I think you're wrong but who the heck really cares? This is the OJ Simpson discussion board not the Fox News discussion board.

i am not wrong about anything as it is not my report.

[martin II]

Thanks weezer, I got the same thing from it you did.

Did MF eventually take the stand and was he asked the question about planting.? yes. obviously ito changed his original opinion or MF would not have been on the stand.

[weezer]

I'm not wanting to beat a dead horse but I think it might would serve a better purpose for the posters to read the ruling themselves.

http://walraven.org/simpson/fhr_tps2.html

[GreenIce]

Because Westec also told them that there was a full time maid who should be home and they were getting no answer and Fuhrman had found what looked like blood.

That's the kicker, had Simpson really been inside the home bleeding to death because someone tried to kill him too and the police didn't do anything you'd all be screaming about why the hell didn't they enter the property under those suspicious circumstances!!!

K,

That is not true. When the police entered Simpson's estate it was 5:30 a.m., having a full time maid does not mean this maid is required to work on weekends. Did Simpson have a full time maid, yes he did, was she required to live on the estate, no she wasn't and Kato testified to this.

The detectives knew about Kato being on the estate, they knew about Arnelle being on the estate, they knew who drove the Bronco, they ran license plates. Brian Kalin could never been a maid, because he is a maid.

And you are wrong, had the police entered the property and busted the front door down and checked out the house, I would at least have to admit they sort of supported their theory.

However, their going to back of the house and not asking about the maid until they were being lead into the house by Arnelle proves this. They were told Simpson was not home by Arnelle and Kato. They lied about what Arnelle said.

The proof they were lying was when they allowed Arnelle to be a human shield. As the jurors correctly pointed out, if they were telling the truth, they never would have allowed to unlock the door and enter it first. The alarm would not have mattered because what is more important, tripping the alarm or get to victims?

Even if Simpson was the killer, what if he hung him self or blew his brains out because of what he did? Should Arnelle been the one to find him? Did she deserve that little treat?

Another problem is that at least MF one other person went to Rockingham before the 4 of them went over. Phillips and MF received the order to find OJ Simpson ASAP and to give a personal notification if possible. You really believe they waited until 5:30 before they carried out this direct order?

[GreenIce]

Larry Fiaeto the mofia guy testified that Vannater told him YES oj was a suspect.So it seems Vannatter lied again in his testimony. Jury members said vannatter was untruthful in his testimony. So it seems they were listening contrary to what some have claimed. imo

Martin,

When the four lead detectives denied that Simpson was a suspect, I knew right then and there that no one would ever be convicted in this case. At that time, I believed Simpson had committed the crime but when they lied about this, I really began to wonder. Why lie about that?

[tv]

Right...I don't care if somebody watches or don't watch what I watch or if what I watch is only watched by me. FWIW the link was for 2004. :rolleyes:

Extra! March/April 2004

The Ratings Mirage
Why Fox has higher ratings--when CNN has more viewers

Thanks, IJM! I didn't look at the link but I had a feeling it wasn't correct. I'm like you -- I don't worry about what other people watch. I have my own opinions and preferences and that's all that concerns me.

[tv]

I'm not wanting to beat a dead horse but I think it might would serve a better purpose for the posters to read the ruling themselves.

http://walraven.org/simpson/fhr_tps2.html

You're right and Hotwater did request a link be posted instead of pages and pages. :)

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

Does MF's use of racial slurs linked to the planting or the manufacturing of evidence in this case? I have always thought they went together and they can not be separated. Is that not the case here?

[martin II]

I'm not wanting to beat a dead horse but I think it might would serve a better purpose for the posters to read the ruling themselves.

http://walraven.org/simpson/fhr_tps2.html

After william gave itos final action and MF did sit on the stand and was asked the planting question. more post on the issue is beating a dead horse to death. imo haha

[martin II]

You're right and Hotwater did request a link be posted instead of pages and pages. :)

Direct testimony is always better than a link. HW did not say don't post the testimony.i agree the testimony was long but space is not a problem and it was important that the complete testimony be seen.
William has cleared it up.
MF got back on the stand and was asked if he planted in the case. he refused to answer. fini.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

Does MF's use of racial slurs linked to the planting or the manufacturing of evidence in this case? I have always thought they went together and they can not be separated. Is that not the case here?

MF racial slurs show a bias against a person like oj. His lies indicate that he is not truthful. These give him a motive to plant and manipulate evidence. When he was asked if he planted, instead of saying NO he refused to answer. The three witnesses that testified proved he lied on the stand.

He lied about the n word more than to LHM.

[GreenIce]

MF racial slurs show a bias against a person like oj. His lies indicate that he is not truthful. These give him a motive to plant and manipulate evidence. When he was asked if he planted, instead of saying NO he refused to answer.

Martin,

That is what I thought, they are linked and they can't be separated.

[martin II]

It is a fact that Mark Fuhrman committed perjury in the OJ Simpson case. He knew he was committing perjury and did so even knowing that the Browns and the Goldmans would pay the highest price for his perjury.

What he has done outside of the Simpson case as in after he became a felon, does not matter. Great detectives do not committ perjury.

What he has done after the Simpson case should not be discussed because it does not have a direct link to the Simpson case.

To continue to post what a great guy he is, what wonderful books he has written outside the Simpson case is a direct insult to the families involved in the Simpson case. It is also an insult to the posters here who are justified in their beliefs about Mark Fuhrman.

You want to say he is great author, go to a different place and post about the merits of his books on those cases.

He was not a great detective in the Simpson case. He was proven to be a selfish, lying, manipulator who took great pride in holding the DA's hostage in this case.

Not only did he commit perjury, but he also made it clear, in his own voice, how important he was in the case and what would happen if he went down. Well he did go down and he took a lot of good people with him. A great detective would not have done that.

Take the fan club some place else, please!

MF is the one fred should be calling names.He robbed fred of a conviction.
Darden understood that clearly and said so on Oprah.

[weezer]

I believe it was brenda moran -- the foreperson of the criminal jury -- who said 'this wasn't a case about abuse.' Let me add that this wasn't a case about Mark Fuhrman either. maybe we can agree to discuss the case and leave the other stuff out.

[GreenIce]

If they called him first what were they going to say "we need to come over to notify you in person that your ex-wife has been killed"? Defeats the purpose of an in person notification.

K,

The problem is, there is evidence to suggest they did know where he was and they knew when he left. In at least two books, one by Shapiro, MF and RP called the station and asked them to ask the kids where their father was.

We know Sydney made comments, she was very upset, she told the cops that her parents were together that night. The fact that Sydney was able to call home to her mother's house several times and never call her father's home, speaks volumes.

Sydney knew her father was going out of town and she knew when he was coming back.

Why they acted like they didn't know, IMO, really hurts their credibility even further, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I believe it was brenda moran -- the foreperson of the criminal jury -- who said 'this wasn't a case about abuse.' Let me add that this wasn't a case about Mark Fuhrman either. maybe we can agree to discuss the case and leave the other stuff out.

Weezer,

In all fairness to both sides, any witness who takes the stand, their credibility and motives and motives are fair game. MF put himself on trial in the Simpson case when he committed perjury. He declared himself the most important witness in this case. He is part of this case, just as every other witness is.

[GreenIce]

MF is the one fred should be calling names.He robbed fred of a conviction.
Darden understood that clearly and said so on Oprah.

Martin,

I don't know if FG called MF names, but I do know his daughter did and they weren't very nice. I can't blame her.

[martin II]

Martin,

That is what I thought, they are linked and they can't be separated.

That was the defense argument and the later testimony of Hodge,Bell and singer is what caused ito to change his mind and ordered Mf lawyer to have him available to sit on the stand and take his 5th. Mf did appear and take thye stand, He was asked the planting question and he took the 5th. There is no other way to see that. imo

[martin II]

Weezer,

In all fairness to both sides, any witness who takes the stand, their credibility and motives and motives are fair game. MF put himself on trial in the Simpson case when he committed perjury. He declared himself the most important witness in this case. He is part of this case, just as every other witness is.

Weezer has forgotten. MF said he was central to the case. He knew his r***** would eventually come to light so he said 'if i go down the case goes down" He made himself a part of the case and his lies put him on trial. For a while the case was about MF.

[GreenIce]

That was the defense argument and the later testimony of Hodge,Bell and singer is what caused ito to change his mind and ordered Mf lawyer to have him available to sit on the stand and take his 5th. Mf did appear and take thye stand, He was asked the planting question and he took the 5th. There is no other way to see that. imo

Martin,

Also, in my research and from reading Judge Ito's rulings, it appears to me that a "frame" or moving evidence, etc., against a defendant is to do so knowing this person is not guilty. IMO, I think it is a fair to say that all 4 detectives believed Simpson was guilty. They have every reason to believe at the very least, he was the prime suspect. Had they told the truth about that and been a tad humble and explained it the jury that they hate to think of any family member murdering another family member, the facts and the statstics are what they are.

As you know, I have always posted that I find it impossible to believe they did not go to Rockingham, ASAP. They had every right to believe he was involved, they had every reason to believe he may have been destroying evidence or was planning to flee or he set up his plane trip as his alibi.

Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Weezer has forgotton. MF said he was central to the case. He knew his r***** would eventually come to light so he said 'if i go down the case goes down" He made himself a part of the case and his lies put him on trial. For a while the case was about MF.

Martin,

I don't think any G or NG has ever forgotten what he said about this. However, I don't think an G has ever gave their opinon on what they think he meant. While many have expressed their feelings about what he said in other instances, I don't think any of them have given "their ruling" on this.

I am still stunned the Judge did not allow this but William explained this awhile ago. I disagree with the rule but William said the judge was correct so I live with it--:)

According to MF, he did try to tell Clark. Clark says that he tried to tell her something but that he didn't know exactly know what was going to come out. According to Lange and Vantter, Phillips gave the order to MF in July 1994 not to speak with the author. We know he violated that order, we also know he didn't forget about the tapes and we also know that he had months to work the DA's to come up with a solution.

What I do find interesting is that several of the witness who came forward, saw him on TV and they felt they had to come forward---even believing that Simpson was guilty.

[GreenIce]

If I stopped watching someone because I didn't agree with everything they said I wouldn't watch anyone. NG is to be commended for all she does to promote the missing. I'm not crazy about her personality but her good far out ways any negative I may think.

IJM,

I believe my son has stayed out of trouble because of NG. I used to make him watch her and I told him that one time, she put a 10 year old jay walker on death row. He believed me, granted he was 6 at the time, but it worked and it still works! He turns pale every time he sees her on TV.

[martin II]

Martin,

Also, in my research and from reading Judge Ito's rulings, it appears to me that a "frame" or moving evidence, etc., against a defendant is to do so knowing this person is not guilty. IMO, I think it is a fair to say that all 4 detectives believed Simpson was guilty. They have every reason to believe at the very least, he was the prime suspect. Had they told the truth about that and been a tad humble and explained it the jury that they hate to think of any family member murdering another family member, the facts and the statstics are what they are.

As you know, I have always posted that I find it impossible to believe they did not go to Rockingham, ASAP. They had every right to believe he was involved, they had every reason to believe he may have been destroying evidence or was planning to flee or he set up his plane trip as his alibi.

Again, IMO.

Then they should have said so. instead of lying. but mayb lying is what they do most of the time. So it came natural.

[GreenIce]

Then they should have said so. instead of lying. but mayb lying is what they do most of the time. So it came natural.

Martin,

I don't know Lange or VA in regards to their work in the past. However, it appears to me that they are not natural liars. I think the jury's description of Vanatter and his mannerisms, proves this. If he was a good liar, VA would not have become so flustered and pissed off on the witness stands.

And I don't think he even believed himself when he said he did not suspect OJ Simpson. It seems to me that VA did everything he could to put the focus on him rather then MF and the other evidence. I don't think he would have involved any one else--which is not to say they didn't know about it.

I think what hurt Lange and Philips was their vague answers when they should have had direct answers.

[tv]

Weezer,

In all fairness to both sides, any witness who takes the stand, their credibility and motives and motives are fair game. MF put himself on trial in the Simpson case when he committed perjury. He declared himself the most important witness in this case. He is part of this case, just as every other witness is.

Oh, I see. It's okay to discuss what Mark Fuhrman did or said outside of the case if it's negative but not if it's something positive...gotcha.

[GreenIce]

Thank you.

That's my point, there are a whole lot of people who don't do anything. They just turn the other cheek and pretend they didn't see. I don't wish those people who watched and didn't help me anything bad. I only hope if they're ever in a situation like that that someone will help them so they don't have to go through what I did.

It's those things that make an isolated feel even more so. My husband wasn't famous and I still feared that no one would stand up for me because most of the time no one did. That's what makes me that Nicole gave up.

K,

I just thought of something that may even make this worse--that is someone did call for help the police told them to stay out of it or they just didn't respond.

I would never wish anything like this to happen to a person, if they saw it and walked away did nothing. However, I have no problem with having nightmares for the rest of their lives. I do believe in redemption and if any of these people were able to find redemption in God's eyes, then they deserve to sleep.

I disagree with about Nicole giving up. I see no evidence to suggest that. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Oh, I see. It's okay to discuss what Mark Fuhrman did or said outside of the case if it's negative but not if it's something positive...gotcha.

TV,

I don't understand your post. I really don't, what did I say that he did that was not linked to the Simpson case?

And I can't think of one thing positive that MF did in this case.

[martin II]

Martin,

Also, in my research and from reading Judge Ito's rulings, it appears to me that a "frame" or moving evidence, etc., against a defendant is to do so knowing this person is not guilty. IMO, I think it is a fair to say that all 4 detectives believed Simpson was guilty. They have every reason to believe at the very least, he was the prime suspect. Had they told the truth about that and been a tad humble and explained it the jury that they hate to think of any family member murdering another family member, the facts and the statstics are what they are.

As you know, I have always posted that I find it impossible to believe they did not go to Rockingham, ASAP. They had every right to believe he was involved, they had every reason to believe he may have been destroying evidence or was planning to flee or he set up his plane trip as his alibi.

Again, IMO.

I think in this case the detectives thought oj was guilty. Based on how the evidence was collected and what was found where, i believe 1-2 maby 3 moved and manipulated the evidence because in their minds they did not have enough for a conviction. Their actions caused the DA to try to create a presentation that had to include the manipulation of evidence.

This complicted their case because they could not get every witnesses to lie.
Manipulating 1-2 pieces of evidence created unprovable holes in the case and the dream team being smart lawyers saw the holes and opened them for inspection in front of the jury. The case fell apart because of what some did with the evidence. Eventually it made no sense.
Basically this was a unprovable case. That is why they talked about abuse and tried to get by on emotion. A lady like Nicole brutally killed by a guy like oj.
Oj came home from Mc Donalds with Kato and did not leave his property until 11:00 pm that night in the limo. That is why the prosecution lost the case. imo

[Hipcheck]

So Mark Fuhrman used the "N" word. I still think he should never been asked that question as it had nothing to do with the murder case.

Mark Fuhrman was an excellent detective for the LAPD and received numerous accomodations during his career. He was investigated to see if there was any wrong doings on his part and nothing was found. The only thing bad the defense found about mark was that he had used the "N" word.

Since leaving the LAPD, Mark has done many investigations on cold cases. He was responsible for Michael Skakel getting convicted of murder. Mark has written some very good books and I'm waiting for the next one to be released.

I think Mark Fuhrman is a excellent investigator and no one is going to tell me what I can or what I can't post.

[GreenIce]

I think in this case the detectives thought oj was guilty. Based on how the evidence was collected and what was found where, i believe 1-2 maby 3 moved and manipulated the evidence because in their minds they did not have enough for a conviction. Their actions caused the DA to try to create a presentation that had to include the manipulation of evidence.

This complicted their case because they could not get every witnesses to lie.
Manipulating 1-2 pieces of evidence created unprovable holes in the case and the dream team being smart lawyers saw the holes and opened them for inspection in front of the jury. The case fell apart because of what some did with the evidence. Eventually it made no sense.
Basically this was a unprovable case. That is why they talked about abuse and tried to get by on emotion. A lady like Nicole brutally killed by a guy like oj.
Oj came home from Mc Donalds with Kato and did not leave his property until 11:00 pm that night in the limo. That is why the prosecution lost the case. imo

Martin,

I believe when they could not find the clothes, shoes and weapon, they were stunned. They knew where he was, they were able to trace every move, but they found nothing.

I think the glove added to that panic. I think they knew the case was in trouble. The grand jury was not going to hand down an indictment, so they knew they were very, very lucky. But how long could their luck hold out?

[Its just me]

Oh, I see. It's okay to discuss what Mark Fuhrman did or said outside of the case if it's negative but not if it's something positive...gotcha.
That's the way I'm seeing things. I believe it was weezer who said it best today..... "the character of the man follows him". It's just a fact OJ's followed him and MF's followed him. If MF was this evil vile person at one time it appears he has made a change.....too bad OJ didn't do the same.

[Its just me]

So Mark Fuhrman used the "N" word. I still think he should never been asked that question as it had nothing to do with the murder case.

Mark Fuhrman was an excellent detective for the LAPD and received numerous accomodations during his career. He was investigated to see if there was any wrong doings on his part and nothing was found. The only thing bad the defense found about mark was that he had used the "N" word.

Since leaving the LAPD, Mark has done many investigations on cold cases. He was responsible for Michael Skakel getting convicted of murder. Mark has written some very good books and I'm waiting for the next one to be released.

I think Mark Fuhrman is a excellent investigator and no one is going to tell me what I can or what I can't post.

I agree. To be fair to all sides... If I've posted anything wrong I'll let Hotwater deal with IJM..not a member.

[GreenIce]

So Mark Fuhrman used the "N" word. I still think he should never been asked that question as it had nothing to do with the murder case.

Mark Fuhrman was an excellent detective for the LAPD and received numerous accomodations during his career. He was investigated to see if there was any wrong doings on his part and nothing was found. The only thing bad the defense found about mark was that he had used the "N" word.

Since leaving the LAPD, Mark has done many investigations on cold cases. He was responsible for Michael Skakel getting convicted of murder. Mark has written some very good books and I'm waiting for the next one to be released.

I think Mark Fuhrman is a excellent investigator and no one is going to tell me what I can or what I can't post.

Hipcheck,

We are talking about the Simpson case. It doesn't matter what you think about the ruling or the questions. The judge deemed it was a material issue and it was. Just like NG's have been told to suck it up on the search warrant, the same must be done about this issue.

There are other threads that discuss the cases that MF has written books on.
Those books have nothing to do with the Simpson case. He is a convicted felon---and that is a fact.

[tv]

TV,

I don't understand your post. I really don't, what did I say that he did that was not linked to the Simpson case?

And I can't think of one thing positive that MF did in this case.

You've posted lots of things about Mark Fuhrman that weren't a part of the case including your fabrication that he went to Rockingham before anyone else -- just as an example.

[GreenIce]

I agree. To be fair to all sides... If I've posted anything wrong I'll let Hotwater deal with IJM..not a member.

IJM,

I did not say any one posted any thing "wrong" about MF. I only asked that his work outside the Simpson case, as in his books and other work on other cases be taken to the threads that concerns the case.

As a result of his actions and words in the Simpson case, he is a convicted felon.

And did say please.:)

[GreenIce]

You've posted lots of things about Mark Fuhrman that weren't a part of the case including your fabrication that he went to Rockingham before anyone else -- just as an example.

TV,

I have posted about MF's actions in the Simpson case. My belief that he went to Rockingham, IMO, has been supported by evidence and law.

I have posted about his actions and legal proceedings involved with the Joseph Britton case, where he was to go on trial for the second time for planting a weapon against a minority---this is a direct link to the Simpson case.

BTW, if you call him a great detective, then you would have no problem with him going to Rockingham before the others. :)

I also posted about his actions regarding his actions toward Andy Purdy. However, this was part of the trial, even if Judge Ito did not allow it. Again, this is a link to the Simpson case.

[Its just me]

IJM,

I did not say any one posted any thing "wrong" about MF. I only asked that his work outside the Simpson case, as in his books and other work on other cases be taken to the threads that concerns the case.

As a result of his actions and words in the Simpson case, he is a convicted felon.

And did say please.:)

I've put in a request for instructions from Hotwater on the subject as you should have. I will abide by her rule not yours....You are not the mod.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=Its just me;9232168] If MF was this evil vile person at one time it appears he has made a change.

IJM,

I do believe a person who has extremes views such MF can change. I also believe that a very good person can change for the worse.

However, in reading MF's book and seeing his interviews on this case, there is no evidence to support that he had or even has changed. IMO.

He never directly apologized to the groups and the individuals he hurt. To me that is not an apology because you have no idea which group or why he is saying he was sorry.

[GreenIce]

I've put in a request for instructions from Hotwater on the subject as you should have. I will abide by her rule not yours....You are not the mod.

IJM,

Never said that I was MOD. I did not think it was necessary to go to the MOD. I said what I felt and if people want to ignore it, no problem.

The only book he wrote that is open for debate is the one he wrote on the Simpson case. He testified in this case. The other cases he wrote about, he was not a witness who testified in it nor was he a responding LE member. Therefore, they have nothing to do with the Simpson case.

[Its just me]

[QUOTE=Its just me;9232168] If MF was this evil vile person at one time it appears he has made a change.

IJM,

I do believe a person who has extremes views such MF can change. I also believe that a very good person can change for the worse.

However, in reading MF's book and seeing his interviews on this case, there is no evidence to support that he had or even has changed. IMO.

He never directly apologized to the groups and the individuals he hurt. To me that is not an apology because you have no idea which group or why he is saying he was sorry.

Seriously.....Until Hotwater has her say...if she does. You would look better to abide by your rule. Do what you expect others to do.

ETA: GI....Here you are posting negative things about MF...and that is your right...but I also have the right to post something postive about the man.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9232179]

Seriously.....Until Hotwater has her say...if she does. You would look better to abide by your rule. Do what you expect others to do.

ETA: GI....Here you are posting negative things about MF...and that is your right...but I also have the right to post something postive about the man.

IJM,

What does ETA mean? I know as soon as I send this, it will come to me but right now, I am drawing a blank.

I have no problem with you or anyone else writing something positive about his work in the Simpson case. IMO, he did nothing positive--so I would love to read what you think they are.

[Its just me]

[QUOTE=Its just me;9232182]

IJM,

What does ETA mean? I know as soon as I send this, it will come to me but right now, I am drawing a blank.

I have no problem with you or anyone else writing something positive about his work in the Simpson case. IMO, he did nothing positive--so I would love to read what you think they are.

ETA= edited to add. It doesn't matter if you have a problem or not with what others post concerning anything....if the rules have not been broken one would only be selfish imoo to have a problem.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9232184]

ETA= edited to add. It doesn't matter if you have a problem or not with what others post concerning anything....if the rules have not been broken one would only be selfish imoo to have a problem.

IJM,

What do the other books written by MF have to do with the Simpson case? I am sure they are a great value to other people who post on those threads.

And while using other cases to help support or explain your position on this case is a great tool---his other books on different cases has no value on this thread--IMO.

Perhaps HW will see the value or be able to explain what they have to do with this case so I just we will just have to wait.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=Its just me;9232186][QUOTE=GreenIce;9232184]

ETA= edited to add.

IJM,

Well, I was correct, I did think of something when I sent this, but I wasn't even close, I had Estimated Time of Arrival---however, I did know that could not have been it. :)

Thank you.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9232179]

ETA: GI....Here you are posting negative things about MF...and that is your right...but I also have the right to post something postive about the man.

IMJ,

Yes, I have posted negative things about MF, he is a convicted felon because of this case.

Just because my comments may be negative toward MF, that does not mean they are lies or that I don't support why I feel the way that I do.

Again, if there was something positive he did in this case, then I would love to hear it.

Please remember, I have never posted that MF planted the glove because of his racial views. Also, I have posted that it was unfair to blame him totally for the loss of the case.

[tv]

I've put in a request for instructions from Hotwater on the subject as you should have. I will abide by her rule not yours....You are not the mod.

I've asked Hotwater for a clarification as well. I'll abide by her ruling whatever it is -- she's the moderator for this forum not other members.

[Hotwater]

Let me remind all of you this is a public message board. Telling others to go post somewhere else is not allowed, period.

Regarding Mark Fuhrman. As long as the conversation regarding Fuhrman's character is in question and being discussed then any info regarding what sort of person he is, will be allowed. If I find you can't be civil in the discussion then any further conversation concerning Mark Fuhrman will be off limits.



HW

[Its just me]

[QUOTE=Its just me;9232186]

IJM,

What do the other books written by MF have to do with the Simpson case? I am sure they are a great value to other people who post on those threads.

And while using other cases to help support or explain your position on this case is a great tool---his other books on different cases has no value on this thread--IMO.

Perhaps HW will see the value or be able to explain what they have to do with this case so I just we will just have to wait.

The way I see it...if posters want to communicate about postive things about MF with each other and you don't like what is said....You should have the ability to ignore it and not demand people post the way you want them to post if they are not talking to you. MF as a human being is part of OJ's case and the kind of person people see him being comes from other things than what you and others post here about him. The same is true about other people involved in the case.

[Its just me]

Hotwater, I thank you for clearing up this is a public message board. IJM

[Hotwater]

IMJ,

Yes, I have posted negative things about MF, he is a convicted felon because of this case.

Just because my comments may be negative toward MF, that does not mean they are lies or that I don't support why I feel the way that I do.

Again, if there was something positive he did in this case, then I would love to hear it.

Please remember, I have never posted that MF planted the glove because of his racial views. Also, I have posted that it was unfair to blame him totally for the loss of the case.

(My Bold)
Do you have a link that supports MF is a convicted felon because of this case?

HW

[GreenIce]

(My Bold)
Do you have a link that supports MF is a convicted felon because of this case?

HW

There are several links available, perhaps the best one being his own book, which he wrote without the aid of a co-author or a ghost writer.

I will find the link to his actual court appearance regarding his plea and I will find the pages in his book where he documents this.

From his book:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/fuhrman-murder.html

Actual plea agreement:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case63.htm

From Wikepdia:

On July 5, 1996, Lungren announced that he would file perjury charges against Fuhrman and soon thereafter offered Fuhrman a plea bargain. On October 2, Fuhrman accepted the deal and pleaded "no contest" to the charges. He was sentenced to three years' probation and fined $200. As a result, Fuhrman is a felon. Although he retired from the LAPD well before the plea, he is prohibited from serving as a police officer in most states again.

From the co-author of Lange and Vanatter's book:

http://www.moldea.com/Seven-14.html

From the Los Angels Times:

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-03/news/mn-49990_1_mark-fuhrman

But Police Chief Willie L. Williams said the department will be dealing for a long time with the damage caused by Fuhrman's testimony. "The wounds that were opened up by his comments," Williams said, "will take years for this department to overcome."

Hotwater,

Do you want me to keep going or do have an enough proof?

I have no problem listing the hundreds and hundreds of links regarding MF's pleas and behavior in regards to the Simpson case.

He is a convicted felon.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9232188]

The way I see it...if posters want to communicate about postive things about MF with each other and you don't like what is said....You should have the ability to ignore it and not demand people post the way you want them to post if they are not talking to you. MF as a human being is part of OJ's case and the kind of person people see him being comes from other things than what you and others post here about him. The same is true about other people involved in the case.

IJM,

I made no demands, period. I asked if people wanted to discuss the merits of Mark Fuhrman's work or books regarding other cases, to go the threads that feature the case.

He is a convicted felon as a result of his words and actions in the Simpson case.

Please remember, it is in the testimony, his vile thoughts on minorities and had no problem telling civilians of passion of hate. He also terrorized and tormented his fellow officers---which is also a part of this case.

To discuss MF fairly, then all of it has to be discussed, such as him saying the only good " " is a dead " ". I am sure you can fill in the blanks.

His views can't be unlinked to planting and manufacturing evidence. Which is why it pained Judge Ito so to have to change his ruling.

[GreenIce]

I am still waiting for the positive posts about MF in the Simpson case. Some one has to have something.....right?

[William Anthony]

Absolutely not. I watch Nancy Grace on HLN for crime news and I watch Fox and the local news for all other news. I find them fair and balanced. They report and I decide. ;)

Favored and biased is what I find them. They report trying to make you decide a certain way.:)

[William Anthony]

I support LE and their work in the case. Mark Fuhrman was a member the LAPD. I've stated this many times before and I don't think it will be necessary for me to post it again in relation to Marcia Clark.

Don't you think that the police are an arm of the prosecution and I do believe I posted showing that they were?

[William Anthony]

So do I and I've enjoyed his books a lot. I'm looking forward to the new one.

The show he appeared on was sponsored by Fox and why would he be any different on one show than another. A leopard does not change its spots..

[William Anthony]

If I stopped watching someone because I didn't agree with everything they said I wouldn't watch anyone. NG is to be commended for all she does to promote the missing. I'm not crazy about her personality but her good far out ways any negative I may think.

It seems that you find it easy to disagree.:)

[William Anthony]

you still did not provide a ruling on the planting -- only a ruling on the use of the 'n-word.' The part of this that is important is the judge's statement that the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. That ruling was that there was nothing to substantiate planting of evidence by Fuhrman. ;) fini

thank you Hotwater for allowing us to clear this up.

I love the way you put fini at the end of something but I am the one thanking Hotwater. Pay close attention to Ms. Lewis' argument,

"MS. LEWIS: Oh, absolutely not, your Honor. Please, the court can see this is collateral evidence. It does not and never had to allow cross-examination on this evidence at all. The Defense in their new proffer is talking about misconduct things. They recognize it apparently because they left it out. They even leave out the "N" word stuff.

I mean, the court has heard all this stuff. The court has heard the context in which it was played. The court--and in fact, if Detective Fuhrman gets up here and takes the 5th, the court--I think the state of the law would be, the court cannot consider him having taken the 5th in terms of deciding the earlier ruling because the jury is not allowed to hear that somebody took the 5th. And I'm sure the same law would apply, that the court could not consider that fact because you would be impinging on his right against self-incrimination. It gets unduly complicated, your Honor, and it's not necessary. The record is complete. I know you as a very thorough--meticulously thorough Judge, but I'm telling your Honor, as a meticulous and thorough attorney, this record is complete on this issue."

The defense was specifically talking about a new offer of proof on MF's misconduct/planting and judge Ito allowed them to ask did he plant evidence and argue that he did to the jury. Those are the actual facts due to his ruling.

[William Anthony]

Thanks weezer, I got the same thing from it you did.

I understand the unwillingness to sometimes accept what is plain and I am not saying that this is what is going on here. Sometimes it is hard for others to see what is plain to others as some others and me would have flunked mechanical drawing, if not for the graciousness of the teacher, who allowed us to draw pictures of "anything but guns and daggers" from mechanical drawing magazines.

[weezer]

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case63.htm

". . .While perjury is always a serious offense, it is rare that a witness who has given testimony is prosecuted for that perjury. When there is prosecution, the usual case involves a situation in which the witness has given false testimony about an event related to the crime or provided a false alibi.

Here there is no evidence that defendant gave any false testimony about his investigative efforts. The false testimony related to personal use of a racial epithet during a time period that pre-dated the criminal investigation.

An argument can be made that this type of perjury is less serious than giving false testimony about the investigation.

(a)(2) No weapon was involved.

(a)(3) No individual victim was involved.

(a)(4) No injury was inflicted on any person.

(a)(5) There was no individual who suffered monetary loss.

(a)(6) Defendant was an active participant in the crime.

(a)(7) There are unique circumstances in the commission of the offense.

(a)(8) No criminal sophistication was demonstrated.

(a)(9) The defendant did take advantage of a position of trust and confidence in the commission of the offense.

(b) Defendant Related Facts

(b)(1) No prior criminal record.

(b)(2) Not applicable because defendant has never before been placed on parole or probation.

(b)(3) Defendant is willing to comply with the terms and conditions of probation.

(b)(4) Defendant is able to comply with the terms of probation.

(b)(5) Imprisonment would create financial hardship on the defendant's dependents. Because of his background as a police officer defendant would be at risk in prison. There is no evidence that defendant needs to be incarcerated to deter him from future similar criminal conduct.

(b)(6) Defendant's primary adult employment was as a peace officer. One result of this conviction is defendant is precluded from ever again being a peace officer in California. (Government Code, Section 1029.)

The high profile that resulted from the events surrounding the crime as well as the news focus that the conviction will create will make it difficult for defendant to find employment at any professional level.

(b)(7) The remarks of defendant as reported by his counsel indicate remorse.

(b)(8) Defendant presents no danger to others. . ."

The within and foregoing history in lieu of probation report has been read and considered by me this 2nd day of October, 1996.

/s/John W.Ouderkirk
JOHN W. OUDERXIRK
Judge Of The Superior Court

[martin II]

I am still waiting for the positive posts about MF in the Simpson case. Some one has to have something.....right?

I am waiting on some g to explain if they agree with Clarks comment that MF should have never been a LAPD officer. no response so far.

[martin II]

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case63.htm

". . .While perjury is always a serious offense, it is rare that a witness who has given testimony is prosecuted for that perjury. When there is prosecution, the usual case involves a situation in which the witness has given false testimony about an event related to the crime or provided a false alibi.

Here there is no evidence that defendant gave any false testimony about his investigative efforts. The false testimony related to personal use of a racial epithet during a time period that pre-dated the criminal investigation.

An argument can be made that this type of perjury is less serious than giving false testimony about the investigation.

(a)(2) No weapon was involved.

(a)(3) No individual victim was involved.

(a)(4) No injury was inflicted on any person.

(a)(5) There was no individual who suffered monetary loss.

(a)(6) Defendant was an active participant in the crime.

(a)(7) There are unique circumstances in the commission of the offense.

(a)(8) No criminal sophistication was demonstrated.

(a)(9) The defendant did take advantage of a position of trust and confidence in the commission of the offense.

(b) Defendant Related Facts

(b)(1) No prior criminal record.

(b)(2) Not applicable because defendant has never before been placed on parole or probation.

(b)(3) Defendant is willing to comply with the terms and conditions of probation.

(b)(4) Defendant is able to comply with the terms of probation.

(b)(5) Imprisonment would create financial hardship on the defendant's dependents. Because of his background as a police officer defendant would be at risk in prison. There is no evidence that defendant needs to be incarcerated to deter him from future similar criminal conduct.

(b)(6) Defendant's primary adult employment was as a peace officer. One result of this conviction is defendant is precluded from ever again being a peace officer in California. (Government Code, Section 1029.)

The high profile that resulted from the events surrounding the crime as well as the news focus that the conviction will create will make it difficult for defendant to find employment at any professional level.

(b)(7) The remarks of defendant as reported by his counsel indicate remorse.

(b)(8) Defendant presents no danger to others. . ."

The within and foregoing history in lieu of probation report has been read and considered by me this 2nd day of October, 1996.

/s/John W.Ouderkirk
JOHN W. OUDERXIRK
Judge Of The Superior Court

ON the record MF is a felon.

[William Anthony]

Thank you and Hotwater.

"So the court already is intimately familiar with it. It's time for the court to have to make the difficult decision and to have to struggle with making a ruling on this case. But that's not going to be--that burden is not going to be lightened and would just be dragged out and likely the court's--the complexity of the ruling would be magnified by having additional unknown factor thrown in at this point in time, your Honor.
*
*
"MS. LEWIS: Well, there was a supplemental memorandum filed by the Defense yesterday afternoon after they had already filed their two other memos in the same thing that I did not pay careful attention to. So I--just briefly for the record, please. Please. I can see your--we have time. We are waiting for Mr. Mounger. Very quickly. Very quickly. It might help the court in its ruling."

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

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, for the purposes of the record, will you accept that representation?

MR. UELMEN: No, your Honor. We believe it's necessary for him to assert the privilege from the witness stand in response to a question.

THE COURT: All right. Since there's an unwillingness to accept and stipulate to that, it will be necessary for Mr. Fuhrman to resume the witness stand for the purpose of this motion and to assert the privilege.

MR. MOUNGER: He will be here shortly, your Honor.

*
*
MR. UELMEN: I only have one other question, your Honor.

THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Uelmen?

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?

DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.

THE COURT: All right. Based upon the witness' answers, the representation by his counsel, Mr. Mounger--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People make an objection to the last question and ask the court to strike it as being improper and does nothing but headline.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. All right. Miss Clark, do you have any questions of this witness?

Therefore, the final ruling, over objection by the prosecution, was that the defense was permitted to ask the question of MF as to whether he planted evidence of not in this case, a jury instruction was created that made mention of the fact that, because MF was unavailable, the jury could question his credibility and the defense could argue before the jury that MF planted evidence. Hotwater, I appreciate your patience.

[weezer]

I love the way you put fini at the end of something but I am the one thanking Hotwater. Pay close attention to Ms. Lewis' argument,

"MS. LEWIS: Oh, absolutely not, your Honor. Please, the court can see this is collateral evidence. It does not and never had to allow cross-examination on this evidence at all. The Defense in their new proffer is talking about misconduct things. They recognize it apparently because they left it out. They even leave out the "N" word stuff.

I mean, the court has heard all this stuff. The court has heard the context in which it was played. The court--and in fact, if Detective Fuhrman gets up here and takes the 5th, the court--I think the state of the law would be, the court cannot consider him having taken the 5th in terms of deciding the earlier ruling because the jury is not allowed to hear that somebody took the 5th. And I'm sure the same law would apply, that the court could not consider that fact because you would be impinging on his right against self-incrimination. It gets unduly complicated, your Honor, and it's not necessary. The record is complete. I know you as a very thorough--meticulously thorough Judge, but I'm telling your Honor, as a meticulous and thorough attorney, this record is complete on this issue."

The defense was specifically talking about a new offer of proof on MF's misconduct/planting and judge Ito allowed them to ask did he plant evidence and argue that he did to the jury. Those are the actual facts due to his ruling.

william, what is the date of the court hearing you are quoting?

[William Anthony]

I'm not wanting to beat a dead horse but I think it might would serve a better purpose for the posters to read the ruling themselves.

http://walraven.org/simpson/fhr_tps2.html

That is why I put the transcript of Ito's subsequent rulings and previously posted where the defense argued in closing that MF planted the glove to correct the incorrect labeling of the August 31st ruling, as "Ito's Final Ruling."

[William Anthony]

You're right and Hotwater did request a link be posted instead of pages and pages. :)

I hope that Hotwater will indulge me and I think Hotwater now understands why pages with explanations are necessary, since in oral motions and arguments the lawyers tend to throw in the kitchen sink, if they believe it is remotely relevant and someone may forget the original issue to be decided in the motion and the collateral issues that are decided.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

Does MF's use of racial slurs linked to the planting or the manufacturing of evidence in this case? I have always thought they went together and they can not be separated. Is that not the case here?

They can be separated legally but when one uses common sense the racial statements attributed to MF and the context of them provide MF with the motive to plant the evidence.

[William Anthony]

I believe it was brenda moran -- the foreperson of the criminal jury -- who said 'this wasn't a case about abuse.' Let me add that this wasn't a case about Mark Fuhrman either. maybe we can agree to discuss the case and leave the other stuff out.

The police and their actions doing an investigation is always a part of a criminal case and, if not, they would not call them to testify.

[William Anthony]

TV,

I don't understand your post. I really don't, what did I say that he did that was not linked to the Simpson case?

And I can't think of one thing positive that MF did in this case.

GreenIce,

He took the 5th.

[William Anthony]

So Mark Fuhrman used the "N" word. I still think he should never been asked that question as it had nothing to do with the murder case.

Mark Fuhrman was an excellent detective for the LAPD and received numerous accomodations during his career. He was investigated to see if there was any wrong doings on his part and nothing was found. The only thing bad the defense found about mark was that he had used the "N" word.

Since leaving the LAPD, Mark has done many investigations on cold cases. He was responsible for Michael Skakel getting convicted of murder. Mark has written some very good books and I'm waiting for the next one to be released.

I think Mark Fuhrman is a excellent investigator and no one is going to tell me what I can or what I can't post.

No one is trying to tell you what you can and cannot post and it is your right to defend a racist detective, who the prosecution said should not have ever been a policeman or on the planet.

[William Anthony]

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case63.htm

". . .While perjury is always a serious offense, it is rare that a witness who has given testimony is prosecuted for that perjury. When there is prosecution, the usual case involves a situation in which the witness has given false testimony about an event related to the crime or provided a false alibi.

Here there is no evidence that defendant gave any false testimony about his investigative efforts. The false testimony related to personal use of a racial epithet during a time period that pre-dated the criminal investigation.

An argument can be made that this type of perjury is less serious than giving false testimony about the investigation.

(a)(2) No weapon was involved.

(a)(3) No individual victim was involved.

(a)(4) No injury was inflicted on any person.

(a)(5) There was no individual who suffered monetary loss.

(a)(6) Defendant was an active participant in the crime.

(a)(7) There are unique circumstances in the commission of the offense.

(a)(8) No criminal sophistication was demonstrated.

(a)(9) The defendant did take advantage of a position of trust and confidence in the commission of the offense.

(b) Defendant Related Facts

(b)(1) No prior criminal record.

(b)(2) Not applicable because defendant has never before been placed on parole or probation.

(b)(3) Defendant is willing to comply with the terms and conditions of probation.

(b)(4) Defendant is able to comply with the terms of probation.

(b)(5) Imprisonment would create financial hardship on the defendant's dependents. Because of his background as a police officer defendant would be at risk in prison. There is no evidence that defendant needs to be incarcerated to deter him from future similar criminal conduct.

(b)(6) Defendant's primary adult employment was as a peace officer. One result of this conviction is defendant is precluded from ever again being a peace officer in California. (Government Code, Section 1029.)

The high profile that resulted from the events surrounding the crime as well as the news focus that the conviction will create will make it difficult for defendant to find employment at any professional level.

(b)(7) The remarks of defendant as reported by his counsel indicate remorse.

(b)(8) Defendant presents no danger to others. . ."

The within and foregoing history in lieu of probation report has been read and considered by me this 2nd day of October, 1996.

/s/John W.Ouderkirk
JOHN W. OUDERXIRK
Judge Of The Superior Court

http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/removcrim/removcrim063.htm

[William Anthony]

william, what is the date of the court hearing you are quoting?

I thought I had given the dates. The dates were subsequent to the date of the alleged final ruling, August 31st. The dates were September 6 and 7th.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=Its just me;9232195]

IJM,

I made no demands, period. I asked if people wanted to discuss the merits of Mark Fuhrman's work or books regarding other cases, to go the threads that feature the case.

He is a convicted felon as a result of his words and actions in the Simpson case.

Please remember, it is in the testimony, his vile thoughts on minorities and had no problem telling civilians of passion of hate. He also terrorized and tormented his fellow officers---which is also a part of this case.

To discuss MF fairly, then all of it has to be discussed, such as him saying the only good " " is a dead " ". I am sure you can fill in the blanks.

His views can't be unlinked to planting and manufacturing evidence. Which is why it pained Judge Ito so to have to change his ruling.


Gi

I give my support to individuals/groups when i agree with their comments. I think most everyone does the same. IMO

[martin II]

I don't know if MF has made a change or not or is being smarter about when and where he opens that mouth but I don't know based on the fried chicken remark.

On reflection the LAPD early retirement officer that interviewed MF may have been trying to save the department money, he may wish he had approved MF early retirement when he admitted he was a RACIST and a unbalanced NUT CASE.imo

[weezer]

I thought I had given the dates. The dates were subsequent to the date of the alleged final ruling, August 31st. The dates were September 6 and 7th.

did the jury hear the questioning and Fuhrman's plea?

[Kayleighjo]

No one is trying to tell you what you can and cannot post and it is your right to defend a racist detective, who the prosecution said should not have ever been a policeman or on the planet.

It's definitely everyone's right to have an opinion and to defend their opinions.

There's a time period that I question his thought process, but so much seemed to have changed based on accounts and people that spent alot of time with him.

I don't know, I'm not a racist so I don't know how the mind of one works but I have to believe that if I hated blacks I wouldn't be getting up early every weekend to go play ball with a bunch of them. I have to believe that I wouldn't put in extra hours on the job trying to exonerate a black guy if I hated them. I have to believe I wouldn't personally guard a black woman who had been the victim of a rape and treat her with utmost kindness and respect if I hated them.

I believe people can really change. I learned that from my interracial marriage. Friends of ours learned alot of lessons from that they never thought they'd learn and the end result was a completely reformed way of thinking.

Hard for me to say with Fuhrman because I don't know him. Just saying it can happen.

[Kayleighjo]

On reflection the LAPD early retirement officer that interviewed MF may have been trying to save the department money, he may wish he had approved MF early retirement when he admitted he was a RACIST and a unbalanced NUT CASE.imo

Link to where he admitted he's an unbalanced NUT CASE.

[Its just me]

It seems that you find it easy to disagree.:)

I certainly don't believe every opinion and factual interpretation I hear/read....FWIW it applies to CL as well. ;) I've learned through out the years to choose wisely those I learn from....and I tend to ignore those who think they know it all.

[Kayleighjo]

By the way, I miss the party thread ....... it really tempered alot of things and gave us a break from the very passionate debates.

[William Anthony]

did the jury hear the questioning and Fuhrman's plea?

What is you point? Did the jury hear what has incorrectly been referred to as judge Ito's final ruling? The jury heard the defense argue that evidence was planted subsequent to the judge's later ruling.

[William Anthony]

It's definitely everyone's right to have an opinion and to defend their opinions.

There's a time period that I question his thought process, but so much seemed to have changed based on accounts and people that spent alot of time with him.

I don't know, I'm not a racist so I don't know how the mind of one works but I have to believe that if I hated blacks I wouldn't be getting up early every weekend to go play ball with a bunch of them. I have to believe that I wouldn't put in extra hours on the job trying to exonerate a black guy if I hated them. I have to believe I wouldn't personally guard a black woman who had been the victim of a rape and treat her with utmost kindness and respect if I hated them.

I believe people can really change. I learned that from my interracial marriage. Friends of ours learned alot of lessons from that they never thought they'd learn and the end result was a completely reformed way of thinking.

Hard for me to say with Fuhrman because I don't know him. Just saying it can happen.

I understand and do not believe that, because one favorably treats a member of a certain race, and, truly, if the member of the opposite race is of another gender, does that exclude one from being racist, especially since one may need the testimony of a few to combat the complaints of the many when one is in the public eye. This is not to say he hasn't changed but I think my point is valid when looking to explain some of his alleged actions.

[William Anthony]

I certainly don't believe every opinion and factual interpretation I hear/read....FWIW it applies to CL as well. ;) I've learned through out the years to choose wisely those I learn from....and I tend to ignore those who think they know it all.

I tend to want to hear from those with whom I disagree as it is hard for me to learn anything from those with which I agree as they only reinforce my opinion or conclusions be they right or wrong. However, through discussion with others with whom I disagree and not thorough ignoring them, I find that I am sometimes able to expand my horizons. The fact that you seem to disagree with many can be taken as a compliment in your ability to think for yourself.

[William Anthony]

By the way, I miss the party thread ....... it really tempered alot of things and gave us a break from the very passionate debates.

What is life without passion and, perhaps, the party thread can be reopened, if the moderator thinks it will help.

[William Anthony]

Link to where he admitted he's an unbalanced NUT CASE.

The testimony of Ms. Bell. :) I did not see where it was said he admitted to it but to desire to burn an entire race of people.

[William Anthony]

Did you read the post (now removed) that GI made that started the charade? Hotwater's post was made because of what was in GI's post. We were clearly told by GI to "stop" posting certain things about MF here but to go to other threads. So I "disagree with your post. ;)

Perhaps, I did not see it and was it addressed to Hipcheck?

[Its just me]

I tend to want to hear from those with whom I disagree as it is hard for me to learn anything from those with which I agree as they only reinforce my opinion or conclusions be they right or wrong. However, through discussion with others with whom I disagree and not thorough ignoring them, I find that I am sometimes able to expand my horizons. The fact that you seem to disagree with many can be taken as a compliment in your ability to think for yourself.

I call myself a middle of the road gal. If one gets too far out with beliefs on either side they generally will land in a ditch and can get stuck in the mud. FWIW....that's farm talk.

[William Anthony]

On reflection the LAPD early retirement officer that interviewed MF may have been trying to save the department money, he may wish he had approved MF early retirement when he admitted he was a RACIST and a unbalanced NUT CASE.imo

I think that had he approved MF's early retirement the honorable members of the force would not have been embarrassed by his testimony.

[William Anthony]

I call myself a middle of the road gal. If one gets too far out with beliefs on either side they generally will land in a ditch and can get stuck in the mud. FWIW....that's farm talk.

Spoken like a true conservative, IMHO. I tend to be more definite and passionate. A thing is hardly ever neutral to me. It is either right or wrong. War is only acceptable in self-defense. For instance, I have never brought into the notion of the war to end all wars, or war for the greater good, if you will.

[William Anthony]

Did you read the post (now removed) that GI made that started the charade? Hotwater's post was made because of what was in GI's post. We were clearly told by GI to "stop" posting certain things about MF here but to go to other threads. So I "disagree with your post. ;)

I will not disagree with the moderator's ruling. Are you talking about the post in which GreenIce, remarked about other threads allowing for a discussion of MF's books and his work in other cases? I cannot remember the post verbatim but this is what I do remember and, if the moderator has determined that to mean telling someone to stop posting things here and to go to other threads, then who am I to disagree?

[Its just me]

Spoken like a true conservative, IMHO. I tend to be more definite and passionate. A thing is hardly ever neutral to me. It is either right or wrong. War is only acceptable in self-defense. For instance, I have never brought into the notion of the war to end all wars, or war for the greater good, if you will.

Not a bad way....just be careful to not get stuck in the mud along the way. Very, very few things are a definite and passion has little value to improve ones mind. :)

[weezer]

What is you point? Did the jury hear what has incorrectly been referred to as judge Ito's final ruling? The jury heard the defense argue that evidence was planted subsequent to the judge's later ruling.

can you provide a link to the 'argument' where the jury heard evidence of planting?

[Its just me]

I will not disagree with the moderator's ruling. Are you talking about the post in which GreenIce, remarked about other threads allowing for a discussion of MF's books and his work in other cases? I cannot remember the post verbatim but this is what I do remember and, if the moderator has determined that to mean telling someone to stop posting things here and to go to other threads, then who am I to disagree?

If we want to stay out of trouble we all need to agree.....Hotwater is the High Sheriff in town

[William Anthony]

Not a bad way....just be careful to not get stuck in the mud along the way. Very, very few things are a definite and passion has little value to improve ones mind. :)

You'd be surprised at how passion causes me to think in abundance and improves the quantity workings of my mind, if not the quality of the thinking.:)

[William Anthony]

can you provide a link to the 'argument' where the jury heard evidence of planting?

September 28th,

"Now, let's go back to where we were when we broke last night. We had started talking about the messengers in this case. We talked briefly about Vannatter and about all of his big lies. Lies become very important because he is the co-lead investigator in this case. From the very beginning he was lying to you. And it was interesting--and I thought about this last night after I left you. Just about ten days ago, a week or ten days ago, Vannatter took that stand again, and you saw him, you had a chance to again observe his demeanor, and you are smart, you know when somebody is lying and not telling you the truth. I don't have to go into that. You don't need the jury instruction. You have got this visceral experience and you have got your experiences in life and you know when somebody is lying. And he said something really interesting. It was really preposterous when you think about it. He said, "Mr. Shapiro, Mr. O.J. Simpson was no more a suspect than you were." Now, who in here believed that? Did he really think he was going to come back in here and we were going to believe that that O.J. Simpson was no more a suspect than Robert Shapiro? That is what he told you. Big lies. You can't trust him. You can't believe anything he says because it goes to the core of this case. When you are lying at the beginning, you will be lying at the end. The book of Luke talks about that. Talks about if you are untruthful in small things, you should be disbelieved in big things. There is no question about that. We have known that all along. So this man with his big lies--and then we have Fuhrman coming right on the heels and the two of them need to be paired together because they are twins of deception. Fuhrman and Vannatter, twins of deception who bring you a message that you cannot trust, that you cannot trust. Let's continue on where we left off then with this man Fuhrman who says some very interesting things in the course of his testimony, and as we talked about Vannatter's big lies, we have Fuhrman's big lies. Vannatter, the man who carried the blood; Fuhrman, the man who found the glove. You will recall that he was asked, as I read to you yesterday briefly, the question well-phrased by lee bailey, "Have you ever used this `n' word in ten years?" Went right back to `85. And he picked that `85 date. You know why? Because of the Kathleen Bell letter. Just like they knew about it, picked that date, so he knew he was lying. Honed in on it. Liars can be tricky. And so he was at that point trying to pin it down for you, ten years, `85 to `95. This was like in February of this year. He says also he never met Kathleen Bell at this marine center. He tells you that Rokahr, the photographer, took this photograph after seven o'clock in the morning. Remember that? Go back through your notes. And the reason he tells you that is because he wants that photograph of him pointing at the glove taken after he supposedly finds the glove at Rockingham. Now, you may not have caught that right at the beginning when this was happening. He says he took the photograph at Rockingham after seven o'clock A.M., after they returned from Rockingham. You know they all go over to Bundy after five o'clock. Strike that. At Bundy. They all go over to Rockingham at five o'clock, from 5:00 to 7:00, and so it becomes very, very important, as we look at this photograph in a few minutes. Rokahr then comes here near the end of the case, and there has been nobody called to refute him in rebuttal, and says these photographs on this contact sheet are all taken while it is dark. He says he could tell the difference in a photograph taken an hour and a half before sun rise, 5:41, 5:42, and an hour and a half afterwards, so then why then is this big liar in the crime scene with access to the glove and the hat? Why is he down there pointing at this glove where he is walking all in the blood and everything when he wants you to believe it is seven o'clock? Now, we know it is not seven o'clock. You see that photograph up there? That is Mark Fuhrman pointing. You see the envelope. Pointing under this neatly arranged cap. Glove supposedly just happened to fall right under that bush in that fashion. That is what you are asked to believe. There he is pointing at it. Well, now let me tell you why you recognize it. You recognize Fuhrman, personification of evil. When he is doing is that he is trying to tell you this is an important piece of evidence here and I just came back from Rockingham and this matches the glove found over there. That is what he tells you. But he is lying again. He is lying and that is why he is central to this case, because he hadn't even been to Rockingham at that point and he is tracking in that blood at that point and that becomes very important because you remember he slips up and says "In the Bronco" at some point. You get "In that Bronco." He put a bloody footprint in that Bronco. Are his shoes size 12? He talks about "In the Bronco." He talks about them. Remember there is a question he was asked about gloves and lee bailey asked him about. Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says, "Them." He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves? He said, "I saw them." Is that two gloves? Why would you say "Them"? He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning. Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time. First of all, you knew that was a lie at the beginning. "

[weezer]

September 28th,

"Now, let's go back to where we were when we broke last night. We had started talking about the messengers in this case. We talked briefly about Vannatter and about all of his big lies. Lies become very important because he is the co-lead investigator in this case. From the very beginning he was lying to you. And it was interesting--and I thought about this last night after I left you. Just about ten days ago, a week or ten days ago, Vannatter took that stand again, and you saw him, you had a chance to again observe his demeanor, and you are smart, you know when somebody is lying and not telling you the truth. I don't have to go into that. You don't need the jury instruction. You have got this visceral experience and you have got your experiences in life and you know when somebody is lying. And he said something really interesting. It was really preposterous when you think about it. He said, "Mr. Shapiro, Mr. O.J. Simpson was no more a suspect than you were." Now, who in here believed that? Did he really think he was going to come back in here and we were going to believe that that O.J. Simpson was no more a suspect than Robert Shapiro? That is what he told you. Big lies. You can't trust him. You can't believe anything he says because it goes to the core of this case. When you are lying at the beginning, you will be lying at the end. The book of Luke talks about that. Talks about if you are untruthful in small things, you should be disbelieved in big things. There is no question about that. We have known that all along. So this man with his big lies--and then we have Fuhrman coming right on the heels and the two of them need to be paired together because they are twins of deception. Fuhrman and Vannatter, twins of deception who bring you a message that you cannot trust, that you cannot trust. Let's continue on where we left off then with this man Fuhrman who says some very interesting things in the course of his testimony, and as we talked about Vannatter's big lies, we have Fuhrman's big lies. Vannatter, the man who carried the blood; Fuhrman, the man who found the glove. You will recall that he was asked, as I read to you yesterday briefly, the question well-phrased by lee bailey, "Have you ever used this `n' word in ten years?" Went right back to `85. And he picked that `85 date. You know why? Because of the Kathleen Bell letter. Just like they knew about it, picked that date, so he knew he was lying. Honed in on it. Liars can be tricky. And so he was at that point trying to pin it down for you, ten years, `85 to `95. This was like in February of this year. He says also he never met Kathleen Bell at this marine center. He tells you that Rokahr, the photographer, took this photograph after seven o'clock in the morning. Remember that? Go back through your notes. And the reason he tells you that is because he wants that photograph of him pointing at the glove taken after he supposedly finds the glove at Rockingham. Now, you may not have caught that right at the beginning when this was happening. He says he took the photograph at Rockingham after seven o'clock A.M., after they returned from Rockingham. You know they all go over to Bundy after five o'clock. Strike that. At Bundy. They all go over to Rockingham at five o'clock, from 5:00 to 7:00, and so it becomes very, very important, as we look at this photograph in a few minutes. Rokahr then comes here near the end of the case, and there has been nobody called to refute him in rebuttal, and says these photographs on this contact sheet are all taken while it is dark. He says he could tell the difference in a photograph taken an hour and a half before sun rise, 5:41, 5:42, and an hour and a half afterwards, so then why then is this big liar in the crime scene with access to the glove and the hat? Why is he down there pointing at this glove where he is walking all in the blood and everything when he wants you to believe it is seven o'clock? Now, we know it is not seven o'clock. You see that photograph up there? That is Mark Fuhrman pointing. You see the envelope. Pointing under this neatly arranged cap. Glove supposedly just happened to fall right under that bush in that fashion. That is what you are asked to believe. There he is pointing at it. Well, now let me tell you why you recognize it. You recognize Fuhrman, personification of evil. When he is doing is that he is trying to tell you this is an important piece of evidence here and I just came back from Rockingham and this matches the glove found over there. That is what he tells you. But he is lying again. He is lying and that is why he is central to this case, because he hadn't even been to Rockingham at that point and he is tracking in that blood at that point and that becomes very important because you remember he slips up and says "In the Bronco" at some point. You get "In that Bronco." He put a bloody footprint in that Bronco. Are his shoes size 12? He talks about "In the Bronco." He talks about them. Remember there is a question he was asked about gloves and lee bailey asked him about. Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says, "Them." He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves? He said, "I saw them." Is that two gloves? Why would you say "Them"? He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning. Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time. First of all, you knew that was a lie at the beginning. "

so this was the criminal defense closing argument? okay

[William Anthony]

can you provide a link to the 'argument' where the jury heard evidence of planting?

September 28th,

"Why would they necessarily be watching him. They were always covering for him anyway. But we know that wasn't true because remember Rokahr got there shortly after three o'clock. Rokahr goes to that back alley and he sees Riske who is back there then. Remember Rokahr sees Riske in the back alley. Rokahr doesn't even see Fuhrman for like a half hour after he gets there, he says, and all of a sudden Fuhrman shows up. Where has he been? What has he been doing? And then Riske is out in the front of Bundy there and Riske testifies about the taking of this photograph. He wants to place the time later, but he said it is before the sun comes up, before daylight. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before 5:41. So inadvertently he corroborates Rokahr, but Rokahr knows because he took these photographs. Why then, ladies and gentlemen, is he pointing at this glove when he hasn't even been over there? Why then would they try to tell you he doesn't have time at Bundy when he is by himself for this period of time? He is not with Spangler; he is walking around by him. Why then is he walking in that crime scene and why does he lie to you and said he didn't have access to the crime scene? These are the facts. These are the facts. I haven't made them up. This is what you heard in this case. This is what we have proved. Some of it came in late; some of it came in early, but our job here is to piece this together so that you can then see this, so when he refers to the gloves as "Them," that has never been cleared up for you and he can't. That is a Freudian slip when he talks about "In the Bronco." And there was a dispute. Well, did he really say that? Remember the tape was played at the preliminary hearing and his voice was heard saying "In the Bronco." You can see all these things. He is strolling down to Rockingham, the big man, figuring a way to do this, to carry out this plan, this spot he has in his mind since 1985, to make the big score, and so Rokahr severely impeaches Fuhrman about these photographs, and once again, these photographs speak a thousand words. Concluding about Riske, he said on cross-examination that the photograph pointing at the glove was taken at least forty minutes before daylight, the sun rose at 5:41, maybe a little bit late, but it was before daylight and so we know that. That is now clear. Why did they then all try to cover for this man Fuhrman? Why would this man who is not only Los Angeles' worst nightmare, but America's worse nightmare, why would they all turn their heads and try to cover for them? Why would you do that if you are sworn to uphold the law? There is something about corruption. There is something about a rotten apple that will ultimately infect the entire barrel, because if the others don't have the courage that we have asked you to have in this case, people sit sadly by. We live in a society where many people are apathetic, they don't want to get involved, and that is why all of us, to a person, in this courtroom, have thanked you from the bottom of our hearts. Because you know what? You haven't been apathetic. You are the ones who made a commitment, a commitment toward justice, and it is a painful commitment, but you've got to see it through. Your commitment, your courage, is much greater than these police officers. This man could have been off the force long ago if they had done their job, but they didn't do their job. People looked the other way. People didn't have the courage. One of the things that has made this country so great is people's willingness to stand up and say that is wrong. I'm not going to be part of it. I'm not going to be part of the cover-up. That is what I'm asking you to do. Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don't stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.'s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn't it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don't take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don't take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out--that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren't always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here. Credibility doesn't attach to a title or position; it attaches to the person, so the person who may have a job where he makes two dollars an hour can have more integrity than the highest person. It is something from within. It is in your heart. It is what the lord has put there. That is what we are talking about in this case. And so why don't they speak out? Why do they take him to their breast? Compare how our prosecutors treat Fuhrman as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they treated mark partridge as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they embraced him. And now they want to distance themselves. These same people say, oh, he is not important, but the Rokahr photograph puts the lie to that. He is very important. And what becomes so important when we talk about these two twin demons of evil, Vannatter and Fuhrman,"

[William Anthony]

so this was the criminal defense closing argument? okay

Isn't that what I have been saying, that judge Ito changed his mind and the defense was allowed to argue before the jury that MF planted evidence. Do you need to see more of the defense's closing?

[weezer]

Isn't that what I have been saying, that judge Ito changed his mind and the defense was allowed to argue before the jury that MF planted evidence. Do you need to see more of the defense's closing?

nope -- I actually read the criminal defense closing. closing arguments are used to sway the jury to your 'theory, inference, etc.' so the prosecution says orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole and the criminal defense says evidence was planted. you believe the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to support their claim and I believe the criminal defense had 'no' evidence to support theirs.

I'd still like to see a 'ruling' by ito on the subject of evidence being planted that is different than what I posted.

[William Anthony]

nope -- I actually read the criminal defense closing. closing arguments are used to sway the jury to your 'theory, inference, etc.' so the prosecution says orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole and the criminal defense says evidence was planted. you believe the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to support their claim and I believe the criminal defense had 'no' evidence to support theirs.

I'd still like to see a 'ruling' by ito on the subject of evidence being planted that is different than what I posted.

I am not one to go to the moderator but, at this point, this is becoming redundant. The argument must be tailored to what the evidence is in the case and based on the impeaching testimonies of the three witnesses, Singer, McKinney and Hodge and the fact that MF was unavailable by taking the 5th, Ito allowed the defense to argue, meaning it was relevant based on the evidence, that MF planted evidence. I have posted the ruling and explained it, even though you don't seem to want to accept it. If his ruling was final as you want to believe, then the defense wouldn't have been able to argue before the jury that MF planted the evidence or ask the question, which the judge overruled the prosecution's objection. Do you remember that?